Random Notes: The Philippine Road to NIChood (edited by Thompson, W. Scott and Villacorta, Wilfredo)

*Bro. Andrew Gonzalez got his PhD in Linguistic from University of California in Burkley

* Some of the articles in the compilation overly praised President Ramos for his “good work”. I’m not sure if they were sucking up to him (mga himod tumbong) cause it was during his time that this book was written or, their economistic backgrounds took the better of them (most of them are economists). I bet most of them are still alive to suffer the consequences of privatized and deregulated public services/utilities and “un-forgo–able” (I coined this, it sounds nice) commodities. Are they not aware of how the politics, the economy and more importantly the culture in the Philippines work? Efficiency and honesty (as opposed to consumer harassment and manipulation) are almost non-existent. It’s so damn embarrassing to admit that the latter are the ones actually embedded in our culture. Too bad decisions can’t be reversed or withdrawn…

* On Andrew Gonzalez’ article (The Emergence of Nationhood: The Linguistic Evidence) It is stated that, the Philippines from being an aggregate of unrelated tribes spread over a group of islands, through the colonization of Spain became a fledgling nation with its self-identity and national unity. Well, on this I’d have to believe otherwise. First, pre-colonial Filipinos engaged in trade with other communities which means they formed relationships with each other to the point perhaps of economic (inter)dependence. Next, I believe that if history unfolded without the Spanish setting foot in our country, the Philippines would still have had a sense of self identity and national unity most likely stronger than what it turned out to be (the Spaniards are not a pre-requisite for this to happen). The Spaniards tried to erase all traces of our past by attempting to burn artifacts and symbolisms of our cultural heritage which somewhat halted all opportunities for unification. This resulted to a lagging (if not cessation) of a process, which would have taken place otherwise.

* QQ: (page 79 by W.S. Thompson) Although the term “NIC” refers literally only to economics, it has come to refer to a certain economic status of nations and includes far more than just economics, as we all see, which is why we came to include ‘civil society’ as an adjunct to the concept. With respect to Korea, for example, I take NIChood to include not just 250,000 percent increase in exports since 1960, the obsessiveness about the prestige of their exports, but the free and fair elections which brought the present government to power, the investigations of corruption and abuse of office in past governments –but also the role of Korean musicians and artists and world arenas, and the NGOs demanding the clean-up of the environment and the polity. With Taiwan it has meant a certain maturity about identity and the development of a personality in world affairs in spite appalling obstacles. We use NIChood thus to denote not just a rapidly growing economy, but a maturing polity as well for the good reason to believe that one cannot last long without the other à Who thought this would be appropriate years after?! Whatever happened to our export industry, our elections (Hello?!), our environment (cute turtles *sob* in Guimaras no more) and the investigating of past governments (Marcos money, Cojuangco land, Ramos’ indecisions, Estrada’s corruption and stupidity…). Although the notion of a maturing polity is rather vague and relative, well at least it connotes progression.

* QQ: Governments in order to become NICs do not have to be authoritarian, they have to be authoritative! ß And I believe this to be true but they have to win the confidence of the people because a fine line divides these two perceptions.

* A 1995 SWS survey showed that by late 1994, 78% of the Phil. population believed that to develop faster the government should try to slow down population growth.
* QQ by Lance Gokongwei: Filipinos are tired of grandstanding politicians… people have attained a certain political maturity and are willing to look at issues rather than personalities. ß this was said around 1997, so what happened?! it’s still about people in the limelight. My guess is that society prefers to have a person to blame because it simplifies the problem, rather than admitting that a problem is spawned by a malfunctioning/ ill-functioning system, which would be more difficult to comprehend and address.

* An inventory of Philippine NGOs:
1. Institute of Education and Management for Environment and Habitat = offers degrees in environmental education
2. Institute for the Study of the Environment = by the conservative economist Bernardo Villegas; founded to assist industries in integrating environmental considerations to corporate policy.
3. The Jaime Ongpin foundation (named after Aquino’s finance secretary) = aims to help the elderly, handicap (or differently-able)
4. Kalahan Educational Foundation = helps a tribal people in Nueva Vizcaya in developing their environment
5. Kalipunan ng Maga = helps Cordilleran peoples in their struggle for self-determintation
6. Kinaiyahan Foundation = aims to raise the consciousness of the people in Mindanao with a databank, through grassroots work ßI don’t know if these organizations are still existent. It’s nice to know that these organizations have a genuine concern and awareness for social responsibility… the downside to this is that, the more organizations that exist, the more costly they become. Even if they are non-stock and non-profit, operational and fixed costs are there to be paid. In one article on the Gates Foundation, when Warren Buffet, one of the world’s richest people donated his wealth, a comment there caught my attention because rather than setting up a new foundation (with all that money, it can more than suffice on its own), Buffet opted to entrust it to an existing foundation. True enough, it is more economical; funds can be directed towards its rightful destination, instead of being spent unnecessarily on rental of headquarters, separate taxes, operational costs, etc. (indeed it is wasted in that sense)

* What the Philippines needs are not more technocrats but more patriots (by Alex Melchor)

* Statecraft is not a Nintendo Game ßshould be said to all the politicians out there who believe in this or are oblivious to living this concept out

Reaction: Other Factors Than Economics to Reach NIChood (Seung Young Kim)
I am utterly disappointed! The title sounded so nice and being the idealist and hopeless romantic that I am, I thought “finally someone who makes sense”. It’s not just my hate for numbers and graphs that makes me want more proof that what the subject can give. Personally, I can’t help but feel that economics compresses reality so much to the point of distortion. At least in sociology/ anthropology people are regarded as people although at times they are treated like guinea pigs being observed in an experiment. But economics… heck! A person’s like is reduced to a mere mortality percentage; a child’s literacy is considered as a negligible ratio and human suffering is now quantifiable in statistical terms! …and then I come across this article whose title at the least intrigued me… but what do I see? This is utterly preposterous, una profanacion! The other factors besides economics being pertained to in the title are national security and national image… (so disheartening)
I have ever since wanted to make a separate paper on national security (or the issue of military (over)spending), but I am no expert in the matter…
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed” (from Pres. D. Eisenhower as quoted by Samuelson and Nordhaus)”ß and I definitely agree. It has always been a riddle to me why the budget allocation for defense is so big and for social services so meager.
I believe that we can modernize our military in less costly ways. In training for example, instead of using real guns and actual bullets (which may not be re-used) why not use guns with cameras to enhance the shooting skills of the soldiers. The lack of actual handling of ammunition can be compensated by lectures and regular technological innovation updates so there won’t be a need to purchase all of them. Anyway, the essence is still there, the shooting proficiency of the soldiers is not sacrificed and neither is the supposed budget that could have evaporated so easily from purchasing costly paraphernalia. Also instead of “simulated laboratories and specialized training fields” why not go to rugged terrain? Afterall, in real combat soldiers have no actual experience of where they are to be deployed… by doing so, their resourcefulness, quickness, application of appropriate strategy and tactics formulation will altogether be harnessed. One can bring up environmental considerations as an intersecting issue but disruptions nonetheless at a minimal since (as mentioned above) the gadgets that are used are “not real”.
What is my justification for this?! When the soldiers signed up, they became immediate candidates to become heroes in their own right because defending the country entails the potential sacrifice of their lives. But death is not the only measurement for them to prove their noble intentions. By forgoing part of the budget allocation, which will be redirected to social services, they are doing the country a big favor. It’s not that they will not be provided for; it’s just that they are living such a glamorous life with more than adequate monetary compensation for their families (nuclear and extended) that it seems rather unfair to most of the other citizens. Defending the national territory and security is not a glamorous job, so it shouldn’t be perked up and “beflowered” so much the way it is now. But of course politics is involved; the president is beefing and fattening it up for personal interests; military elites as part of national power stakeholders etc… All the hullabaloo almost wants to make me wish for life to be simplified into economic models with all other things remaining constant…
Second is national image: the immediate image of an export product is decided by the quality and economic performance of the exporting country, but the national appeal, based on culture and historical attractiveness form an important undercurrent. This enhances the appeal of sophisticated products ß Well I say, our craft is sophisticated alright! Our independent films (collectively) are world class, which reap numerous awards; there’s this designer in Cebu who happens to be so good that Hollywood stars practically drool over his rattan creations. Our output is good, but what makes it unpopular in the market is the country’s image. Corrupt cops, even more corrupt officials, dirty cities, even dirtier elections… So you see, it’s actually the other way around. There are individuals who attempt to dignify our country but because of a vicious cycle, they are the one’s being stripped of their dignity by the country that they wished to bring honor to.