Sensitize Yourself

Desensitization is the condition that results from the repeated exposure of one’s senses to a specific emotion, environment, physical contact, or activity. A person who is said to be desensitized will exhibit higher thresholds toward physical pain, environmental noise, emotion, scene and scent, and even exhibit, in the extreme, an absence of what we call a moral compass or conscience. A person who has been desensitized will respond differently under situations that others may consider grave and unbearable.

Desensitization affects both the physiological and psychological. On the physical side, a person develops higher muscular density and callousness that increases tolerance levels to physical sensation such as pain or pleasure. Psychologically, it alters individual behavior that leads to extremes of withdrawal or aggressive behavior, that can lead to anti-social or apathetic behavior. This occurs simply because desensitization disrupts the needed balance on both the physical and psychological as it subjects an individual to extremes. Between the two, psychological desensitization is far reaching and far more dangerous than its physical counterpart. It is far reaching because it is contagious; it is far more dangerous because it spreads like a virus over a series of generations. The only known way to overcome the ill-effects of psychological desensitization is by the process of social reintegration.

Those that are psychologically desensitized will continue to function, but their presuppositions and worldview will stand out in stark contrast to the views of those around them. Let’s take soldiers as an example.

Throughout their short or long careers, infantry soldiers are trained to do one thing effectively, and that is to kill with extreme prejudice. In the firing range, soldiers are repeatedly trained to shoot at “targets” from a distance or to attack and kill enemies in closed-quarter combat. Although the tools used during closed-quarter combat training are non-lethal (for obvious reasons), the repetitive training integrates every learned stroke and stride until it becomes instinctive or second-nature. Soldiers are subjected to these environments to desensitize them. They are trained to follow orders; they are trained to see real people in the battlefield as distant “targets” they need to hit, or objects they need to eliminate; they are trained to suppress their consciences and the natural tendencies, and inhibitions, that make use human that distinguishes us from the rest of creation.

During a work-related trip I took to South Africa, I made a point to visit Suweto. This was a place where colored and black people domiciled during the apartheid days of the country. Upon reaching the town, we parked by the side of the road for me to take pictures. Unsatisfied with the my position, I stepped out of the SUV and I vividly remembered how my driver quickly stepped out of the vehicle and beckoned me to return to the relative safety of the SUV. When I asked him why, he simply said that I was not black.

Having lived in the US for over a decade before my trip to South Africa, the concept of apartheid was something I did not fully understand until I had the chance to view its ill-effects first-hand (although I had a great time in Gauteng where I had to consume a 2-kilo rump steak within 60 minutes) for in every sense I behaved and processed things as an American. My senses were on overload as I found myself trying to mentally and emotionally process too much within a very short period of time. My mind was racing with so much questions. Because I was a foreigner, my questions were reciprocated with a degree of tolerance as both my friends and I knew that I was ignorant about the realities that circumscribed their daily lives, and because in the back of head I knew that there really was nothing I could do in my capacity to change the way things are.

In my work as a minister, I had the chance to visit and minister to people in the most depressed areas in New York and New Jersey, Northridge and East LA, as well as in depressed communities in Indiana, Ohio, Sharon PA, Virginia, and Miami. In every instance where I challenged those I ministered to get out from the rut and to make a difference, they simply looked at me with a stare that I completely understood—I was an outsider.

When counseling couples, I repeatedly encountered cases where couples easily grew more distant from each other as time passed and that even maintaining the same degree of endearment that characterized the early years of their marriage was easier said than done. Spouses ended up doing the very thing they swore they couldn’t do; infrequent physical intimacy and contact became the rule rather than the exception. Again, my counselees would simply look at me and even reason that I there is no way for me to truly understand the uniqueness of their situation.

As a management consultant, I find middle managers, executives, and frontline staff, live in a constant state of duplicity. Theirs is the world where only the paranoid survives. Ethics and morality take a distant tenth in the line of priorities topped by profitability and wealth. They live in a culture where it is justifiably moral to get the most out of nothing – to squeeze every ounce of fluid from a gnat, so to speak, where everything can be for sale at the right price.

Wanting to make a difference, I returned to the Fatherland. And to my surprise, I too was considered an outsider simply because I had experienced the “good life” as a Fil-American. No matter how I encouraged others, they attributed both my failures and successes to the fact that I was returning from America. I found people constantly trying to explain away why such and such happened and what I would need to do in such and such a situation. It was mentally and emotionally enervating to say the least.

Religious rhetoric was plenteous among my fellow, but hardly anyone would dare stand by the mandates of faith especially when it got in the way of putting food on the table. Everyone had their own version of progress, their own perfect picture of the future, their own version of reality, where betting on a series of numbers was considered a progressive act and a quicker way to achieve wealth rather than make sound financial investments. Politically charged messages and controversy constantly filled the airwaves, but most disturbing is the way positive action is easily dismissed as some form of propaganda. I noticed the disproportionate courtesy and opportunities given to everyone and anyone who looks or sounds foreign, and how poorly nationals treat their own. I squirm at the thought of a country that celebrates emigration as an indicator of economic progress and success, how that dishonesty at the highest levels of public and private institutions are quite easily forgotten and dismissed as simply a means to an end.


===================================================
Filipino, Sensitize Yourself!
By Dennis Reyes, Ph.D.

Who shall bear the burden of our actions?
Who shall calm our troubled future ?
Who shall find closure to our troubled past?

I looked, I prayed, I inquired, I acted
But with every opportunity came a response of incredulity
I am a nobody…

Wherein lies the hope of my people?
Shall distress and doubt characterize my peers?
Shall it define myself and my fellow citizens?
The rhetoric of peace, joy, hope, and love overflow in abundance
But in the abundance of rhetoric exists a real absence of substance and intent;

What?! I can’t hear you, the noise of superficial laughter drowns the gravity of your plight
The duplicity in your actions betray the true nature of your slight
Oh, the ends justifies the means you say, but do you really believe that?
Or are you simply cowed to reckon with the reality of your blight?

Take flight my fellow
Sensitize yourself to the prospect of a bright tomorrow
Pull up to achieve, push others and yourself to succeed;
For only then, when we learn to believe shall we truly emerge as a people
Capable of calming a troubled future and closing our troubled past;

I looked, I prayed, I inquired, I acted
And with flight I saw my people prosper, pushed the limits of what others said was impossible to achieve;

Am I a nobody? Are we nobodies?
Not anymore, for my peers and the world shall take notice
Our now and Our future converging and incorruptible
I am proud of my people, I am Filipino
We are Filipino

===================================================

The Meaning of Freedom

For most Filipinos the ideal of freedom means license; a license to do or say whatever they think is right by them without regard to the consequences of their actions or words; a license to do what they feel is in their best interest even when the consequences of their actions represents everything that is against the very ideal of freedom. Understood as a license to unbridled action, the very ideal is used lopsidedly to enslave another; those who take freedom as a license are driven by the “could” and never by the “should” that characterizes free action.

Knowing the difference between “could” and “should” in the commission of action determines the level of our maturity as a free people. These interrogatives demarcate between a freedom that is bound by norms to one that is antinomian in character. Those whose freedom is bound to norms will carefully qualify actions by asking whether they “should” act; those whose freedom is not bound to norms (antinomian) will simply act because they “could” act without regard to any sentient consequence their actions will result in.

I remember my days when I served as a reserve deputy for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department during the mid 1990’s. As part of our training classes and exercises, we were taught how to secure and clear an area when surrounded by hostiles. It was necessary for advance teams to systemically secure an area before allowing the rest of the teams to advance into that designated position. Only after an area has been secured could the rest of the team securely and freely maneuver within that secured area – but not until then. Advance teams take their jobs very seriously as the lives of the men on their detail or unit are at stake. To warrant an area secure is something that no police officer or soldier takes lightly.

The military employs minesweepers to clear an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines. In the old days, soldiers get on their knees and systematically poke through every segment of dirt to ensure that that area is free of mines. The secured areas are then flagged or marked. Today, more high tech means, such as an M1 Abrams tank fitted with minesweeping device, rapidly clears an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines in a fraction of the time it took in the old days, with very little risk to the vehicle operator or its passengers. People are only allowed to freely roam or walk through a secured area. The flags provide a visible reference that demarcates between secure and danger zones.

I brought up these two scenarios to illustrate the ideal of freedom. By analogy, freedom is not without its essential boundaries. While soldiers can, in theory, choose to walk outside the confines of these visible flags, no soldier in their right mind will do so as it will spell certain death. While assault units can choose to freely advance into unsecured areas, no police officer in their right mind will do so as it too will spell certain death.

In the same way the military or law enforcement units secures areas to ensure the well being of their peers and enable the free movement of people within that secured location, so must we establish boundaries that protect the exercise of our individual and collective freedoms. But unlike the physical boundaries employed by the military or tactical law enforcement personnel, the boundaries that circumscribe our freedom as a free people are abstract in nature. These abstractions take the form of values and norms that must be exercised and enforced by every individual within a free society if the system of freedom is to be enjoyed by every individual within that society. The moment any individual steps outside these boundaries and violates the freedom of another without due recompense, the system of freedom will fail.
This means that although we are free to say whatever we wish, we should individually temper what we say by first qualifying whether we “should” say what is in our minds and whether what we will say can edify or build up another or reinforce the values that protect freedom in general. This also means that though we are free to act, we must first ensure that our actions are tempered by the “should” and not by the “could” in order to qualify whether our actions will violate the freedom of another.

The exercise of unbound freedom is as dangerous as restricting freedom. These are the extremes that we must all avoid as these both violate the very principles that constitute the very ideal of free action. A society that allows the actions of a few individuals to curtail the free action of another is not a free society but a shackled one.

Protecting the integrity of freedom is a continuous balancing act across a precariously thin line that separates extremes. Individuals that act out of sheer license (bound by the could and not the should) clearly have no intention of protecting another’s freedom but are people who uses the ideal of freedom (in extremes) to benefit their vested interests and agendas.
This concept of a freedom protected by abstract boundaries is essential to the exercise of a progressive democracy. Without this will and commitment to protect these boundaries, democracies can easily be used by the few and powerful to push their own interests and agendas. The moment this happens, democracy simply becomes a very potent tool for the powerful few. Unless we can guarantee that free men understand and employ boundaries, we will have great difficulty in accepting the will of our very own masses. Unless we provide for systems that reinforce these boundaries, our version of democracy shall remain questionable and incredulous.

Employing these abstract boundaries provides for a tempered democracy and a tempered democracy is crucible to maintaining a progressive democracy. Tempered speech, and tempered action; these are essentials to a progressive democracy.

I pray that the time will soon come when our definition of freedom transforms from one that is unbridled to one that is tempered by conscientious action and bound to absolutes and boundaries that frame our norms and value systems as individuals, as citizens, and as a people that comprise a nation of laws.

Buying and using Pirated Products is Not only Illegal but Stupid

Buying and using Pirated Software is Not only Illegal but Stupid. Unless you have been living in some remote island as a hermit and completely removed from the modern world, most of my readers know that using pirated software or buying pirated video or pirated music is illegal. So, I won’t go into the legal technicalities of the subject. What I want to focus on is the inherent stupidity of sustaining this practice.

We all know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Simply put, ignorance can be cured by knowledge; stupidity on the other hand cannot. Why is using pirated anything stupid? Let me enumerate the reasons and elaborate on the damning consequences that result from this stupidity.

First, let’s define what piracy is. Piracy is theft plain and simple. It is stealing something that belongs to another and profiting or benefiting from stolen goods through trade and personal consumption. It is getting something for nothing. We must realize that the freedom to use a proprietary product does not mean “free lunch” or “free to profit”. Music companies, for example provides consumers the freedom to enjoy their products, but not the freedom to resell those products or freedom to illegally distribute those products.

It is easy for us to get all roused whenever we hear of thieves breaking in and stealing from a local business institution, or about sea pirates who steal cargo and fuel from oceanic liners and transport vessels. We attack these perpetrators with such indignation. This, unfortunately, is not the case when it comes to the subject of pursuing software and video pirates. Because of its distributed form, consumers do not feel that they are stealing simply because they have purchased pirated software. In most cases, consumers actively search out kiosks that sell pirated items believing that they are getting more for less. Just imagine being able to purchase a software product that is legitimately sold in the market for hundreds of thousands of pesos for only a couple of hundred pesos? For consumers this is a no-brainer. The fact that they could purchase a software product for less than one percent of its present market value outweighs much of the ethical value that would otherwise discourage a person from engaging in such a transaction.

Unscrupulous entrepreneurs continue to profit because they know that there will always be consumers and fellow thieves who will patronize their products and services—consumers who will always want something for nothing who even serve as powerful marketing tool for this cartel of thieves. These cartels are driven by the could and ignore the ethical boundaries of the should. This transaction of stupidity allows both retailer and consumer to benefit and profit at the expense of another.

Why is software piracy stupid?

First, it plainly creates and sustains a culture of theft. Thieves think only of themselves, what they can profit from without regard to another’s welfare. Those that buy from thieves, even if they argue on the basis of lower costs, are themselves no better than the thieves that stole the product. Thieves benefit from something they did not work to develop or produce, they simply take advantage of another’s work, they fish from another’s bucket of fish.

Second, it kills the industry by competitive disadvantage. People that use pirated software, for example, can easily drop prices for the goods and services simply because it did not cost them as much to gain the added capability. Multimedia development, for example, requires the purchase of high-end software products in order to produce an output that is at par with market standards and quality expectations. These software products serve as an effective barrier to entry which protects an industry. Because of software piracy, this profession is virtually a dead-end in the Philippines only because pirated development software is available allowing those who use such products to drop their prices (which they could not do if they had to make a substantial entry investment in the software and training) offered to the market. Those who legitimately acquired their capabilities now stands at a disadvantage since the market will now opt for a competitor with a lower price offering for similar products and services. An industry that would have offered great opportunity is now destroyed because someone decided to sell and buy a pirated copy of a high value software product. Because of the availability of pirated software, everyone can afford to compete in the same space. It cannot be said that talent will differentiate one from the other since talent can only go so far especially when the expected deliverable is electronic in nature.

Third, because of competitive disadvantage, it polarizes the investment atmosphere of the country. Since everything could literally be bought for a dollar and with the consumer market losing its concept of value, potential investors of high value products and services will continue to distance itself from the country where the promise of sustainability, much less that of return on investment, will be difficult to achieve.

Fourth, in a lopsided competitive environment, small enterprises will suffer as local big business will certainly opt for the lowest prices possible. Since lowest price is a relative function, and not one based on fiduciary limits, competent and capable resources that comprise small enterprises will continue its exodus out of the country as their businesses and employers are forced to shut down from suffering the ill effects of unfair business practices. Here we will find high integrity businesses, whose owners invested everything to make their enterprises succeed, fall prey to unfair competition, driving them from the middle-class to impoverished overnight.
Fifth, as a result of this exodus of capable professionals, market confidence for local small businesses will continue to fall through and the economy will entirely lose its capability to innovate as it continues to metastasize into a purely consuming (and not producing) economy; and with the absence of thriving small enterprises, the rate of people living under the poverty line will increase and the gap between rich and poor will exponentially widen within a short period of time.

While this sounds like over amplification, it isn’t. This stupidity has created larger systemic social and economic problems that becomes difficult to undo. This stupidity, all for the sake of buying items at the lowest possible cost and at all costs, if not arrested quickly will serve as the lynchpin that triggers economic implosion.

So, the next time you are tempted to purchase pirated products, be it software or video products think about what this “savings” will mean for our country’s long terms survival. The next time a vendor offers services at a price point that is low, you need to ask how they can afford to do so. The next time you try to become “financially responsible” by getting the lowest price, think again…this transaction may be the final nail that seals our coffins for good.

The best at the lowest possible price is not an economically sustainable mindset. We must rather choose the best value at market prices. It may seem expensive, but when viewed as a system, it will more likely put more money in the pocket you drew the money from to buy a value-product at market prices.

Then again, if you would rather buy stolen goods and have no qualms about doing so, or even pride yourself about your ability to do so, then you are nothing more than a thief who gets what he or she wants through fellow thieves. Knowledge cannot help you only because your problem is a character flaw (you are a thief); and where knowledge cannot do anything to change the way you think and behave, you are what I call a stupid individual.

We reap what we sow. If we want to see our country economically progress, then we need to attack those who sell pirated software and video, or anything pirated with as much indignation as what we have against thieves who break-in and steal from stores and banks and against carjackers, and snatchers. Remember the low cost to you means economic disaster for everyone else.

Don’t be stupid and think. Don’t buy pirated products and don’t patronize companies that use pirated software products. If they could afford to steal at this level, they won’t think twice about stealing from you.

Unity and the Value of the Priceless

Have you ever asked yourself why we, as Filipinos, have such great difficulty with the ideal of unity? If you had, did you stop to define and analyze the potential reasons to objectively explain this apparently inherent difficulty? Here’s my take on this issue of the elusiveness of unity in the context of the Philippines and her people.

Our concept of unity is one that is bound to the protection and furtherance of vested interests and not to the achievement of a higher ideal and is apparent in our system of politics, in the way we treat our family members, our neighbors, and our friends; and especially in the way we treat those who would contend with us or disagree with our views and opinions. Whenever you hear people talk about unity, what they really mean is not that we need to get along despite our differences, but for everyone else to believe and hold to the same things they believe in and value. Unless this criteria is met, unity remains untenable.

We refuse to define and agree on a binding agent, a set of absolute principles that will unify us as a people. This binding agent must transcend legal constructs such as the constitution and law; it is one that must exist in the mind and heart, a predisposition to remain bound to an ideal that no law or religion could control or convolute. This is what we lack as a people: a unifying agent, a set of binding principles that defines who we are as a people and as individuals.

Just take a moment to examine your personal relationships:
How are you predisposed to think of another’s motivations as it relates to your own interests and well-being?
Are your relationships bound to an abiding set of principles and values, or are they bound to circumstances and experiences?
When was the last time you didn’t harbor thoughts that your friend, associate or acquaintance was trying to pull a fast one on you?
When was the last time you had a relationship that can truly be characterized as one based on trust?
When was the last time you refused to believe in a damning rumor against one who never did you wrong, or gave you a reason to believe they were guilty?
When was the last time you really rejoiced (without envy or doubt, or even thoughts of taking advantage) with a friend, relative, associate, or acquaintance who succeeded?
When was the last time you really held your hand to help a friend in need without trying to gain something bigger in return?
When was the last time you stood by a friend during the toughest of times?
When was the last time you accepted disagreement agreeably?
When was the last time you gave up everything rather than lose integrity by doing something immoral or illegal?

These may sound like simple questions, but your answers to the above determines how well you are disposed toward the ideal of unity.

Unity cannot be achieved when the motivating force behind it is driven and controlled by the protection of personal vested interests. Unity can only be achieved when we become willing to forego material interests and when we decide to think and live by a set of abiding principles that are codified in our hearts, incorruptible and priceless. Unity can only be achieved when we realize that there are valuables that must not be bought or sold at a price, and when we learn the value of the priceless.

Priceless Valuables. More than the value of a family heirloom, priceless valuables are those which define us as individuals and citizens for at the moment we offer these valuables for sale, we not only lose our identity but our self-respect. These valuables are the foundation of systems that govern the way we think and act as individuals and consequently as a responsible and united citizenry. These valuables are: belief, freedom, and incorruptibility.

The Priceless Valuable of Belief
This valuable not only pertains to belief in the Absolute God and Creator, but also pertains to our belief in our fellow Filipinos as the manifestation of our reverence for the Almighty God and Creator. It is simply insufficient for us to profess our belief, our subject ourselves to rituals that are nothing more than a catharsis, a feel-good session where we create an environment that is driven by emotions but lacking in constructive action. Belief is a verb, and as a verb, it denotes action that is present, indicative, and active. Belief is the foundation of trust, and trust is the foundation of constructive and progressive action. Unless we learn to trust each other, we will continue to remain victims of distrust. We will continue to live by adversity and doubt. We will continue to live as one who chases and hides from his own shadow, as one who flees when none pursues. The priceless valuable of belief is foundational to unity for unless we believe and trust the one next to us, we will never come together in unity. Belief and trust are also foundational to the practice of edification, where we build up each other, and push each other to achieve, and pull each other up to achieve greater heights. Rather than suffer the ill-effects of a Pygmalion, we should now break this vicious cycle by working to unlearn behavior that is governed by distrust and disbelief to one that enforces the priceless valuable of trust and belief for our fellow Filipino.

Just think about it. The moment we learn to believe in our fellow Filipino (and such is a learned behavior), we immediately create a self-sustaining and self-reinforcing system that can bring out the best in us. Our individual outlook toward life and the future will improve; the thinking processes we employ to handle adversity and difficulty will also improve which will consequently result in a better and more progressive economy as investors will support local initiatives, that will create jobs and spur progress throughout the country. However, the moment we sell out the valuable of belief, there remains no compelling reason for any of us to do what is right by God or others.

The Priceless Valuable of Freedom
This valuable not only pertains to our freedom to act, but more importantly circumscribes how we should act. When regarded as a valuable, and not as a disposable right, we will quickly realize that the real power of freedom is not in unbridled action, but in tempered action; its real power rests not in the freedom of a single person to impose his or her will on the many but on the ability of the community to preserve collective freedom. The power of freedom will be realized when we learn that the person next to us is just as free as we are, free to choose to do what is right by God and his fellow Filipino.

Freedom as a valuable and not a disposable right is an important principle we need to learn as a people. As much as it is a personal priceless valuable to us as individuals, so is it a priceless valuable to the person next to us and to the people around us. Regarding freedom as a priceless valuable and not as a disposable right, negates every action that seeks to impose itself on another’s freedom, it creates a vivid contrast that will cause the corruptible to stand out as a blurry cup in a setting of highly polished silver. Freedom as a priceless valuable will never be for sale.

The Priceless Valuable of Incorruptibility
The priceless valuable of incorruptibility can only be protected when we have learned the priceless value of belief and freedom. It cannot exist without the first two valuables, for the absence of the valuables of belief and freedom is a clear indication of the existence of corruption.

Incorruptibility, in this context, does not mean perfection, it simply means having the capacity to know the difference to choose what is right and just before God and man. As a priceless valuable it completes a powerful triumvirate of value that defines who we are as individuals and determines how we will act as citizens.

If we simply work to strengthen this triumvirate in our personal lives, we will have very little difficulty in uniting as a people, steadfast on the ideal of becoming a progressive nation in the future, unbreakable in its resolve to become the best that we can be as a diverse but integrally unified collective before God and the whole of humanity.

History’s Hard Facts

The record of history shows that our ancestors, under the leadership of Lakan Dula and Raha Sulayman, revolted against colonizing powers as early as 1574. History also shows that revolts were fueled by a desire to regain lost freedom and liberties, and, as a response to socio-economic and religious oppression. Uprisings that occurred since 1574, stemmed from a desire to regain sovereignty or combat socio-economic and religious oppression. There is not a single decade, since Spain occupied the Archipelago, that was free from some form of uprising or revolutionary effort. Despite the lack of efficient communication and a fragmented geography, the same core issues fueled revolutionary initiatives throughout the archipelago without a united leadership. Local leaders did not have to meet to vote on what they held and valued as sacred. They simply engaged in action to protect the interests of their domains and people within their domains, to expel those who violated these rights they considered inalienable.

Gleaning from historians, it is apparent that early Filipinos did not understand the meaning of unity at the macro level. Each Raha, Datu, or even the local Babaylan, had one thing in mind, which is, to protect their own interests. Hardly would a local leader raise his finger or use his resources to protect the interests of a neighboring kingdom or tribe. In fact, if selling out the neighboring tribe could mean progress on the part of their own tribe, our ancestors would not think twice about collaborating with another who could help them achieve their objectives of expanding domains and territories and increasing the wealth of the ruling class even if it meant that their friend could become their enemy in the future. Collaboration was employed not to achieve equality, but was used as an instrument to achieve the vested interests of a tribe’s ruling class.

We have to remember that the Philippines was not under a single kingdom but was divided into several fiefdoms. The discovery of the LCI or Laguna Copperplate Instruction at the mouth of Laguna de Bay a couple of decades ago (which was carbon dated to 980 CE), for example, shows that the sovereign to which the author of the letter appealed to was as far away as the kingdom of Java.

In my opinion, the values and characteristics that are used to describe the Filipinos today, are values which were likely extended only to those of the same family and tribe, and to those (foreign traders) who could benefit the interests of their tribe or kingdom. This would have resulted in fierce competition between neighboring tribes to monopolize and control trade. Since interests were dictated by the ruling class or royal family who obviously wanted to dominate, there was not much by way of cooperation between indigenous tribes and kingdoms. This resulted in the propagation of deep prejudices between our early ancestors. It is interesting to observe how that we as a people have always been hospitable to foreigners but always discriminated against our own. This mindset can be traced back to pre-Hispanic times.

The fact that Spain, and every other colonizer, before the US, tried to unite the Archipelago under a single, sovereign rule could have been the very reason why it ultimately failed in its efforts to completely integrate the people into its empire. There was too much tradition that Spain had to undo; feuds and traditions deeply rooted to protect the interests of the family, tribe, or kingdom. The concept of community involvement is alien since most activities were either determined by the household authority, or dictated by the ruler of the tribe. In both situations, action was dictated and never voluntary. Choice was enjoyed only by the ruling class who made the choices for everyone else. Interesting enough, those within their domains fully subscribed to this form of authority because the leader of the tribe could very well be a slave owner or a blood relation of a majority of those who comprised the tribe or kingdom. Our early ancestors (slave or free) were convinced that their leaders have their best interests in mind and at heart and they will do everything to protect those interests even if it meant selling-out their fellow. In most cases, people did not have a choice but to submit to the dictates of authority.

The concept of an archipelago under a single nation, managed and controlled by a sovereign ruler or government, is alien to our pre-Hispanic ancestors. It was only during Spain’s rule over the islands that our ancestors were forced to reckon with a form of central governance. Because of the sheer military advantage and monetary resources Spain enjoyed, most of these tribes and kingdoms (with the exception of those in Mindanao), that would have otherwise fought to maintain control, had no choice but to submit to Spain’s authority. Those that refused, continued to revolt against the colonizers in small pockets of resistance throughout the country and were hunted down as insurgents.
According to the observations of Agoncillo and Zaide, each revolt was distinct in its agenda and purpose. It was only lately that historians framed and popularized a common objective of the revolution. Filipino revolutionaries refused to subscribe to a single and united revolutionary leadership—they had to protect their own interests. Every leader (because of a tribe and clan mentality) wanted their interests to come first; when opposed or ignored, it would not be a stretch to say that they made the enemy of their enemy their friend.

The Philippine Revolution was as fragmented as the islands that comprised the Archipelago. Movements like the Katipunan, it seems was limited to Luzon since revolutionaries in Mindanao never subscribed to this movement since what they were protecting was the preservation of their traditions and religion (Islam). Our ancestors in Mindanao even refused to call themselves Filipino as they refused to recognize Spanish rule over them as a people or be called under the name christened upon the inhabitants of the Archipelago by the Spanish. The prejudices our ancestors had toward those who were not of their tribe was a tool Spain effectively used to suppress and ultimately defeat even the most promising of early liberation efforts.

In-fighting, grandstanding (as in the case of Bonifacio), characterized every single revolutionary effort across the country. There was always a pre-condition to participation. No one simply joined the revolution because it was the right thing to do, but because most revolutionaries saw the revolution as a means of pushing their own interests and personal agendas, like Andres Bonifacio who wanted to be crowned the Filipino King.

Dr. Sonia Zaide states: “The early revolts and uprisings ended disastrously. This was mainly because of the absence of the nationalism among the Filipinos and their lack of national leaders. Nationalism was not yet developed in them prior to the martyrdom of Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora. On the contrary, there was much tribal enmity, section jealousy, and clan hostility among them, which Spain encouraged by her policy of divide et impera (divide and rule). Instead of helping each other in a common cause, they sided with their oppressors in suppressing the revolt of their blood brothers. Thus the Pampanguenos aided the Spaniards in putting down the Tagalog uprising, and when the Pamapanguenos themselves rose in rebellion, the Tagalogs retaliated by helping the Spaniards. The Ilocano revolt under Silang in 1762-63 would have succeeded if the other Ilocanos and Cagayanes had not helped the Spaniards” (Zaide, Sonia M., The Philippines: A Unique Nation, p. 201-202)

Even Jose Rizal, did not have confidence in what the Katipunan stood for as he implicitly believed that Filipinos were not ready for self-governance. There is no credible record that Jose Rizal ever became part of the Katipunan. Were it not for the efforts and intervention of the United States in its mission to unite Filipinos, it would have been unlikely for Rizal or other recognized heroes to be ordained as “national” heroes. Arguments along this contentious vein continue to this day!

Having set the context, allow me to answer the questions posted by Andy:

ANDY:
“I wonder, have you considered the short-lived Philippine revolutionary government of Bonifacio (president) and Jacinto (secretary of state) established in 1897?”

DENNIS:
In my previous post, I intentionally began my discourse from the period of US colonization only because it is recent history and because the form of government introduced by the US is the closest to what we can associate with today. We have long forgotten what it means to be under a monarchy, and have lost written records much our history under Spanish and pre-Spanish rule. And finally, the paradigm shift in governance set legal precedents that are at the root of our present problems in policy and enforcement.

Although this revolutionary government (Katipunan) is recognized as on that did exist, the limited scope of the movement (primarily Luzon), meant that it was not recognized across the Archipelago. There were undoubtedly several other revolutionary movements occurring in other places around the Visayas and around Mindanao that have not been captured in our history books. The Kaptipunan is the most prominent only because it is the movement that received the most attention.

ANDY:
“Why the lust for power, Dennis? Could it be perhaps because of the general sense of helplessness caused by colonial rule? I can only imagine the plight of our forefathers when their entitlement to the land of their birth was pulled under them by force and alien methods...”
DENNIS:
This lust for power is inherent to the human race and is not characteristic of any one particular race. It is man’s attempt to control as much as he possible could in a world governed by change. We are no more power-hungry than our closest neighbors or the person next us. The reason why power-hunger is amplified in the country is simply because we continue to allow power-hungry families to persist and remain in positions that give them the means and methods (in our case) to realize their objectives and protect their vested interests using a democratic façade to maintain a picture of respectability.

It is easy to attribute the plight of our people to some form of post-traumatic experience only worse in that the condition, unlike its psychological counterpart, continues to persist in every generation. It is worse because studies in post-traumatic stress disorder is specific to an individuals experience and is not passed from one generation to the next. What a person suffering from this disorder could do is affect the individual experience of their friends, families, co-workers, and loved ones so as to create traumatic experiences on the part of close associates.
We continue to remain in this quagmire because, as a people, we make it a point to pass on our bad experiences to succeeding generations; making it a point that our children never forget the bad things that have happened to their parents; giving them a false source of energy and purpose to succeed at all costs.

Perhaps it could be our catharsis or a way for us to achieve a level of vindication for the poor decisions we have made in our lifetimes. It is blame-shifting. The way we think has formed into a system in itself. There needs to be someone to blame; there needs to be a patsy, someone we can point to as the source and reason for our present difficulty; whether this person is alive or dead for countless generations is immaterial, what is important is that we always come out as the protagonist in our version of the story.

It is unfortunate, but we as a people, do not gravitate toward the positive, but instead, we flock towards the negative even when we eschew everything negative (such as failure). This is because adhering to positives propels us toward constructive action, whereas the negative only requires speculation and opinion that does not necessarily compel anyone to act positively or constructively. Deconstructive thinking is much more contagious than constructive thinking. In deconstructive mode, all you need to do is refer back to a bad experience followed by much useless blabbering. This is probably why the masses patronize gossip shows, and shows that invade private experiences—all trivial. This is why politicians and those in power know that if they can provide good entertainment that the masses could sing with and dance to, they know that they will win an election. This is why politicians and prominent families know that when you fill the bellies of the masses that complain, they will stop complaining; they are confident that principle is the farthest thing from the minds of the masses. The masses tend to prove this theory time and again. “Tanggapin mo na, laman tiyan din yan, pagkatapos, tumahimik ka dahil nakinabang ka naman, di ba?…” The proverbial bowl of stew in exchange for the birth rite.

The masses love the trivial, since the trivial never requires action. Triviality is never found in constructive thinking since constructive thinking is governed by principle and objective purpose. Triviality simply fills one’s mind with so much useless information that no room is left in the mind to cultivate principle—it is never doing what is right, but referencing the tragedy someone ended up in as a result of doing what is right.

We use words like helpless, hopeless, and powerless as a way to remove ourselves from any form of responsible action since we know that responsible action will require more from us—a sacrifice hardly anyone (who incidentally believes they have sacrificed enough) is willing to make. We tell stories that are emotionally riveting but are intellectually wanting. Such is our culture. We are trapped in a Pygmalion, a cycle where we end up fulfilling our own prophecy of doom. The words we choose to describe our personal circumstances frames and determines the mental processes that follow.
So, attributing the present condition of Filipinos as the ill-effects of colonial rule is the easy path to take. It is an argument that does not compel action. Compelling every Filipino to stop dwelling in the past and begin towards a different future is the narrow path, the path less traveled.


ANDY:
“Only a few families really did have a say in Philippine government on a regular basis...have the Filipino people done enough to ensure that those elected in public office have been serving the interests of the many and not the few?”

DENNIS:
In my opinion, the Friar lands Act of 1904 has much to do with our present plight as a people. Why? First, this act was supposed to return land sequestered by Spanish Friars back to the Filipinos, but the terms of the sale only benefited rich landowners rather than the average Filipino. Second, the American procedure of acquisition (Torrens Titles) displaced and discouraged small farmers—a problem that according to Dr. Zaide was amplified in non-Christian tribal regions where land-grabbers claimed land in which they had no ancestral right. Finally, it showed how that our would be liberators really favored the landed elite. With incentives to encourage commerce and trade, rich hacienderos enlarged their holdings and became the allies of American colonizers.

If we do a detailed historical study, to take into account the beginnings of every prominent political family, we will find relationships that trace back to these rich hacienderos. With money to spare, they made sure to protect their interests by controlling the system that could potentially break them—government. Enter the age of neo-feudalism (democracy style).
The relational dynamics I described earlier in this post continues to play a major role in the economic framework that drives the country, only this time it is more than just land, but an attempt by a single family (tribe or clan) to control (monopolize) the economy as a whole. Datus (Tycoons) marry their children to each other—creating a bigger giant. If by chance one of these elites marries a commoner, the solution is a pre-nuptial. But in the end, the only sure way to protect their economic interests is to protect the one system that can break them—government. We remain in this quagmire.

ANDY:
“I think majority of Filipinos have more sense in themselves than to merely subscribe to a powerful political family...Again, have you considered that the so-called Philippine government wasn't really theirs? That the masa never really had a Champion except perhaps for a Magsaysay or an Erap?”


DENNIS:
Sense, whether common or peculiar, has nothing to do with subscription or submission. It is difficult to employ sensibilities when someone continues to hold the power over your next meal; and without an environment that supports principle over convenience, a growling stomach will usually win the argument over one’s sensibilities. We call this “kapit sa patalim”. This is the norm among the masses, and until we establish systems that will combat fatalism, we have to quadruplicate our efforts to educate as well provide alternative systems that will effectively combat a system that is deeply rooted in Philippine society and the Filipino psyche.

We have to remember that the methods that govern the economy and government of the Philippines is Machiavellian in every shape and form. In my opinion, an economy that employs capitalism but does not have the requisite system of government to protect the interests and will of the people is Machiavellian and in a Machiavellian environment, princes runs the show. Let’s call a spade a spade.

A book published by Harvard Business Review entitled “World View” by Goeffrey Garten, dedicates several chapters on the dynamics of Asian businesses and the peculiarities of Philippine business (as not being Asian, but distinctly Filipino). Across several pages, the editor implies how that the economy is controlled only by a few families allied with their western counterparts, and how that billions of dollars courses through the underground economy every single day. The only way this system could persist is by reinforcing a feudal mindset. As we all know, feudal lords protected family interests (this is what gives value to their crests) and those non-relatives who protects their interests. But unlike the old feudalism, where false pretenses and aggression could result in one immediately looking at the deadly end of a sword, this neo-feudalism uses the court system to enervate would-be contenders.

I have always held to the conviction that the problem of our country is not government but in the ethics of private industry. The drivers of the economy will always drive policy, and no financial tycoon will put him or herself at a disadvantage. This is why anti-dynasty laws will never be enforced until the upper and lower houses of the legislature is actually represented by unrelated representatives and senators, and local government is represented not by a single family name but one who has the best interest of the population at heart, who will at this level enforce anti-dynasty principles to protect the very democratic process they swore to uphold. Until that time, small businesses will continue to be disadvantaged, and the educated and middle class will continue to emigrate, and the masses will continue to choose and live with the lesser of two evils.

Lest we forget…

Lest We Forget...

It’s the eleventh hour on the eve of what can be an historic turning point of the Philippines. The journey from our independence from the US in 1946 has wrought much pain and suffering for the masses and generations of Filipinos. Despite the many changes that were supposed to introduce economic progress as a result of our independence, the country remains in a Pygmalion, caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy of disparity, inequality, corruption, and economic travail.
Captured in books of history is a written record of our propensity to make even the most democratic of processes incredulous. Philippine politics, from as early as the first half of the 20th century have been dithered by politicians who find difficulty admitting defeat and conceding to what could be the key to a better future. The Philippines, based on the record of history, has never gone through an election without controversy.

Politicians and their cronies, claim “cheating” as the only reason for their defeat from the earliest free elections of the country. Even if elections were truly clean, Filipinos would still assume that winning candidates employed dishonest methods to win their office. For most Filipinos, it all comes down to living with the lesser of two evils; while for politicians, it all comes down to who can employ cheating in the most discrete and innovative means possible.

Why is our political process so wrought with controversy? The answer is power. If we return to historical records of politics in the Philippines, we will find that the people in places of political power are those from prominent families, the old rich from the Spanish era. It is about power. These families have to maintain power to ensure their interests are continually protected. This will involve having a family member run for office, or finance someone within their own feudal network to run for office with a single agenda in mind—protect their vested interests. If by chance their political bet was beaten at the polls, the first order of the day is to cast doubt on the entire electoral process then claim that the winning candidate cheated in the process.

Philippine politics never represented the will of the masses, but the will of the elite few who vie for dominance in much the same way as feudal lords expanded their territories and influence, only this time rather than take up arms to achieve their goals, they use the democratic process to achieve their objectives. This is evidenced by political dynasties that are in place at every layer of government. These families use every means known to them to maintain political power. Quid Pro Quo. They have convinced themselves and the people within their feudal network that they, and those that carry their name and endorsements, are the only ones with the right to hold political office. If by chance someone else gets elected, all they have to do is claim that the winner cheated in the elections. In the political playing field, those with conscience, honor, and discretion are an endangered species.
This system pervades every layer of Philippine society and economy. It is equivocacy hidden beneath the guise of egalitarianism, feudalism behind the mask of democracy—a feudal system legitimized by the vote of constituents who are easily sold to the idea that a family name more powerfully represents their interests, and that variety in the political realm could spell disaster for them—or so they are led to believe.

For most Filipinos, the pain of changing is greater than the pain of maintaining the status quo only because past attempts for change resulted in chaos. The fortitude and willingness to put everything at stake to achieve real democracy does not exist as a system in the Philippines. Those that uphold democratic values are immediately branded as either insurgents and de-stabilizers.
We have forgotten the legacy of those who died to liberate our country and her people from the very systems that are now employed to sustain the interests of the vested few. Those that died for our liberty are turning over in their graves. We forgotten the sacrifices they have made for the country. We have failed to inculcate their values into the minds of our children and failed in compelling our political leaders to embody those values that shook the foundations of early colonizers. Instead, we continue to retain the very characteristics that prevented the country from realizing true liberation. We continue to doubt each other and to tell on each other. We continue to silently hold to prejudices and social castes that are at the heart of our inability to rise above our present circumstances. We continue to sell-out to the highest bidder.

The fact that politics is about who has the funds to campaign is proof that everything is for sale, everything comes at the right price. We simply do not understand the value of the priceless. We do not understand that he is no fool who gives what he cannot own to keep what he cannot lose.

If there is a time where we should exercise righteous indignation, then that time is now. We should learn that dancing and playing the game of the vested few, believing everything simply because empirical evidence could be spun or fabricated to support or invalidate claims is never to the best interest of the now and the future.

It is true that given our present circumstances, we have no other way to go but up. However, if we continue to choose the very people and families who are behind our failure to rise above, then we can be assured we will never rise above.

Lest we forget, Filipinos continue to die daily for our freedom and liberties. They have followed the paths of the greatest of Filipinos who were willing to risk life and limb to protect priceless values that characterize the truly free. In life or death, these heroes, known and unknown to us, embody the enduring. Admittedly, living a truly liberated and free life is more difficult than dying for freedom and liberty, but those who truly lived for liberty and freedom would welcome death if it meant securing the value of the priceless.

Lest we forget, we need to live for the priceless rather than live a life that can be bought at a price.

A Crisis of Ethics

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “ethic” as, “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles; a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance; a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness).” By its very definition, ethics assumes that a set of absolutes are in place from which such a discipline could be derived. Without these absolutes in place, ethics will not have a foundation to stand on.

The question then is, “who determines what these absolutes are, and how do we determine whether such absolutes are immutable?” The source and character of absolutes are important considerations in defining a system of ethics, and this issue of source and character is at the heart of our present crisis of ethics.

Generally speaking, the ethics that govern business interests and stakeholder value are not bound by moral absolutes but by material expediency. It is not a question of right or wrong, but a question of minimizing risk and maximizing material gain. The ethics that parameterize the business environment is not about equitable exchange but one oriented towards securing much from very little. Most of the time, how a person defines what is ethical or morally upright in a relationship is usually determined by how much one wants to extract, or how one desires to be treated and not necessarily on a set of moral absolutes. In the world of business, it seems, only size matters at the end of the day.

At the inter-personal level, ethics is governed implicitly by social class and tradition and not on a set of universally accepted moral absolutes. Those who are of the elite have the capability of determining the ethics that he or she wishes to employ, often biased towards how she or he thinks would be to their best interest. We live in an age where everyone feels that he or she deserves more that what they have, and are driven to act in ways that force their own interests and maximum benefit on a given situation. In extreme cases such even leads to feuds that span several generations. We are predisposed to force our will at the expense of another’s liberty, to force our own comfort at the expense of another’s misery. The values taught in the home are now considered as convenient guidelines which are dispensable; only important and “absolute” only when such principles serve to benefit personal gain or interests.

Collateral damage, survival of the fittest, risk of mutual destruction, acceptable casualty, many shades of gray, plausible deniability, legal loop-holes, moderated transparency, material expediency, competitive advantage, situation ethics, white lies, are only a few examples of the many constructs that govern modern thinking processes as we know it today; constructs that run contrary to the vein of moral absolutes. This condition characterizes our inter-personal relationships, be it in business, private, or even our religious affairs. Truth, by popular definition, is no longer based on what is right and moral, but on what can be explicitly proven. Even the constructs of right and moral are often considered as relative in nature, with its definition and application dependent on the immediate context wherein it will be, or is applied. While we could say that humanity has not completely abandoned the ideal of absolutes, it may just as well be the case since classifying these absolutes as mere ideals implicitly and categorically suggests that these ideals are more an exception rather than the rule.

Recent movements or fads to re-introduce ethics into the business environment have been mediocre at best. Total Ethics Management or TEM, for example, posits ethics as relative rather than absolute—a system of ethics based on context. Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C.M. Mar, for example, in their book, Asia’s New Crisis: Renewal through Total Ethics Management, compiles contributions of different executives from some of the top corporations around Asia and the Asia Pacific Region on the subject of ethics management. In this book a substantial amount of space was devoted to discussing the benefits of eastern religious beliefs in an attempt to show how such belief systems framed the basis of successfully building a system of ethics within the contributor’s specific contexts. Several pages was devoted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Islam. That these authors failed to include a treatment on Judaism and Christianity into their treatise is perhaps indicative, on the one hand, of their conviction of Christianity’s inferiority, its inability to provide a suitable framework for the world to solve its crisis of ethics. On the other hand, it could also be that the authors considered the orthodoxy that characterizes the Judeo-Christian faith as too rigid and uncompromising given that the Judeo-Christian faith is based on absolutes it considers to be universal and immutable. By choosing to be eclectic, Richter and Mar introduced a definition of ethics, not as a function of absolutes, but situational expediency to synthesize global business culture with local religious belief—Judeo-Christianity as the exception—a method that follows Hegelian dialectic methods.

Their approach did not solve the problem, it simply compartmentalized it to a local context. What they did was force the issue of ethics as function of context and not of absolutes. The book suggests that if you want to build a global and socially responsible company, you need to introduce ethics back as a mainstream behavior, but do so in a manner that will remain consistent with local religious beliefs. This method may sell a lot of books, but it is far from solving the crisis of ethics that plagues humanity today.

Ethics is a matter of universal absolutes, and until we are able to reckon with absolutes, until we are able to accept absolutes as universal and immutable, humanity will constantly be plagued by the complexity and degenerative effects of relativism to the point of complete ethical desensitization. By attempting to localize the meaning and implications of ethics, we make issue of ethics a non-issue. If everyone can make their own set of absolutes, then in reality there are no absolutes. And without absolutes, one does not possess moral authority. Without moral authority, all that is left is material expediency.

Do we really want to live in a world openly governed by material expediency? Even those who often take advantage of others would refuse to be at the receiving end of their behavior. To minimize this possibility, they resort to methods that appeal to the sense of ethics and absolutes of those they exercise authority over. This is where absolutes are typically seen as most useful—when it is employed to control or limit the actions of another. But when it comes to having absolutes control how they act, well, this becomes a completely separate and dispensable issue.

We cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. There is much wisdom in this statement. But despite this clear message, we have never really taken Einstein’s words beyond its anecdotal value. What will become of us in the very near future? If we do not change our course, we will all suffer the consequences. We will sink further into the mire of our pretenses. Worse still, instead of leaving a legacy our children could be proud of, we will leave them with problems compounded over time-accursed by the work of our own hands. We have been at the crossroads for quite sometime now and we need to define a new paradigm, a new way of providing for real answers and sustainable solutions based on absolutes; absolutes that are universal and immutable if we are to secure a better future for humanity as a whole.

Surely progress does not have to be secured at the expense of moral absolutes. In the final analysis, this crisis of ethics will only persist if we allow it to. Teaching ourselves to live on the basis of principle is the first step towards sustainable solutions, the first step to solving our crisis of ethics. But if we allow ourselves to remain bound to material expediency, we will never break free of the yoke that enslaves our lives and the generations of lives that follow us.

How Do I Make the Right Choice?

It is a universally accepted principle that “the choices we make today determines our tomorrow.” But exactly how do I make the right choice today? If we could mnemonically tap into the minds and consciences of every human being alive today I am certain that this question will come out to be the single most asked question by any one person through any given day.

How do I make the right choice?

There are governing principles or value systems which we have been taught to uphold from the earliest years of our lives. Some use negative methods, while others constructive ones. But regardless of the method employed, the point is, we have been inculcated with a set of values and system of norms that are both universal and particular (borne out of family tradition). As we mature, we discover how that some of these values tend to contradict our very experiences. From such contradicting experiences we synthesize new mental models that govern our thought processes and actions. The resulting synthesis is not necessarily better than the thesis or antithesis from which we derived our new models, but it is a way for us to internally harmonize our lives despite the dissonance that reverberates between our system of values against the reality of daily experiences.

We develop a personal philosophy for survival. This philosophy may not necessarily be absolute in character, in fact it may very well consist of layers of contradicting practices and norms. Nevertheless we tend to minimize such contradictions in an effort to find the “silver lining” among the dark clouds that ominously looms in our horizon. We synthesize to harmonize.

Sure, we have absolute principles that we have been taught to live by that are incontestably important, but when push comes to shove, we tend to opt for the path that leads to harmonization. It seems that principle is only valuable when the results are favorable for the person making such a stand, but when that person becomes the object of the punitive end of principle, it is typical to expect one to reason “plausible deniability” if only to inoculate oneself from the negative consequences standing on absolute principle brings. It is at this juncture that we find much compromise occurring (anyone remember the tenets of Hegelian dialectics?)—better them than I or any of my family—the first instance only serving as a primer to a life filled with compromise until our system of though and living are so overwhelmed rendering us unable to distinguish whether our decisions are made for convenience or conviction.

Let’s take our political situation as an example…

The Filipino culture in general, values compromise over principled conviction. It is not uncommon for us to hear quips that “principle doesn’t bring food at the table” or “you can’t eat principle”. We put too much stock on “losing face” to the point that it wrong can be made right in relatively easy ways. This is for good reason. The prevailing system will explode should the new wine of principle be poured into the old wineskins of traditions of compromise.

How do you convince everyone to pay their actual taxes? How do you convince banks to make credit much more accessible to the public? How could any of the existing political parties convincingly argue that they could really eliminate corruption beyond reasonable doubt? Can any political supporter truly say to him or herself that his or her candidate is absolutely free and will remain absolutely free of corruption?

Even though there are those who are incorruptible, the general public simply considers them better at hiding whatever it is they purportedly hide. Does it mathematically compute how candidates can afford to invest hundreds of millions of pesos in a campaign for a post that pays less than a half a million pesos a year? Would you take a job that requires you to pay 1000% over what your employer will promise to pay? It simply does not compute.

What if these millions used for campaigning were instead used to actually demonstrate action rather than communicate, what everyone already knows are potentially empty promises? Is it because they could be construed to be buying votes? We have a system that prohibits any aspirant from actually doing what they said they would do but allow ludicrous amounts to be invested into a campaign of promises? Who really benefits? Certainly not the constituents who will tender their votes.

Just imagine if we had a system that allowed these funds to instead be used to back up credit facilities for SME’s? Wouldn’t that be a change. Where the criteria for making the list is raising so much capital to back up or underwrite credit facilities to realize real poverty alleviation. 250M PHP is definitely a substantial amount to help a huge number of entrepreneurs who have great ideas and skills but no access to capital facilities; 250M PHP will feed 25M hungry and homeless Filipinos for an entire day, help the millions who require medical assistance, or put up world-class neighborhood schools, daycares, or even improve the facilities of a minimum of 10 public schools. It can definitely pay for the education of the 625 brightest scholars to attend the most prestigious universities in the country, or 892 scholars to attend less prestigious universities, or 1250 scholars to attend the University of the Philippines. Now figure 250M times the number of political aspirants. To wit, this amount likely constitutes less than 50% of their overall campaign budget.

Something’s gotta give…I am sure I am not alone in thinking this way. The good thing about numbers is that 1 plus one will never end up as 4 or 20, but will absolutely be 2 in every instance. Somehow the political mathematical axiom is that a 455K PHP a year job that has limited tenure is worth investing over 500M PHP just to land the job.

Synthesis: A compromise not of intellect but of values. Sure there’s the political platform, but when we look into the aggregate amount it took a candidate to get elected into office, and the amount he or she has been able to add into the country’s GDP, one would be hard pressed to find acceptable returns on investment. But then again, we can look into the corporate machinery that funded these campaigns, and 250M PHP is a drop in the bucket compared to a 1000% ROI.

Another example of this contradiction is found in our personal values. Dualistic. This is how we have been conditioned to be as a people. We say we value family, but we would no sooner sacrifice breaking up a family if only to bring in dollars. We say we love our family, but the type of entertainment the masses embrace are those depicting violence, infidelity, chaos, compromise, depleted of principled conviction which purportedly forms our value system as a people. We say we are a hospitable and friendly people, but we would be willing to break up a friendship for less than two thousand pesos, and so on and so forth.

So how do we make the right choice?

No we come to another period of opining and theorizing. Voices to be heard in the “who’s who?” of society; voices loud and filled with promises which overwhelms the cries of the people for change to a slight whimper. It is interesting that the candidate who decided to stand on principle and run as an independent only because he does not want to violate personal principle, is now (at least according to the papers) unlikely to win. Is it because of coverage, or the lack of party support, or are my fellow citizens unable to value a principled man when they see one? This man in my view is not straddling the fence. He has made a stand—to stand on principled conviction. But then again, standing on principle can mean many different things to different people. In the minds of the many, he could be one that simply could not get along, or one that is left without an option but to remain an independent—it all depends on the political spins framed in sound-bytes that occupy the various communication frequencies of the land.

So how do we make the right choice when we intentionally deviate from the very values and absolutes that serve as the foundation for making the right choice as individuals? Does it all come down to best guess? A lesser-of-two-evils type of decision? Are we willing to render as credible the performance records of aspirants? Or do we view these objective metrics as malleable?

At the personal level…are we willing to live on the basis of principled conviction even when such a conviction will likely result in not being able to temporarily bring food on the table? Right choices are always wrapped in difficulty since right choices are narrow roads, single paths that are usually lonely and unpopular...often taken in single file.

So how do we make the right choice?

To ensure you make the right choice, you must first ask yourself if you are willing to personally live the right way despite the reality that the consequences of your decisions may not always be to your advantage, it may not always result in wealth or success, but at its worst may result in sheer adversity—sometimes requiring the ultimate sacrifice of life and limb.

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

Why Electoral Automation in the Philippines Stands to Fail Again

Those of our fellow citizens who are not as familiar with the world of technology and those that have only been users of gadgets will find the idea of automation a novel one. Indeed, we who clamor for cheating-free elections is justified in our assertion that automated elections, or technology driven voting processes, will definitely curb irregularities and safeguard suffrage in the country…but hold your horses, let’s look at this iceberg of an issue!

Last night, while watching the local news, I occasioned upon a COMELEC spokesperson who was showcased as gathering information on new technologies in preparation for the 2007 elections. They were, once again, beginning to review technologies that could be employed but gave a caveat that their activities are purely investigative in nature since legislators have yet to pass a bill that would give them the authority and resources to even begin pre-bidding processes. We must be vigilant, and watch against these activities even at this early stage as irregularities typically begin as early as the “investigative” stages.

Why will electoral automation (at this stage) fail again?

The question is not cynical or pessimistic in nature. The fact is, we can pass as many bills that mandate the electoral commission to employ automation technologies but it does not mean that it can work. The reason is, we still lack the enabling infrastructure to make it happen. We have to remember that automation technologies are only as effective as the infrastructure it supports. In the case of our election processes, we lack key components of an enabling infrastructure.

The most important of course is have a High-integrity (as opposed to hi-fidelity) primary identification mechanism. This is the single most important component that we completely lack. Primary identification mechanisms (PIM’s) provide the credibility for automated results, without it, we have no way of establishing whether or not the results are cheating-free. Without PIM’s, all we are doing is making an already corrupt system much more efficient. The key benefit of automating the elections is not realized in the voting process per se, but in the counting or tallying of votes that will not employ any form of human intervention. Unless we can verify, beyond reasonable doubt, the identities of those who voted, automation simply delivers faster, but nevertheless, incredulous results.

We currently have sufficient legislation to govern the business rules that will drive the algorithms for voting and counting. This process is mature since we are employing non-Filipino technologies. But don’t be deceived, the problem that will arise from this will be related to the verification of identities, and unless this process is secured, locked, sealed, and made absolute, irregularities that typically occur at both ends of the process (input and output) will continue. In this case, all that would be eliminated are the visible footprints of malefactors replacing boxes with their own. They will be able to establish a photo-opportunity by showing how quickly COMELEC delivers the results, but will be incapable to warrant, in the strictest technical sense, the identities of the voters whose votes are being tallied.

If automation is allowed to proceed at this point, there will be no way for watchdogs to monitor the physical trails of cheating since it would have graduated to a new level—to a virtual, cyber level, where no one can track (even if you are allowed to monitor this online) whether or not cheating occurs. Sure enough, voting precincts would not have to employ so many people or the military; it may even be publicized in the news that no registration certificate boxes were replaced (there would be no need to since the data that will be moved is already in a portable binary form). In automation we must focus on controlling the inflows(who), business algorithms(how), and outflows(what). A failure in one, means a failure in all.

Electoral automation settles the issue of counting irregularities. But if we want this to work, then emphasis on the identity (source of information) of voters must FIRST be established. Voter identities MUST be verifiable, singular, and absolute.

Why will it fail? Simply because we are focusing too much on the form and not on the substance. Electoral automation is good, but it still falls under the GI-GO rule: garbage in-garbage out. If the results generated by this process is to be credible, then the process of establishing a single, verifiable and absolute identity must be in place and enforced.

Don’t be deceived or mislead. Call on your senators and representatives and tell them to pass legislation that controls the identity so that this becomes singular, verifiable, and absolute.

Crisis in the Church

It is 2 am Sunday morning. I've been in bed for the last 3 hours trying
to get some shut-eye, but tried as I did, sleep never came. I spent
these 3 hours tossing and turning, turning from reading the Scriptures
to meditation, to prayer, pouring my heart to ther Savior, and like
David, seeking that the Almighty give ear to the groaning of my heart.

No, my prayer was not about asking the Lord to provide for my daily
needs or about the superficial requests that Christians often find
themselves preoccupied with. My prayer and thoughts, however was about
the state of local bible believing churches that I have had the
privilege of observing and celebrating worship with. It was about the
pastors, deacons, elders, and workers I have had the chance to meet with
over the course of the past six months, how each of those conversations
replayed in my mind as I brought those concerns to the throne of Grace.
It was about the growing indifference most pastors and believers have
developed concerning the church. It is about the sad reality that a
majority of these pastors rise behind the pulpit Sunday after another
ill-prepared to handle the great burden and responsibility that awaits
them there, and the fact that most believers lack the discernment to
know this to be the case, or if they do, they certainly lack the
boldness to confront their ministers.

It was about the power-plays, polarization, and maneuvering that is more
commonly experienced in the corporate world and least to be expected in
a body comprised of spiritual kin. It was about the metrics most
churches employed to measure performance--number in attendance, amount
of offerings, number of invited guests, number this and number that.

Disconcerting is the fact that for most churches, the amount of cash
they have at the beginning of every week becomes the metric of ministry
impact and success. A majority of churches are simply operating in a
rut. Sunday morning, mid-week prayer meetings, visitation, home
fellowships, etc., etc., etc. But despite these routine activities,
what is lacking is the depth and substance of the content of their ministry.

Everyone loves to talk about evangelism, but in terms that sounds more
like an advertising and marketing campaign, repeating buzz words that
have little meaning to those who employ these ideas, save for the
popularity attributed to it by the majority of local attendees; These
churches spend so much time around the mechanics of ministry but spend
so little time and effort in developing the true substance of ministry
and even less in fulfilling the purpose of ministry.

***********

The time is 12:07 pm. I just arrived from attending Sunday worship and
am appalled by the lack of Biblical basis in the music. The praise team
looks more like a chorus of multiple soloists but worse, the praises and
songs communicated a message that was superficial and shallow; these
songs lacked the doctrinal bearing that the Scriptures clearly commanded
church music to distinctly possess.

There was a level of anxiety present among those in attendance. The
message was shallow and routine. It was a deliberation of words and
Scriptural references but it definitely lacked the thrust, passion, and
conviction that must characterize an admonition to worship the
Almighty. Nevertheless, I used the time to search my inward parts and
despite the environment, brought myself to an attitude of worship.

There was a visible demonstration of despair in the demeanor of those
who stood behind the pulpit. From the choice of words used during the
welcome to the selection of songs, everything was designed to condition
everyone in attendance to somehow think about the importance of unity in
the local church. Trouble brewing...

Throughout all this, I kept asking myself, if those attendance had the
chance to be led to worship; if those in attendance learned more and
deepened in their relationship with the Savior; or if they were simply
readying themselves to pounce at the slightest movement or comment. I
looked around, real joy was nowhere to be found. The eyes of people
were gazing into empty space. I felt a piercing pain in my bowels. A
pain brought about by the realization that those who teach have need to
be taught.

Do Christians really think that by framing their concerns to comply with
Robert's Rules of Order will really bring about the change the Savior
demands of believers? Is it really about hearing the opinions of men
and women, or of prominent personalities in the church? Where do
believer's get the notion that they have the right to contend against
the work of the Lord and use the implements of the world to fight the
war for the souls of men? All form but devoid of function...unless
aesthetics will amount to a hill of beans before the Bema seat, I wonder
why believers spend so much time with the mechanics and so little time
in fulfilling the purpose of ministry. Why do believers put more stock
into the organization of a church and less time into the organism that
makes the Church?

Crisis in the Church? You better believe it! For every posture the
organization attempts to make, the Enemy gains more ground by attacking
the organism that makes up the Church.

Choking the Channels of Corruption: First Step is by Establishing Referential Integrity

The moment we settle this issue of primary identification mechanisms and
traceability mechanisms, we will relieve ourselves from a significant
chunk of the problem.

Here are some thoughts:

1. Every government transaction should and must be traceable back to
servicing individual citizens and every amount paid by citizens
must be traceable to a service provided to them. Each transaction
is a unique transaction, regardless which branch of government a
citizen is transacting with and these units must be able to
account for each transaction or encounter they had with that
specific citizen or individual. Unless transactions can be traced
at this level, there will always be a huge chunk of transactions
(especially those involving cash) that will never be accounted for
since they could not be traced back to the point of origin.

2. We need to define a unique or primary key that is associated with
one and only one person throughout their lifetime and beyond
(meaning no one else can use the same number). This is the
primary identifier (again, traceability at work). Consequently,
we need to do away with all other numeric identifiers (too much
variability here). There is no reason why our social security
number should be different from our tax identification number, and
also different from our GSIS number (for government employees).
One absolute identifier per individual (the change involved is
daunting, but if we are serious about stemming corruption, then we
need to bite the bullet), let's get rid of the rest. A single
identifier serves to enhance our levels of security since we can
clearly establish identity. The absolute source, of course will
be our birth certificates. Simple. Of course one can argue that
birth certificates could be tampered, what couldn't? If we make
our identifier single and absolutely unique, then we can reinforce
safeguards that will protect the integrity and security of the
generation of birth certificates (this is a clear choke-point that
can be controlled). In systems design we call this absolute
referenceability, or referential integrity.

3. We need to support initiatives and spending on items that automate
public services and hold this as a measure of success for
government officials, especially those that are elected to
office. The reason we could not hold them accountable is because
we do not have a system in place that provides absolute
referenceability or referential integrity there are too many
channels and not enough choke points. Technology, when employed
to its fullest, provides an immediate means for government to
regain the needed credibility it requires for them to effectively
lead the country towards a better future for its citizens. It
will clearly demonstrate their levels of responsibility and serve
as an effective means to measure performance on an individual
basis. We need to make indiscretion and corruption
disproportionately expensive for anyone who dares try to engage in
corrupt practices.

--
Dennis Reyes, Ph.D.
dennis@dbreyes.com

"Learners prepare for the world for tomorrow."

Learn More About:

Applied Knowledge Management
[http://appliedkm.blogspot.com]

Supply Chain Management
[http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/supplychain/emerging]

Mental Models and Contemporary Issues
[http://trendsofthought.blogspot.com]

-----------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the Postal Service. Thank you.

The Root of Transactional Complexity in Government Transactions

Now, what I've described in my previous post is the reality in private
companies. It is easy to understand why purely automating market facing
processes could be most difficult--too many products, too many
competition, to broad a market.

But now, we need to ask ourselves whether these conditions are true of
government. Are they? They do not have competition, their products are
very specific, and they have a captured market.

They say that legislation makes it difficult to automate processes. The
fact is the only unit that could warrant such a claim is the Internal
Revenue Service. But even the BIR's level of complexity can be
controlled since both they and taxpayers are controlled and governed by
laws--there should not be too much of a flexibility here, and by
flexibility, I mean opportunities that encourage corruption.

Customs units say that their requirements are unique since they could
not determine what exactly will come in. This is hogwash since
manifests are completed even before packages leave their ports of origin
and can be immediately forwarded to the port of destination in advance.
When we get to the bottom of things, what can and cannot be brought into
the country, and how it is supposed to be brought has been clearly
defined, the fees and processes are once again governed by laws that
cannot be too flexible. The only reason why they allow their processes
to remain complex is due to the financial gains presented by
mis-declaration, maneuvering, and palm-greasing.

Complexity in processes that govern government activities is not a
result of enforcing legislation by a result of trying to constantly
circumvent it (the principle of simple systems). At the root of
transactional complexity is in the inability to establish the identity
of parties engaged in a transaction. Because of the difficulty of
establishing identity, variability and ambiguity become powerful
implements of corruption. The math is straight forward--unless you
start solving from the point of a constant, you will always end up with
a variable, and variables inhibit accurate measurement. It leads to the
mental argument--"they will never know..."

--
Dennis Reyes, Ph.D.
dennis@dbreyes.com

"Learners prepare for the world for tomorrow."

Learn More About:

Applied Knowledge Management
[http://appliedkm.blogspot.com]

Supply Chain Management
[http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/supplychain/emerging]

Mental Models and Contemporary Issues
[http://trendsofthought.blogspot.com]

-----------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the Postal Service. Thank you.