Journal entry #1: on November 29, 2006 discussion

In all honesty, there are a lot of points during the discussion which are worthy of a separate session either to be expounded further or be debated upon for a more thorough analysis. But for a practical start I have selected only a few matters to ponder on because I believe that excavating them would render significant realizations. For one, it was mentioned that the annual remittance of overseas Filipino workers amounts from $8-10 billion but one should not be deceived by these figures because their effect on the economy is rather superficial and temporary. I for one agree that a typical Filipino shopper loves to purchase as much consumer items as he can get hold of. Furniture, clothes, accessories, and loads of other consumables seem to satisfy the typical Filipino consumer. In other words, Filipinos purchase products that are intended for immediate consumption and with minimal or zero investment value. As a result, differed consumption by relatives abroad is only a form of delay because it is also spent on non-capital goods that won’t generate future income. There have been efforts by the government to motivate people, balikbayans in particular, to become entrepreneurs and start their own business. But this is to no avail or at most its effects are somewhat negligible.

To substantiate that Filipinos exceptionally love to buy consumables, I’d like to site food as an indispensable example. It seems as if every celebration always has to have an accompanying “handaan” of the grandest sort. Graduations, baptismals, despididas, welcome-home parties and even in-between shopping snacks siphon out the earnings of a lot of people. So it’s not really surprising that whatever is remitted in the country flows out almost as quickly especially since Filipinos seem to have the uncanny knack of patronizing imported goods. My mom, with her quick wit and practicality always reminds us to as much as possible patronize Filipino brands. So whenever we are out for a quick lunch, the list of choices is almost always limited to Jollibee, Chowking, Greenwich and Red Ribbon. True enough, these restaurants seem to be expanding and sustaining a good percentage of the clientele for food and have received international acclaim form renowned economists and business schools. I can only imagine, especially now that the holidays are coming, that a good portion of the money sent by relatives from abroad are being splurged on dinning out. But what really concerns me is that the people are spending is not really retained within the economy; instead it flows out of the country. For one, it is a confirmed fact that Jollibee’s burger patties come all the way from Australia. I can only imagine where, Red Ribbon’s icing, Greenwich’s ingredients and Chowing’s Hong Shu vegetables come from. So in essence we can’t really say that we are patronizing Filipino brands when the producer’s themselves find it more economical to obtain their supply elsewhere. The same goes for SM malls; they maybe owned by Filipino Chinese but upon closer inspection Mr. Henry Sy actually imports them from China. The same goes for Ben Chan for his RTW clothing-line and his brother the owner of Oishi. They may be Filipinos by citizenship, and it is undeniable that they provide local employment opportunities by having more franchises that distribute their products but it is also true that they have factories in China where they employ more Chinese at lesser costs. In essence, it is rather contentious to use the development/expansion of local industries as the sole gauge to monitor the economy and the generation of employment because given the aforementioned setup it is rather evident that a large sum of money is utilized/ made functional and circulated elsewhere.

Another point that I would like to bring up, but rather briefly (because I know this would be debated on in class) is the one concerning the UPCAT and the tuition fee increase. While I believe that there is wisdom behind the previous mechanism to which UP used to filter its incoming freshmen, I believe that it isn’t exactly fool-proof. It is true that those from public schools, especially those with innate potential deserve to continue further schooling and be rightfully subsidized by the government. Also, it is logical to assume that those who have the capacity to study in private high schools can also afford to go to private universities/ colleges. But this is not always the case… I for one am a product of a private school but by means of socialized tuition fee. I have learned to value quality education as much as my parents did. We have a modest family income but with my three other siblings studying as well, compounded by the rapid increase of tuition fees, its rather hard to imagine how we could have gone by without availing/ applying for it. I have an older sister who has quite the same situation as mine, she took up Area Studies also in UP Manila and graduated a cum laude. Ayoko magbuhat ng sariling bangko, that’s why I am citing my sister’s case, if she doesn’t deserve to be a recipient of subsidized education, then who is?! But of course this is a case to case basis… Personally though, with regards to scholastic standing maybe those who are not as hard-working as others should be the ones pulled out. Getting into UP tends to make other people slack off, sometimes to the extent of regularly cutting classes to the unfair expense of taxpayer’s money. I believe that being an iskolar ng bayan makes me accountable and conscious of my actions, at least for those who are not maybe they are not deserving of a slot in UP and should be made to compete with other more deserving people for place in the university. If the issue is more concerned of who deserves to be subsidized, then maybe those who are industrious and can maintain a decent GWA as reflected by hard work and scholastic performance. Then again, this is just my own point of view…

Another thing that I wish to comment on is the potential income that UP can generate from leasing out its idle assets. I agree that commercializing certain land assets (in fact it can be said that it is a liability since its maintenance and security costs are subtracted from the budget) is not the same as commercializing education. Imagine, the system holds claim to 24,500 hectares of land and only 1,500 hectares of it are concretely functional? In a previous economics class, it was proposed that unproductive land should be taxed heavier than productive lands because it decreases the possibility of hoarding productive land to the disadvantage of the economy; I agree to this. In the same manner, UP should not hinder other people form maximizing its development; I see it as an opportunity forgone for the economy. It’s only a lease anyway, and the contracts I assume were drawn to favor the side of the university. I don’t find anything wrong with trying to generate our income especially since the university is aided with properties to do so. In fact, I find it rather selfish not to; why burden the government with expenditures and higher budget allocations when UP has brilliant minds to think of solutions to independently augment the budget. Self-reliance would in fact benefit not only UP constituents (there won’t be TFIs anymore), but also other sectors because the government would have more money to spare for social services and the like.

I think I have said enough. For purposes of economy I would comment on the readings some other time.