The Corruptible Philippine Justice System

Reform in the Philippines from our current state to our envisioned future is not easy. The issue is further complicated by meaningless "noise". This "noise" is NOT the cry for democracy, or the cry for justice, the cry to end corruption both in the private and public sectors, or the cry to establish an equal opportunity economy. The noise I am referring to is the endless deluge of issues that flood our minds and keep our focus from attacking the problem at the point where it could be effectively changed.

While sympathy and empathy is extended to the "victims" of ill within our country, we cannot possibly solve the problem that victimized them by individually focusing on each and using the same as the springboard to launch a "cause". When viewed from the perspective of systems, these occurrences are only the consequences, and dealing with each consequence in isolation will not present a sustainable solution simply because each will present a set of unique and subjective circumstances that may not necessarily be related (at the surface) to other problems.

We must hit at the heart of the problem--the root and not the fruit, the cause and not the consequence.

While the discussion on how we could promote transformation through charter change is popular, we have ignored a more important (albeit unpopular) thread of discussion--the enforcement of change. In any government, it is important for to deal with the issue of enforcement for without a system of enforcement to "enforce" a charter, nothing will work or better still, nothing can work.

Our government is divided into three autonomous branches, the executive, the legislative, and the justice branch (in layman's terms). Over the past 30 years the focus has been reform in the executive and the legislative branches, but not much has been done to reform the Philippine Justice system.

In my opinion, the reason we are having such a difficult time with change is simply because our system of enforcement is lacking in every respect. The judicial branch is the teeth of enforcement that can hold both executive and legislative branches accountable by remaining "beyond reproach". The problem is that our justice system is made up of a hodge-podge of contradicting practices that keep it from upholding the constitution and subject it to the whims of political maneuvering.

If you've ever been to a lawyer's office, they will overwhelm you with libraries of legal books, but most of the books are from the US. Sounds "intelligent" doesn't it? Sure, but this is replete with problems. You see while our lawyers end up charging an arm and a leg to "defend" or "represent" our plight by showing us that they have all this knowledge in store, their real magic is not in what they know, but really who they know. The justice system is not an objective system, but a social system with all the trappings of any closed social group.

Why is it so important for us to closely look at our justice system? Simple, it is about enforcement. We can change our charter thousands of times if we want, but unless we have a justice system that is by the people and for the people, the substance of the constitution will largely remain unenforceable to those who do not have the means to buy justice.

One of the hallmarks of any progressive democracy is a system of justice that does not revolve around the judge, but around a jury of peers. This is an effective way of enforcing the voice of the masses. The reason we find such arrogance and disregard among the Department of Justice is because they do not have to remain accountable to the people when it comes to handing down justice. Although they allege to have an objective selection system, decisions are still dependent on the whims of each "judge" which largely remains disconnected from the system of democracy it was meant to uphold.

Lower and Upper courts will always contend with each other in protracted ways. The rich will always take advantage of those without the means to buy them some form of justice and the innocent will almost certainly be punished for a crime they did not commit. Why? Decisions are made using subjective models. It will revolve around a system that is disconnected from the system of democracy. Their decisions will always be private and subjective in nature and unless one has the means to buy justice, they have no alternative but to suffer ill from a system that was supposed to protect them.

Unless the people is part of the process of meting out justice, our justice system will remain corruptible. Sure there is a process. But this process is corruptible because the voice of the people is kept out of it.

The reason the American system of government works is because behind all the pomp and circumstance of their politics, they have a justice system that incorporates the voice of the people (a jury of peers) as a means of determining guilt or innocence.

From a business perspective, our economy is does not promote equal opportunity, it does not allow the middle class to thrive and grow, and largely benefits large players. We do not have a system to guard against anti-trust activities. Our economy is remains unprotected from the whims of indiscreet and unscrupulous market players. Large corporation will always take advantage of small players simply because they know they have a means to buy a verdict. The cost is too cheap for those who can afford it but too expensive for those who cannot.

If we are to have a justice system that is "blind" then it must employ a system that is blind to peer pressure or politics and must enforce the will of the people within the parameters of what the law provides. The people will end up meting out what is fair and equitable and just--not a private group of career justices.

If we want to change how the constitution is applied, then the branch that enforces it MUST be changed from a closed system to an open system, a jury system where the democracy remains an applied model within the confines of a courtroom, a system that binds accountability within the confines of the chamber. The judge is not the absolute, but the enforcer of the will of the people who apply the law their legislators and representatives have defined to protect them.

I read an interesting article http://anticorruption.homestead.com/Justice.html that I thought will tickle your fancy as readers and as proponents of a new Philippines and the New Filipino!

Hindsight and Selective Amnesia

Amnesia can occur as a result of trauma, both physical and
psychological. The psychological type can range from selective to one
that is a consequence of physical trauma. Selective amnesia may very
well be desensitization at work. When you subject a person to repeated
exposure to an extreme experience, they will naturally adjust to it to
dull the pain. About five years ago, studies in the US have shown that
one common attribute shared by people in prisons is their background in
the military. Their viciousness was a learned behavior. They were
trained not to think of people as individuals with faces, but as objects
or targets that needed to be eliminated. This symptom is called
post-traumatic stress disorder.

We may be suffering the pangs of PTSD. We have been subjected to pain
for the longest period. Pain that could have been brought about by
others, or pain we brought upon ourselves. Regardless of the source, we
have been through painful experiences, individually and collectively as
a people.

As in cases of PTSD, social re-integration is a difficult and long
process. The method employed to allow those suffering from PTSD to
recover is a process of substitution. Psychiatrists, and Behavioral
Psychologists subject the person to positive experiences, re-acquaint
them to value systems, etc. They basically start from the beginning.
Behavioral substitution has been more effective than previous attempts
at eradication (mostly through brainwashing - or mental
reconditioning). By introducing the individual to ways of experiencing
the positive in life, by helping them see the positive in life, they
were slowly able to re-integrate a percentage of those suffering from
the disorder into the mainstream allowing them to become productive
members of society. Those treated were not only subjected to
hope-giving situations, but were to taught to see hope for themselves,
in themselves. They were taught to become responsible in ways beyond
blindly following a direct command, to allow morals and values to check
the veracity of action. Those treated with this disorder finds it
necessary to visit with their therapists regularly--perhaps for the rest
of their productive lives in order to recover from the effects brought
about by a few years of training and a couple of tours in theater.

We are suffering the pangs of desensitization. It has become a way for
us to "deal" with the problem in subjective terms. This could be a way
to explain the frequent bouts of selective amnesia. It is a way
Filipinos deal with their problems..."I don't want to remember the
pain". We have to work hard to infuse our society with constructive
experiences despite overwhelming odds. By remembering, pain is
amplified. As long as Filipinos perceive pain to be a normal part of
the national experience, or the negative as a dominant part of our
character as a people, we will each develop our own level of
callousness--just to shield us from the pain.

Again, the extreme aspects of life tend to be amplified in our daily
experiences as Filipinos. This is what shackles us down as a people.
This selective amnesia could very well be the choice of individual
behavior common to most only because an alternative way of thinking and
behaving has not been introduced. It has to start with a few, a
minority (much like the physicians who identified the problem and
started to work on a regimented solution to deal with PTSD until the
method became widely accepted) that could effectively show incremental
progress (not big bang). A progression that did not claim to solve all
problems, but provided a way for us to understand the problem from a
systemic perspective.

Revolution and the University of the Philippines

Revolution and the University of the Philippines
by F. Sionil Jose

What is an old man like myself doing here, talking about revolution?

Hindsight is the lowest form of wisdom. I can tell you what it was
like when your campus was nothing but cogon waste, when all those
trees that line your streets were just saplings.

I can tell you, also, why we were left behind by all our neighbors
when in the fifties and the sixties we were the richest, most
progressive country in the region, when Seoul, Tokyo, were ravaged by
war and Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta were mere kampongs, when Bangkok was
a sleepy town criss-crossed by canals. I never was in China till
1979, but I know in the forties that country was always threatened by
famine. It had a population then of only half a billion. Now, with
more than a billion people, famine is no longer a threat, although
hunger still lurks in some of its distant regions.

Hunger has always been with some of us, too, but not as much as it is
now when so many poor Filipinos eat only once a day. Altanghap, I
wonder how many of you know what that word means.

So then, why are we poor? Why do our women flee to foreign cities to
work as housemaids, as prostitutes?

We are poor because we have lost our ethical moorings, this in spite
of those massive religious rallies of EI Shaddai, those neo-gothic
churches of the Iglesia ni Kristo sprouting all over the country, in
spite of the nearly 400 years of Catholic evangelization.

How can we build an ethical society? We must remember that so-called
values are neutral--that so much depends on how people use them.
James Fallows' thesis on our "damaged culture" which many of us
understand is neither permanent nor inherent.

Ramon Magsaysay infused public life in the fifties with discipline
and morality, Arsenio Lacson as mayor of Manila cleaned up City Hall.
Even today, shining examples of honesty among our public officials
exist, but they are few and far between and they are not
institutionalized.

And it is precisely here where the university comes in with its
courses in the humanities.

Of all the arts, only literature teaches us ethics. Literature
presents us with problems, complex equations that deal with the human
spirit and how often the choice between right and wrong is made. In
this process, we are compelled to use our conscience, to validate the
choice we make, and render the meaning, the pith of our existence.

The university then is the real cathedral of a nation, and its
humanities particularly its literature department, the altar. But how
many of our teachers know this crucial function of literature, how
many teachers themselves possess this sense of worth, and mission?

To know ourselves, to make good and proper use of our consciences, we
must know our own history. So few of us do, in fact, we nurture no
sense of the past.

If our teachers know our history, if they soak it in their bones,
then it follows that they also impart this very same marrow to their
students.

If this is so, how come that when Bongbong Marcos visited Diliman
some time ago, he was mobbed by students who wanted his autograph?
How come that in La Salle, business students cited Marcos as the best
President this country ever had?

Not too long ago, I spoke before freshmen at the Ateneo and was told
that since so many practice bribery, it must be right, or how could
anyone get things done if palms are not greased?

In this university are professors who served Marcos. Have they ever
been asked what their role was?

We are poor because we are not moral. Can this immorality as
evidenced by widespread corruption be quantified? Yes, about 23
billion pesos a year is lost according to NGO estimates.

We are poor because we have no sense of history, and therefore, no
sense of nation. The nationalism that was preached to my generation
by Claro M. Recto and Lorenzo Tañada was phony; how they could have
convinced so many intellectuals is in itself the failure of those
intellectuals to analyze that inward, socially meaningless
nationalism.

Recto and Tañada opposed agrarian reform, the single most important
political act that could have lifted this country then from poverty
and released the peasantry from its centuries-old bondage.

We are poor because our elites from way back had no sense of nation--
they collaborated with whoever ruled--the Spaniards, the Japanese,
the Americans and in recent times, Marcos. Our elites imbibed the
values of the colonizer.

And worst of all, these wealthy Filipinos did not modernize this
country--they sent abroad their wealth distilled from the blood and
sweat of our poor. The rich Chinese to China, to Taiwan, to Hong
Kong, the rich mestizos to Europe, and the rich Indios like Marcos to
Switzerland and the United States--moneys that could have developed
this nation.

How do we end this shameless domestic colonialism? The ballot failed;
the bullet then? How else but through the cleansing power of
revolution. Make no mistake about it--revolution means the transfer
of power from the decadent upper classes to the lower classes.
Revolution is class war whose objective is justice and freedom.

Who will form the vanguard of change? Who else but the very people
who will benefit from it.

Listen, when I was researching for my novel POON at the New York
Public Library, I came across photographs of our soldiers of the 1896
revolution felled in their trenches by American guns. I looked
closely and found that most of them were barefoot. They were peasants.

The peasant is the truest nationalist. He works the land with his
hands, he knows instinctively what the term Motherland means. He
loves this earth, even worships it. The Ilocano farmer calls it Apo
Daga.

But never romanticize the poor. Once, a group of Ph.D.s lamented the
futility of their efforts in organizing and motivating them. When the
elections came that year, the poor sold their votes, or voted for
Erap.

Understand why they are often lazy, contemptible, fawning, cheating
and stealing. Imagine yourself not having a centavo in your pocket
now, and you don't know if you will eat tonight. There is nothing
honorable about poverty--it is totally dehumanizing and degrading.
But once the very poor are roused from their stupor, they become the
bravest, the most steadfast. Remember those Watawat ng Lahi followers
felled by Constabulary guns on Taft Avenue in 1965? They believed
that with their faith they were invincible.

It is with such faith and righteousness that our peasants rebelled in
living memory, the Colorums in 1931, the Sakdals in 1935, and the
Huks in 1949-53.

The Moro rebellion, the New People's Army--the cadres of both are
from our very poor, just like it was in 1896. And now, here is the
most tragic contradiction in our country. Our Armed Forces--its
officers corps--many come from the lower classes, too; they got to
their exalted positions through public examinations and entry to the
Philippine Military Academy. Our Armed Forces enlisted men--most of
them come from the very poor.

When the poor kill the poor, who profits?

The Ideology of the Revolution
Revolution starts in the mind and heart. It alters attitudes to
enable us to think beyond ourselves, family and ethnicity to
encompass the whole nation. If the communists win and I don't think
they ever will, they will rule just as badly because they are
Filipinos unable to go beyond barnacled habits of mind, hostage as
they always are to friends and family and to towering egos. The same
egos aborted the revolution in 1896, the EDSA revolution in 1986, and
now, we see the same egos wrecking havoc on the Communist Party. We
see these egos eroding our already rotten political system.

The core belief that should guide us in redeeming our unhappy country
is in our history, in our peasantry. It is not in textbooks, in
foreign intellectual idols, in Marx. And what is this ideology which
Bonifacio believed in? Which those barefoot soldiers killed by the
Americans believed in? Pedro Calosa, the peasant leader who led the
Colorum uprising in Tayug, Pangasinan in 1931 said it is this: "God
resides in every man. God created earth, water and air for all men.
It is against God's laws for one family or one group to own them."
God and country; translate this belief into your own words and there
you have it in its simplest terms the creed with which the
unfulfilled revolution of 1896 was based, and which should be the
same creed that should forge unity among us.

Who will lead the revolution?

Certainly, not the masa, but one from the masa who understands them,
who will not betray them, the way our leaders betrayed the masa.
Estrada is the most shameful example of that leadership that betrayed.

The leaders of the revolution could be in this university, who have
the education, but who are not shackled by alien concepts, or the
attitudes of superiority that destroy leadership. Such leaders, like
Ho Chi Minh, must lead by sterling example, with integrity, courage,
compassion and willingness to sacrifice, who know that when the
revolution is won, it is time to change from conspirators to even
better administrators, remembering that they have become
conservative, that they must now work even harder to produce better
and cheaper products. And this massive work of modernization can be
achieved in one generation. The Koreans, Taiwanese and the Japanese
did it. It is not the Confucian ethic that enabled them to do this,
they understood simply the logic of government which is service and
that of commerce which is profit.

By what right do I have to urge revolution upon our people who will
suffer it? What right do I have to urge the young to sacrifice, the
poor to get even poorer, if they embrace the revolutionary creed?

I have no such right, nor will I call it such. I call it duty, duty,
duty. Duty for all of us rooted in our soil, who believe that our
destiny is freedom.

Not everyone can bear arms, or have the physical strength to stand
up, to shout loudly about the injustices that prevail around us.

Those who cannot do these, who cannot be part of this radical
movement, must not help those who enslave us. Do not give them
legitimacy as so many gave legitimacy to Marcos. Recognize, identify
our enemies and oppose them with all your means.

This will then test integrity, commitment.

Nobody need tell us the exorbitant cost of revolution, the lives that
will be lost, senselessly even as when Pol Pot massacred thousands of
his own countrymen in Cambodia. We who lived through the Japanese
Occupation know what hunger, fear, and flight mean.

Joseph Conrad, Albert Camus and Jose Rizal--writers I admire deeply,
all warned against revolution because it breeds tyrants, because it
does not always bring change. But look around us, at the thousands of
Filipinos who are debased and hungry, who are denied justice. Be
shamed if you don't act. And as Salud Algabre, the Sakdal general
said in 1935-- "No rebellion fails. Each is a step in the right
direction."

Revolution need not even have to be bloody. How many lives were lost
at EDSA I? Not even 20. So Cory goes around telling the world that
she had restored democracy in the Philippines. Sure enough, we now
have free elections, free speech, free assembly but these are the
empty shells of democratic institutions because the real essence of
democracy does not exist here. And that real essence is in the
stomach--as when the taxi driver in Tokyo eats the same sashimi as
the Japanese emperor, or the bus driver in Washington who can eat the
same steak as President Bush in the White House. Contrast these with
that jobless Cavite laborer whose two children died because he fed
them with garbage. No, Cory Aquino's EDSA revolution could not even
have our garbage properly collected. Worse, nineteen farmer
demonstrators were killed near Malacanan because she refused to see
them. True to her oligarchic class, she declared a revolutionary
government without doing anything revolutionary; instead, she turned
EDSA I into a restoration of the old oligarchy. So today, we are
reaping the results of her negligence, ignorance and folly.

Yet, even capitalism can be very helpful. South Korea is a very good
example of how capital was formed by corruption, and how a single-
minded general lifted that nation from the ashes of the Korean War,
into the thriving modem economy which Korea is today.

Remember the slogans of American capitalism--

a chicken in every pot, a Ford in every garage. Money is like
fertilizer--to do any good it
must be spread around. Those robber barons at the turn of the 19th
century were rapacious, they exploited their workers, but they built
industries, railroads, banks, the sinews of American capitalism. And
the most important thing--they kept their money home to develop
America. Unlike our rich Chinese, our rich meztizos and the likes of
Marcos who sent their money abroad to keep us poor. They are the
enemy.

It has been said again and again that we are, indeed, a young nation
compared with other Asian countries whose august civilizations date
back to two thousand years or more. Indeed, so are the Filipinos who
shaped this nation--those who led the revolution against Spain--they
were all young, like you are, in their twenties or early thirties.
Rizal was 34 when he was martyred.

How then do we keep young without having to grow old only to see the
fire in our minds and hearts die? How does the nation's leading
university maintain its vitality, its youth against the ravages of
consumerism, of globalism?

How else but to keep the mind ever healthy, ever alive by empowering
it with those ideas that nurture change and revolution itself, by
ingesting the technological age so that we can use technology for
realizing our ideals.

How else but to embrace the ideas that make us doubt technology,
society, even revolution itself, but never, never about who we are,
what we should do and hope to be.

We cannot be beholden to any other nation. Jose Maria Sison doomed
his revolution when he turned to China for assistance; he ignored
the "objective reality"--the latent anti-Chinese feeling among
Filipinos, in fact among all Southeast Asians who fear a Chinese
hegemony.

We must mould our own destiny, infusing it with the strength of a
sovereign people. The Americans, the English, French, Russians,
Cubans, Chinese, Vietnamese--all achieved their unique revolutions.
We must have our very own, defined only by us.

How to build it, direct it, use it for the betterment of our lives,
the flowering of liberty--I see all these as the major function of
the university which, after all, shapes our leaders. I pray that UP
will graduate the best doctors, the best engineers, the best
teachers, the best bureaucrats. The revolution needs them all. But
most of all, let this university of the people produce the ultimate
modernizer, the heroic nationalist revolutionary--we need him most of
all.

Delivered November 23, 2004
http://www.up.edu.ph/fsioniljose_lecture.htm
<http://www.up.edu.ph/fsioniljose_lecture.htm>

The Benefit of Hindsight and the Fuzziness of the Future

The demonstrated intelligence we employ as we fervently discuss issues
relating to History is a direct benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Historians,
are offered a huge amount of data from which to draw their analysis
regarding events that happened in the past, from which they draw their
conclusions/observations. Whether their views are supported by hard
facts, or uncorroborated accounts passed on through oral traditions, all
have the benefit of "historical context". The beauty in all this is
that we could conduct vibrant and dynamic discussions, agree and
disagree on interpretation, and come to personal conclusions which we
could use to differentiate our actions, or choose not to act on it.

While historians are diligent in taking into account events that
happened in the past (or during their lifetimes), we are confronted with
the challenge of a fuzzy future. In this realm, most of what we do and
how we decide, is generally made on an assumed context, or more likely,
a pretext. While we attempt to base our decisions on learning from the
past, I am not sure whether we can truly maintain a strict alignment
between what we have learned, how we interpret the events, how we take
into account the circumstances of the present, with how we will act in
the future. This can lead to a sense of helpless, which could naturally
lead to cynicism, which ultimately results to callousness. At this
stage, we are paralyzed from action. We end up overestimating risk,
lessen our expectations, and end up yielding the very "realities" we
feared--a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Over the past few days, discourses have allowed us to explore opinions
and interpretations--all of which are healthy and insightful. But we
need to quickly reach a point where providing a full account and
personal interpretation of history (however insightful and thorough)
becomes secondary only to how we will frame our actions to create "new"
history. When discussing the present disposition of the Filipino, the
hard realities of masses living below the poverty line, the popularity
of historical figures, it is easy to fall into the trap of the "why" and
completely miss out on deciding on the "what", in a manner of speaking.
Perhaps it is for the very simple reason that discussing the "why" never
really compels one to commit to an action plan whereas the "what" will
naturally force us to gravitate towards action.

The beauty and relevance of history can only lead to a personal and
collective enlightenment if action (the fuzzy part) becomes integral.
Everything else becomes an academic discussion that can go on forever.
Interesting enough, action ultimately determines the relevance and
pertinence of our discussions.

Understanding and wisdom have been stated as lacking among the masses of
the Philippines. How could one argue against statistics and personal
experience? But the more important thing is not only state the obvious,
but rather, to define action that will lead to collective progress and
the "will" to execute on it.

I hold the highest regard for those who freely express their ideas, and
demonstrate the wherewithal to substantiate those ideas. But time is of
the essence. We need to act--whether you are located in the Philippines
or in another part of the globe is immaterial. We are all Filipinos.
How then should we live? How then should we act?

We need to consider every input submitted in this forum as a potential
wellspring of context, wisdom, and action. For example, how do we
introduce new models into the way our compatriots think (at the lowest
levels of society)? How do we employ a blood-less revolution (similar
to that of Norway) that will result in sustainable change (and not the
models we vehemently detest)? How do we introduce the relevance of
historical models (their strengths and weaknesses) in a way that will
allow the masses to see themselves in those leaders? How do we
introduce incremental changes that will ultimately lead to structural
change? Is it purely through radical revolutionary campaigns,
intellectual campaigns, or economic campaigns. What are the
presuppositions that pervade Filipino life and thought? And how do such
influence the way we think? How do we refine or resign those so we can
achieve incremental progress? All of us can provide invaluable insight,
and in synthesis, may provide us with ideas from which to frame the
context of our actions.

Some could provide insight, some executable plans, some strategies, some
context, some risk awareness, some networks--together we can make that
darned African elephant move! While we need to maintain a degree of
skepticism, we need to try to avoid cynicism entirely. History shows us
how cynical attitudes (in jest or gravity) created the history we so
desperately want to change. If we can begin to re-think or re-state
what could otherwise be seen through the eyes of a cynic, we can begin
the arduous road to progress. It starts with us.

--
Dennis Reyes
+639159995263

"Learners prepare for the world for tomorrow."

Visit my blogs:
http://appliedkm.blogspot.com
http://appliedkm.commongate.com
http://trendsofthought.blogspot.com

When Respected Ideals Go Bad - The Filipino Twist

Due to the lack of foundational fortitude, we tend to take very noble ideals to the farthest extreme possible. There is nothing inherently wrong about individualism, for example, But as a people, we have taken this to an extreme that is beyond the original scope of the ideal. We do this with democracy, capitalism, politics (including political activism), freedom of speech (where it becomes libertine and rumor-mongering), religion, social responsibility. Filipinos tend to take great, world changing concepts to an extreme where the very application of the ideal becomes adulterated, thus, unhealthy. How do you argue with someone who believes that his/her freedom of speech needs to be tempered with conscience and courtesy and that freedom of speech does not equate with unbridled communication? How do we begin to allow our people to appreciate the fact that individual freedom needs to end when it infringes upon the liberties of another.

Recently I attempted to write my article on this forum in the vernacular. I was surprised to learn that our native vocabulary is limited (or it could be that I am simply ignorant). I tried to translate the word serendipity, and there is no word in Tagalog that even closely resembles its English meaning. I said we lack foundational fortitude because we have adopted constructs down to the language level, attempted to apply this through transliteration rather than through careful interpretation. Our ideas have yet to be expressed completely using the vernacular. This for me is important. Language is the binding agent of every nation. I say this, not because I am an expert in the vernacular (far from it), I say this as a matter of observation and not expert opinion. For those of us who were schooled in Western thought, were made familiar with western concepts and constructs, it becomes such a challenge to try to communicate principles we learned in our native tongue.

What happens is that our thought processes end up as eclectic, buffet-type, were we end up choosing only parts of a definition that we only wish to employ. Democracy, for example, is hardly juxtaposed with personal responsibility. We lose the principle of balanced thinking, we fail to appreciate the importance of causality in the way we think, and ultimately, behave.

This could be one of the reasons why we tend to take learned concepts and ideals to an extreme. You gave a very good example of yet another good concept that is applied in the wrong context. Competition is good. In fact, healthy competition is one of the benefits of a democracy. But competition has been taken to a dangerous, personal level. Instead of looking at ways to collaborate, the institutions you referred to looked at it from the perspective of sharing similar resources to fund their programs--"ako muna, bago sila" type of mentality. Why should I share when I can hoard it all? This mentality is seen in the way corporations and businesses operate. The "andok's" syndrome. Every one simply wants to secure a quick buck (hence the vacillating patterns reflected and manifested in our markets).

When Filipinos hear of a profitable venture, they will try to mimic, disintermediate, our stir up rumors that are designed to destroy the competition. This is what happened with Pan De Manila and Pan De Pugon. It also happens in agricultural communities. When farmers hear that their neighbor profited from their harvest of tomatoes, they will certainly plant tomatoes and try to sell their products to the same buyer. Our concept of equitable enterprises usually means one thing in the Filipino's mind: "I need to make the same amount or more doing the same thing my competitor does." This behavior has resulted in too much supply in some sectors and a glaring gap in other sectors of our economy. The only one that benefited from this scenario is the buyer who did not change his/her market price. He made more because of an abundant supply, and because of over abundance, was able to command a significantly lower buy rate. The farmers ended up losing rather than making, and then will end up discrediting their neighbor and doubt, even question his integrity and truthfulness simply because they did not make the same amount he allegedly made on the sale of his crops.

Filipinos define themselves by the material trappings they amass without thinking in terms of building sustainable opportunities. Farmers will go into debt to plant the very same crop that proved profitable instead of looking to provide services that will allow crop farmers to add value to their harvest (such as fertilizers, equipment, labor, etc.). They are accustomed to imitate rather than innovate. Again, a mindset issue. Because they want to have or covet their neighbors goods, they will opt for the shortest path to material gain without regard for the future. The moment they define what makes their competitor unique, they will proselyte those resources without hesitation.

Most investors are the same. If you told them to invest their profit of 1 peso so that it becomes 100 pesos given a week's period, they will almost certainly get the 1 peso and dismiss the potential of making 100x simply because they had to wait. "Kunin ko na lang ang piso para sigurado na may piso, baka mawala pa yan..." Either this approach, or they will pad the principal with so much interest that the borrower is buried in debt even before they get a chance to use the funds (fact is, the interest and first month payment are already deducted before cash is disbursed). This is not a culture of belief but of opportunism.

So how do we convince a Carabao to drink? We have to create the need. Force it to thirst. Of course, dealing with human "will" is an entirely different matter. You simply can't put a leash on an individual so that it has no alternative but to drink from the source another exclusively provides. In my opinion, if we are to see change, we need to invest heavily into activities that focus on those that want to change and have reason to change--the middle class. We need to invest in strength. It is untenable for us to expect change from the general masses who live below the poverty line. It must first be applied at the level that could make the most impact, at the level that is more achievable. That would be the middle-class. This is the center of any economy where change can be modeled. They are more receptive, are idealists, and are learners by nature since they are incentivized to achieve more, and are less susceptible to sensationalism.

Take the cellphone phenomenon as an example. The shift Doy Vea saw when he structured his service offering to cater to the middle market who were not accustomed to carrying phones at that time (due to the cost), was to make services so affordable. The purchase of phones came as a necessary evil. All of a sudden, the Philippines was branded the texting capital of the world--Nokia, Erricson, Motorola, and all mobile phone manufacturers saw the Philippines as a prime market (even more than the US and Canada combined). They succeeded in conditioning people. Now virtually everyone, in ever layer of society tots a cellphone and can afford to use it.

Focus on the center of our society...not the extremities.

If we were to create, programs that catered to the middle class rather than the masses, we will create opportunities of scale that will extend and become sustainable over a short period of time. The same market penetration strategy used by local and foreign businesses could very well be applied in conditioning behavior and mindsets.

As far as we are concerned, we need to change our focus from providing "free aid" to the masses, and calibrate our minds and hearts to enable the center of our society--the middle class. This means believing enough to invest in them. If we successfully pilot a program, we can use the very characteristics and predictable behavioral patterns of Filipinos to bring about positive change. We can use the "gaya-gaya" mentality to spread constructive behavior throughout the country like wildfire through the center of society--the middle class. As in Aikido, we use the very force that could destroy us to defend us and allow us to overcome an assailant. The stronger the assailant the more powerful the stride. We use the very characteristics that are now destroying Filipino society as the very tools to re-envirogate the people.

If we were to make people aware of the causal implications of their every action, and couple this with an understanding of learned concepts in each proper context, I do believe that we are not so ignorant nor too hard-hearted or conscience-seared, that we will not do the right thing.

Free-Aid and It's Impacts on the Psyche of the Masses

Here are some observations:

The charter of charitable institutions is to immediately address poverty-related issues. The problem with this is that they have to be selective, otherwise, their funds will run out since the support they are receiving from the local private sector is insufficient. Hence most of the funds used for their work are generated from fixed budget shares of groups like WVI, CARE, USAID, ADB, and local government agencies. There is no end in sight when it comes to addressing poverty.

Most of these organizations have shifted from "providing a fish, to teaching people how to fish"--and they find this a daunting challenge. They have recognized the fact that the battle they have to fight in order to alleviate the conditions that have given rise to their cause is a battle of the mind. From their observations, environmental conditions are secondary to the problem of mindsets. They have noticed that a large part of the communities they are helping consists of able-bodied individuals who are simply shackled by how they think of themselves and how they perceive the environment around them. They could not help but notice (just my personal assessment and not putting words in their mouth) that the people they help seem to carry a chip on their shoulder, that others are obligated to help provide for their needs, that the rich is obligated to help the poor, etc. While these programs help provide the basic essentials of life, such as a roof to live in, basic nutrition, medical assistance, family planning they have also introduced programs geared to help these communities (we are not talking about exceptions but entire communities) start micro businesses. These micro-enterprise programs revealed the systemic problem within these impoverished communities--mindset. Because of the relative ease by which they could avail of their needs (just fall in line, fill up an application, tell a sad story) they could avail of basic necessities without having to work for it. Easy cash.

It seems that impoverished communities have been habituated to receive dole outs, have developed a dependence on a system of charity, rather than constructively participate in the economy. They can offer no specific solutions as they have tried everything, but have yielded very little by way of ideal outputs. This presents a set of problems on the part of these organizations: they too are bound to specific outputs by their donors, they need to achieve or accomplish objectives and the only way they can move on to the next is if they could prove that they have met (even the minimum) expectations--otherwise, coffers begin to run dry as budgets begins to be redirected elsewhere.

A conflict between Malthus and Maslow...

Most donor agencies have poured in millions of dollars in funds to these local programs (billions if we are to count those lost to corruption) which is leading donor agencies to question the validity of the expectations they set for their own funding priorities. If they would take a fraction of these funds to help entrepreneur-minded individuals within the same impoverished community, they would more likely see some form of returns within a 3 year period (as in the case in Kenya, South Africa, etc.) and an improved lifestyle of that family.

Interesting enough, they have observed that these impoverished communities, squatters, marginalized people groups never seem to want to get out or change the way they live. Although living as squatters, for example, most could afford a cell phone, stereo component, television, electronic gadgets, etc. They also seen the same group afford to party every night, sleep all day, and act only when they need to buy something or pay for something. They do not want to pay for rent, taxes, and want to avail of everything for "free". This section of the community also represents the most productive areas of drug syndicates in the country. Of course, these observations are restricted to able-bodied individuals who could earn their own living, and not to those that have legitimate needs due to physical handicaps.

Politicians implicitly support this system to guarantee a larger voting share come elections. They rally behind the cause of providing the "material needs" and leave out the importance of establishing a sense of dignity and personal pride. They benefit by reinforcing the obvious--a system of poverty. While saying there will be hope, they curtail the very resources that could help people realize progress (corruption, bureaucracy, etc.).

An epicurean dilemma of sorts - eat and be merry for tomorrow you die...

These programs are doing everything they can. But I agree with them that there is no end in sight unless we simultaneously address other factors that contribute to the problem.

The poor will always be with us and will always be a part of every generation and economy. Even G8 countries have a large segment of their population living below the poverty line. Poverty is relative. If we compare the condition of food-stamp recipients in the US to that of our local counterpart, those in the US are not "poor" at all. But the conditions that lead to poverty are all too common--mindsets. We will need to reckon with the reality and perennial presence of poverty. Helping the poor needs to be a result of personal conviction about one's social responsibility and not another's responsibility. Unfortunately no mathematical algorithm can solve this problem. You can pour in billions, and still not make a dent in the problem. This leads to the question of psychological amplification.
Why is it that the Philippine's poverty issues are more pronounces than other countries? Is it because we have been conditioned to think that alleviating poverty equates to social progress? Our have we simply been conditioned to "pity"--pity others, and pity ourselves? Or have we resigned the issue as one completely determined by one's environment? Have you ever driven between city lines that separate Washington, D.C. from Baltimore, MD? If sufficient donations or philanthropic resources is the solution, then why does this exist in the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth. We need to keep our condition in perspective.

Why is it that the local political agenda is more focused on poverty alleviation rather than job creation? Japan, UK, USA, Singapore, Australia, China, Canada, and other Asia Pacific countries all have their share of poor, but their economic programs focus more on the issue of jobs creation. All we hear locally is about poverty alleviation. Why are we in search of an egalitarian economy? As long as the world economy is driven by capitalism, an egalitarian economy is not achievable or tenable.

Compared to my lifestyle in the US, I am very poor in the way I live in the Philippines. So this state of poverty is relative. All of us live a hand-to-mouth existence at different levels. It is all a matter of mindsets--mindsets that reinforce a "system" of poverty which is very different from addressing the "condition" of poverty. Conditions can be changed immediately, systems require generations in order to effect the slightest degree of change. A condition of poverty is a direct result of a system of poverty. One's continued condition of poverty is a direct consequence of individual and collective, albeit reinforcing mindsets that create the system of poverty.

Why don't we create more jobs?

Fundamentally, Filipinos have a weak sense of belief in their fellow Filipinos. Most don't want to invest because they are not confident that the system of thinking that generally governs individuals they hire will not lead to some return on investment. The problem is, unless we are willing to take the chance, to take the risk of believing in our fellow Filipino, we will simply contribute to the psychological amplification of the system of poverty.
Let's take the situation of India as an example. India is more corrupt than the Philippines. I once hired an Indian national to train my local technical staff. He had to naturally secure a local driver's license. Every one was trying to apologize for the inefficient and corrupt way agencies are run locally. To his amazement, he received his license in less than a day! He commented that in India, he had to bribe and still had to wait 3 months for his license when he applied for one in 2003. He wondered why my local staff was putting down their own system. We say we believe in our people, but in the deepest recesses of our minds, we have our "fingers crossed", hoping that we won't be ashamed of what transpires.

We have been conditioned to think in terms that people will take advantage of us. When you have 10 people in a room conditioned to think in these terms, how do you suppose each will act? They will each act in a manner that they think would protect their own interest in a convoluted way. Each will easily justify this mentality: "dalawang klaseng tao sa mundo, ang nanloloko at ang niloloko...sila muna bago ako" Even the virtue of kindness is received with apprehension--"ano kaya ang kailangan nito sa akin?" Convoluted, ain't it? We expect the worse rather than the best in our fellow. In this regard I defer to what Bobby refers to as being neighborly, we need to employ the same attitudes he was referring to within our local communities. But before we can do so, we must first alter the way we think--we need to take kindness at face value--expressed kindness. And if we were ever given the chance to return the favor, we need to do so with an open heart and an open mind!

Who are the Friars now? Is the current generation the embodiment of everything putrid about Padre Damaso? Are we that embodiment? Have we really gotten over calling our fellow by stereotypes existent in Rizal's time? Our have we simply come up with more sophisticated classifications?

Another is a "debt of gratitude" system. Ito ang utang na hindi nababayaran. Almost everyone expects that if they do something kind towards another, the recipient of their kindness is forever bound to them in a debt of gratitude. This is typically manifested in statements like: "Kung di dahil sa'kin, ala ka..." Even if the only thing one did was to refer them to a job! Pathetic! Most of our daily transactions are built around this system (feudalistic in nature).

We are riddled with prejudice. Our kind of prejudice is deadlier than racial prejudice, and worse than a caste system. The prejudicial system that exists in the country is a hybrid that attacks the character of an individual. That's why most Pinoy's easily get piqued. We have been conditioned to think that unless we get our way, we will not be satisfied (hence the difficulty of arriving at a comprehensive democratic agenda) which results in the way we ultimately behave. Values are considered (implicitly) as an agenda waiting to materialize. Troubling...

Second, the creation of more jobs will ultimately result in strengthening a libertarian society where people are free to make their choices and are also responsible for those choices.
Policy makers, corporate giants don't want this to happen. Why do I say this? I refuse to believe that our condition is not designed to be the way it is today. As long as someone, somewhere benefits from this system, they will continue to feed the system to benefit their own interests at the expense of others (feudalism at work - only this time it is not about real estate but a battle for the ownership of the minds of people). Most corporations have the facade of a professional environment, but beneath this lies its true nature - the padrino system / MBA (May Backer Ako). They are bound to the mindset that unless they know the person, they cannot provide them with opportunity. And since degrees of relationships are limited and constrained, not a lot of opportunity is cascaded to qualified individuals. The chasm grow ever wider between the rich and the poor by the elimination of the middle class.

Politicians are comfortable with the system and openly flaunt their ability to use the system to their advantage. Mayors refuse to employ national programs that will cause them to lose a huge voter base. Hence, squatters are "protected" rather than removed. If these mayors are so concerned about this people (and concerned in the true unadulterated sense), why don't they house or help create programs (section 8-types) that will help these families get back on their feet, or provide a system of housing that does not negatively affect the environment within the city limits? Apathy is fueled by the same system of thinking. Politicians know that if they will fill the bellies of people, a lot less are likely to contend with them. Those that do will always be in the minority. This is why the spate of killings seem to end up as unsolved cases. It isn't because nobody saw anything (have you ever seen the density of people in our communities?), but because those who witnessed the crime remains under the impression that this might affect his "personal" meal ticket.

If we create a more sustained middle class within our economy, our political system will improve. The more voters in this sector, the larger the chances proper leadership will be voted into office. Economic progress always rests with the middle class.

First, Filipino associations should create more community visibility within the agenda of diversity within their respective cities of residence and work. It would help if they could meet up with company executives to present the Philippines as a good source of services and products. This would extend trade mission work sponsored by national and local government agencies. The Philippines can use more exposure in Europe.

Second, look at allocating a small percentage of your personal investment portfolio toward local entrepreneurial initiatives. There are a lot of entrepreneurs that are looking for access to capital - from as little as 1000 USD to as much as 2M USD. Invest in agriculture, IT, and tourism. These investments could go to management and governance education for SME's and to operating capital funding. We may not have a strong system to minimize risk at this time, but unless we have a constant stream of sources, we will not acculturate locals to think in progressive and accountable means that will create an environment of managed risk. This system must not take advantage of its recipients by usury (too much interest)--it really doesn't pay in the long term.

Third, we need to define policy that would provide facilities for bankruptcy protection, and tax incentives for corporations whose financial standing is affected by those that file for bankruptcy. We need to influence our legislators to institute policies that would allow individuals to financially recover, and protect corporations at the same time (a bad debts deduction against tax liabilities). Unless this system is in place, we will never have a stable credit system to help fuel the economy. Our current system is one that assumes failure as an exception. In most countries, transparently declaring your company is in financial trouble will open up vehicles to help them recover. If you did that here, no one will dare extend help - extreme capitalism? Nay, it's fuedalism at work.

Fourth, we need to invest in programs that are geared to values formation at all levels of society. Rich and poor - both sides are in dire need to have their values calibrated and checked.

These organizations are doing a good job. But we need more programs that would affect the grassroots level. Our challenge is creating a pheromone trail that other ants could follow and rally behind...

On The Filipino's Chosen Domicile

Is it really a matter of "labels"? Is it really a discussion of right and wrong? Like I said, the choice where one ends up with their domicile is a personal one. There is no right or wrong answer. However, I do have to contend that intranational emigration (that is really relocation) since moving from within one's country and building economic opportunity still benefits that specific country is not something I consider to be on the same ground. Kudos to more provincianos who make it big elsewhere within the Philippines. They are Filipinos who remained in the Philippines.

While it is not a question of right and wrong, it becomes a question of national "conviction". When we objectively look at these communities as a whole, we will find that their ties to the fatherland are far more stronger than our own as Filipinos in terms of actual performance and actual commitments. I guess the will to make something out of their native country allowed countries like India and China to now thrive as a nation. That "will" transcendeds academic and political discussions and manifested itself in direct economic results as in the overall development of their national psyche (confidence levels, belief levels, etc) that continues to build overall positive momentum to-date.

Various studies conducted by the OECD have shown how voluntarily displaced nationals from India and China contributed much to the current progressive state of their native countries by either returning, investing, or establishing long-term localized programs that positively impact mindsets and the economy. The stories range from those who decided to repatriate to those who have actively supported and participated in holistic development programs. These were clearly showcased. In the December 1999 issue of CIO magazine that showcased India as the IT superpower of the decade, for example, repatriated Indian nationals commented that the best thing they did (I am paraphrasing) was to take personal responsibility for national progress and leave the government out of it.

Again, it is not a question of right or wrong, but a question of national "conviction". At the end of the day, we must all ask ourselves the question, "what are we going to DO about it?" While it is quite easy to shift or redirect blame to political corruption as the primary reason the Philippines is in the trouble its in, and the rationale for emigrating (international), we fail to realize that, whether we like it or not, we are part of the system--a part of a potential long-term solution to the perennial problem of progress.

As for me and my house, we have made and are continuing to make the sacrifices that will ultimately demonstrate, in our small way, our love of country and belief in the Filipino people. If Filipinos, even those domiciled outside the Philippines, would take "national conviction" to heart, dig deep in their hearts, minds, and pockets, and refuse to give up on the Philippines, not just as a sovereign country, but a social community that has a strong potential for positive growth, we can all make a difference.

I allude to a scene in Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" were he rallies the tribes by saying, "They can take our lives, but they will never take our FREEDOM!" In this context, freedom for me is simply not freedom to talk or express opinions; it is not simply the freedom to say "no" but equally, the freedom to choose not to ride the bandwagon, the freedom to resist and combat popular perception; the freedom to engage in constructive work; and the freedom to take personal responsibility of a national problem that pervades every layer of our society and re-shapes the national psyche, and the freedom to make a difference, regardless how miniscule of seemingly insignificant. For at the end of the day, our actions can only influence one mind at a time, can only convince and encourage one life at a time. I believe this is the mindset that Jose Rizal employed that led him to do great things through his small gestures and actions.

To develop steadfastness in a "national conviction" will obviate the need to justify our decisions for emigration or emigrating. Why? We will begin to see foreign opportunities (like Rizal) only as a means to an end, and not the end in and of itself. We will see foreign opportunities not only as a means to benefit oneself or family, but as a means to benefit our own people and nation.

It is not a question of right or wrong, but one of national conviction. National conviction is so important for the people of Israel for example, that even after almost 1500 years of not having a sovereign nation, a place in the map they can call their "country", they fought to take back land that was taken from them after the Barchochba revolution, in which Rome forced a diaspora more extensive and final than that which occurred in 586 BC under Nebuchadnezzar. In 1948, they reclaimed their country. In a manner of speaking, we need to "reclaim" our country from the perceptions that erode us from within.

As a people, we have never experienced a forced diaspora; we have never been forced out of our land (occupied, yes; forced out, no). We are the only nation that encourages emigration (indirectly) by implicitly telling our fellow citizens to leave the country in search of greener pastures. This is telling of disbelief, and is something that we must aggressively curb if we are to progress as a people and as a country.

Finally, in the book written by Jim Collins, Good to Great, he distinguishes the greatness of a company by looking at leader-types. He came to the conclusion that leaders of great companies were those that looked at the mirror rather than the window. They did not spend time looking at greener pastures at the other side of the field, but concentrated more on the image they saw in the mirror. They understood that if change were to occur, if greatness is to be achieved, the first place where change needs to happen is with the source of the image in the mirror.

On Good Filipino Citizenship

The ideal of a good citizenry is much coveted by every country around the world. Unfortunately, good citizenship can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the national context. For instance, what we believe is good citizenship is not necessarily considered good in countries like China or different parts of Africa. In the eyes of China, Hong Kong activists are not considered "good citizens." For us to tackle the issue of good citizenship we would need to address the qualities that make a citizen inherently "good" in order to distinguish "good" strictly in terms of a political context.

There are no quick fixes to developing a nation constituted of good citizens. Unfortunately, if the ideal is politically motivated, then we are 10 years too late. The circumstances we are now having to live with as a country is a direct consequence of the choices made a decade or so ago. And unfortunately too, we can be forgiven, we can repent of our wrong decisions, but we have to live with the consequences of those decisions. Change can only be progressively introduced. Like the old saying goes, it is much easier to create than it is to mend. To attempt to radically introduce change would be akin to storing new wine into old wine skins.

Good citizenship means making the right decisions for the country and then learning to live with those decisions without reservation or want. Eclecticism will cause more harm than good and will work against our objectives rather than help build them. We often make a bog ado of making good choices. But oft, the choices we want people to make have not been clearly substantiated. We tend to deal with issues reactively and base our actions or activism based on the circumstances of the present instead of basing them on steadfast principles that transcend the future.

The present political crisis requires a tempered approach if we are to introduce true solutions. Too quick, and we end up where we started. To slow, and we end up in further deterioration. If we are to create good citizens, then we have to be willing to look towards the future and not so much live in the past (although it is critical not to forget the lessons from the past). It will not be without great sacrifice and difficulty. It may even commit oneself to harm's way. Nevertheless we must move forward.

Here are some ideas:

The first place we ought to begin is to create a base of intelligent citizens. By intelligent, I mean, citizens who would be trained to make the right decisions for the future and not focus on immediately filling one's belly with a quick meal. This would minimize the threats against the integrity and moral compass of each citizen. If we have citizens that truly understand the importance of the decisions they make, then such cannot be bought and will not be satisfied until the conditions of his or her convictions are met. This involves educating every facet of society on the basics of a republican democracy, on the fundamentals of moral integrity, and self-reliance.

The next place is for us to showcase the importance of heritage and national identity. Today, the perception of a Filipino in the eyes of the world is associated with picket lines, political instability, avarice, corruption and license. We need to change perception. Again, as the saying goes "perception is reality". A majority of Filipinos remain disinterested on subjects relating to history. And even those that have shown slight interest are highly suspicious of our own recorded history. Strengthening our sense of identity will effectively combat the effects of colonialism and increase confidence throughout the population. We need to grasp the past if we are to claim the future lest we be subject to the greatest lesson history has ever taught us---the we never learned from history.

Further we need to create a base of responsible citizens. Responsible citizens are those who, when confronted with situations where they "could," first ask whether they "should." When we listen to the speeches of political leaders we need to realize that the substance (or lack thereof) of each of those political speeches are developed to tell the people what they want to hear, and not necessarily what they need to hear. In other words, we have put words into the mouths of politicians (politicians are a direct reflection of the character of the people they represent).

More on this subject next time! Until then...