Ryan Maboloc
You don’t stop corruption by telling someone that corruption kills, just as you don’t lead a fly out of the fly-bottle by telling the fly the way out. The perennial question has been - what genetic intelligence did Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio possessed to inspire the masses to rally behind their cause? In today’s Philippine society, bureaucrats and other institutional leaders complain that it would be impossible to gather people in public gatherings without some underlying incentives, whether it is money, food, or stars. I think that is to a great extent, a misunderstanding and an insult to the intelligence of our people. People come when they find prudent reasons for coming. It is not them who provide these incentives. There is no one to blame but those who promote such a culture.
But as a reply to the question, somebody can quickly point out that Filipinos then loved their country. Is this answer right? Well, ask Rolando Quintos, and he would say no, for according to him, Filipinos still love their country now. The problem, according to Quintos, is leadership. But it should be asked - what kind of leadership? Thus, in relation to my first statement - who will lead us out away from our country’s culture of corruption? Who will lead the fly out of the fly-bottle?
I am tempted to use Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Well, firstly, he solves the question of Manny Pacquiao running in office. Using Gardner’s theory, the People’s Champ, no doubt is intelligent. He possesses what is called ‘bodily-kinesthetic intelligence’. But Gardner would argue that it is a kind of intelligence not fit for problem solving for it is “less intuitive”. Hitting a wily opponent with your furious left hand is not the same as ‘understanding’ what Pareto Optimal means in economic terms.
What about our choice for President? Here, Gardner would not be necessary or his esoteric theory. Politics, it can be argued, concerns the practical, for although it makes a lot of sense to say, following John Rawls that “justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”, politicians are human beings, whose concerns are human, although many of them may not necessarily be human. We need somebody then who believes in the ideal, but one who can make change possible, not only in our democratic systems, but in Filipinos themselves. It is like this – put some parasites in the bloodstream and you find that the human circulatory system will destroy the whole human body. What is important, in this regard, is to put someone with a sense for ‘surgical precision’, one who can objectively make judgments about cases like the ZTE, IMPSA, and the many other things that have ruined the lives of the common Filipino.
There is a fundamental wrong that we, Filipinos, have to correct before we can answer the all-important question about who it is that we ‘should elect’ as President in 2010. The fundamental wrong in our political system is that people themselves forget that they are the leaders they elect. We, as a people, have failed to look inward, thinking that the solutions to our problems exist outside. Ask a college freshman if whether or not his life will change if Manuel Villar or Mar Roxas is elected President. He would answer in the negative. Is this college freshman right? Of course not, for it matters who runs the field, the quarterback, for the President in 2010, if he or she matters at all, should see to it that the course of action taken, especially by those who are in power, are fair, meaning to say, that they are to the ‘advantage of the most disadvantaged’, otherwise, this government has no reason to exist.
We look at the government as a ‘gap-filler’, as a father-figure who will be there for us in the midst of all our problems. But the government can’t be with us all the time. It is for this reason that we have to make the proper choices as a people. If there is anything of great value on earth, upon birth, it is not the minerals or the natural things that we find around us. Rather, it is our freedom and the prudent judgment that follows the intelligent use of this freedom. Freedom is of value because we value it. It is not always there. Thus, Filipinos have to choose, if of course GMA gives us that option by putting to rest her Cha-cha dreams, and in this regard we should vote for, following a sense of moral urgency, a President who can lead us out of this miserable existence.
My point, therefore, is this. It is not about picking names now, i.e. Chiz, Bayani, Gibo, for there is nothing in a name, as Bertrand Russell reminds us. It is now time to choose which principles we are to believe. If we believe in change, then we should elect somebody who reflects what change means, not someone who says that he or she is change. Change, by the way, as Gandhi tells us, begins in you – dear reader, whether you are young or old, a captain or a corporal, a dean’s lister or a garbage collector.
The intelligence of a leader alone will not drive us out from misery. Although a battle tactician can employ his brilliant plans in order to win, even then, he has to make his men believe in a cause that is worth dying for. Thus, we need someone who can holistically bring us out from the cave of oblivion.
Is this about having someone who enforces the law? Well, laws are good, but then again, what use does a law have if people go hungry every single day. That there are laws and that these laws must be followed do not mean that in principle our schemes of social cooperation are just. There is no law more fundamental than the will of the people. If people don’t will that sidewalk vendors are demolished, then why do that? The point therefore, is that we need someone knows what justice means by heart.
Finally, I say, we should elect someone who will uphold the principles of justice, one who says that, as Rawls beautifully crafts, “justice does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many”. He is the person who values the life of each Filipino, whether you are a street vendor, a poor fisherman, a janitor, or a nobody. After all, each presidential candidate in 2010 will have to win the vote of this nobody if he or she is to become President.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Is a political consensus on genetic science possible?
By Ryan Maboloc
Ateneo University
The issue of using human embryos is a highly contested political issue. Some sectors are in favor of genetic research because of its potential. The possibility of saving so many lives which could have been otherwise lost is a reasonable basis for spending human and financial resources on it.
But very deep political division occurs because of people’s moral convictions and beliefs. There are values which people are unwilling to compromise. The substance and depth of the teachings of one’s faith and religion are factors that undeniably affect how people view the matter at hand. Ultimately, some may argue that if it is God’s will that people die, then the natural course of such inevitability should proceed. But then again, it is morally valid to argue that if science can be pushed to its limits in order to find the solutions to some of our problems, then genetic research should be accorded the opportunity to prosper not just in the name of science but for the sake of those who hope to be treated by genetic medicine.
Given these vastly conflicting points of view, is it possible to arrive at a political consensus? A political consensus is a reasoned judgment. It is solely based on politically prudent decisions, for instance, human welfare. It is difficult to proceed from the point of view of one’s faith. But we can proceed from the point of view of certain non-negotiable moral values, i.e. the sanctity of human life, human dignity, and moral autonomy. For instance, given the country’s Catholic tradition, the use of any human embryo from any donor, i.e. a pregnant woman, even with her consent, is unacceptable.
But it is justifiable that scientists and researchers should be allowed to proceed with their investigations given the proper moral norms and parameters. What is necessary is to begin with politically and socially acceptable moral grounds, i.e. that no human embryo should be used in any research. The basic idea here is that rejecting genetic science outright because from the point of view of one’s faith it is akin to “playing God” is fundamentally dangerous. Given the proper moral reasons, for example, the treatment of cancers, diabetes or Parkinson’s, scientists should be allowed to look for efficient ways and means to establish their science and its practice without harming our human values. If genetic science aims at the enhancement of human welfare and ultimately, the good of human life, then it should be given the chance and resources to secure for the whole of humanity, without sacrificing human values, a better way to live.
Ateneo University
The issue of using human embryos is a highly contested political issue. Some sectors are in favor of genetic research because of its potential. The possibility of saving so many lives which could have been otherwise lost is a reasonable basis for spending human and financial resources on it.
But very deep political division occurs because of people’s moral convictions and beliefs. There are values which people are unwilling to compromise. The substance and depth of the teachings of one’s faith and religion are factors that undeniably affect how people view the matter at hand. Ultimately, some may argue that if it is God’s will that people die, then the natural course of such inevitability should proceed. But then again, it is morally valid to argue that if science can be pushed to its limits in order to find the solutions to some of our problems, then genetic research should be accorded the opportunity to prosper not just in the name of science but for the sake of those who hope to be treated by genetic medicine.
Given these vastly conflicting points of view, is it possible to arrive at a political consensus? A political consensus is a reasoned judgment. It is solely based on politically prudent decisions, for instance, human welfare. It is difficult to proceed from the point of view of one’s faith. But we can proceed from the point of view of certain non-negotiable moral values, i.e. the sanctity of human life, human dignity, and moral autonomy. For instance, given the country’s Catholic tradition, the use of any human embryo from any donor, i.e. a pregnant woman, even with her consent, is unacceptable.
But it is justifiable that scientists and researchers should be allowed to proceed with their investigations given the proper moral norms and parameters. What is necessary is to begin with politically and socially acceptable moral grounds, i.e. that no human embryo should be used in any research. The basic idea here is that rejecting genetic science outright because from the point of view of one’s faith it is akin to “playing God” is fundamentally dangerous. Given the proper moral reasons, for example, the treatment of cancers, diabetes or Parkinson’s, scientists should be allowed to look for efficient ways and means to establish their science and its practice without harming our human values. If genetic science aims at the enhancement of human welfare and ultimately, the good of human life, then it should be given the chance and resources to secure for the whole of humanity, without sacrificing human values, a better way to live.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
On animal rights advocacy
By Ryan Maboloc
Very recently, we have seen serious campaigns to protect endangered species. Governments and the private sector have invested millions of dollars in order to protect and preserve many of these species. The preservation and the protection of the environment is a morally valid reason for such expenditure. The death of "Sisi" is unforgivable. It speaks of the deplorable condition of animals in many Philippine zoos. If the government can't even take care of its people, what more if we talk of animals in government maintained nonhuman animal establishments.
We just have to send them back to the wild. It is a scientific fact that these species keep the balance of nature. It is also undeniable that they are a joy to watch. These are very important points. Animal rights advocacy has played a big role in helping create a social consciousness that shows sensitivity and concern for other species. But it can also be argued that animal rights advocacy also suffers from an over-emphasis. We are a third world country. The death of "Sisi" should not remind us of the suffering of animals alone. It reminds us of how inutile our basic structure is.
Now, this country, just like the rest of the world, has many serious concerns. People are hungry everywhere. The poor are becoming poorer everyday. There are not enough funds to send children to school. Ten million children die each year because there are not enough funds for vaccines. Perhaps, there is nothing so serious to argue against environmentalism. But what we can protest is the fact that some people seem to be more serious about donating money, for instance, from a global perspective, to preserve an eagle than donating money to charity in order to save the lives of street children in the Philippines and people who are in vulnerable places, i.e. Somalia, Congo or Myanmar. Are we concerned about each dying child in the war-torn lands of the Philippine South or the African continent? Perhaps, we are, but the fact of the matter is that such is not apparent in the amount of humanitarian aid rich people give to poor nations and to conflict areas. Should we be more concerned of the condition of an endangered bat than that a child on the street?
We have many problems that require concrete solutions. It is important to consider the welfare of animals, but such should not be over-emphasized. The greater task of each one of us is to see to it that people, rich and poor, both enjoy the good life. The point is this: questions of ought are unique to the human mind and world, they are meaningless as applied to nonhuman animals. In this regard, nonhuman animals can come next in terms of moral concern.
The ideal thing to do is to keep the balance. People matter just as penguins or turtles matter to us. Poor young children, however simple the kind of lives they live, also deserve just treatment from governments and their people. It is abominable why hundreds of millions of dollars can be allotted in order to preserve endangered species and yet, the vaccination of poor infants is never a priority of the first world. The balance that we can speak of is that sufficient funds should be allotted to the cause of saving street-children from illegal drugs and violence, including funds for their education and health. We need to save the street children just as we need to save whale sharks from extinction.
Very recently, we have seen serious campaigns to protect endangered species. Governments and the private sector have invested millions of dollars in order to protect and preserve many of these species. The preservation and the protection of the environment is a morally valid reason for such expenditure. The death of "Sisi" is unforgivable. It speaks of the deplorable condition of animals in many Philippine zoos. If the government can't even take care of its people, what more if we talk of animals in government maintained nonhuman animal establishments.
We just have to send them back to the wild. It is a scientific fact that these species keep the balance of nature. It is also undeniable that they are a joy to watch. These are very important points. Animal rights advocacy has played a big role in helping create a social consciousness that shows sensitivity and concern for other species. But it can also be argued that animal rights advocacy also suffers from an over-emphasis. We are a third world country. The death of "Sisi" should not remind us of the suffering of animals alone. It reminds us of how inutile our basic structure is.
Now, this country, just like the rest of the world, has many serious concerns. People are hungry everywhere. The poor are becoming poorer everyday. There are not enough funds to send children to school. Ten million children die each year because there are not enough funds for vaccines. Perhaps, there is nothing so serious to argue against environmentalism. But what we can protest is the fact that some people seem to be more serious about donating money, for instance, from a global perspective, to preserve an eagle than donating money to charity in order to save the lives of street children in the Philippines and people who are in vulnerable places, i.e. Somalia, Congo or Myanmar. Are we concerned about each dying child in the war-torn lands of the Philippine South or the African continent? Perhaps, we are, but the fact of the matter is that such is not apparent in the amount of humanitarian aid rich people give to poor nations and to conflict areas. Should we be more concerned of the condition of an endangered bat than that a child on the street?
We have many problems that require concrete solutions. It is important to consider the welfare of animals, but such should not be over-emphasized. The greater task of each one of us is to see to it that people, rich and poor, both enjoy the good life. The point is this: questions of ought are unique to the human mind and world, they are meaningless as applied to nonhuman animals. In this regard, nonhuman animals can come next in terms of moral concern.
The ideal thing to do is to keep the balance. People matter just as penguins or turtles matter to us. Poor young children, however simple the kind of lives they live, also deserve just treatment from governments and their people. It is abominable why hundreds of millions of dollars can be allotted in order to preserve endangered species and yet, the vaccination of poor infants is never a priority of the first world. The balance that we can speak of is that sufficient funds should be allotted to the cause of saving street-children from illegal drugs and violence, including funds for their education and health. We need to save the street children just as we need to save whale sharks from extinction.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
On Peace Building
By Fernando Garingo
Mindanao State University
When an individual chooses reintegration over a simple cooperation, the autonomy implication is quite high, for it involves commitment on the parts of the individuals to pursue a meaningful meeting point to resolve peacelessness. And this commitment also absorbed responsibility to do on the part of the individuals. Why this is so? Because reintegration results into the creation of an “authoritative” framework in which decisions made by the individuals are legally and morally binding among themselves. As a consequence of this, individuals, given their freedom as capability factor are also in the position where they can affect State strategies in relation to ethnic conflict.
They can provide the necessary leadership to direct the State to formulate strategies to further the development of each individual. In other words, in the reintegration approach the target is the attitude of the State. By, for instance, embarking on a consciousness raising strategy, the individual, because of his humanness to resolve the causes of his dehumanization, may change the attitude of the “individuals who occupy offices that authorize them and them alone to make and apply decisions that are binding upon all segments of specific society” (Nordlinger 1981, p.11), and consequently either raise or lower their autonomy status.
A major potential determinant for a state’s policy is the societal input, comprising among others, public opinion, interest groups, and political parties. It is thus society, which in the last resort determines whether government can fulfill her main goal. It is important to point out, however, that societal input to government are highly biased. In its policy, the state will not simply take for granted the interests of all societal groups. Rather, I believe, it will take more into consideration the interest of those groups which are active in the reintegration issue on the basis of “intuition” and common sense.
The reintegration approach deals with both ethnic animosities and the problem of ethnic intolerance by integrating transformation of relationships into each level of peace building. The dimensions of this approach can be identified, among others as: social, economic, political, and physical transformations. An example of social and cultural transformations would be through interactive approach of sustained interethnic dialogue/ exchange for conflict transformation.
For most of us, peace seems like unattainable endeavor, and would remain something that we hope for and dream of. Little do we realize that there are concrete steps that we could take in order to achieve peace. One step starts in the classroom. Indeed, there is no better place to lay the foundation of a dream than in the minds and heart of the students inside the classroom. Teaching the students the value of reintegrating oneself to the realities of ethnic conflict by highlighting the idea of interdependence can, in a small way, as a beginning attempt, build a capability for a peaceful co-existence. Finding ways to create a constructive philosophy of life that gives life meaning is the over-aching goal of reintegration. For, in the first place, every conflict is about life, about human beings. But it is a substantial challenge to shape minds, to eradicate prejudice, to learn from history and to nurture nature - all of which lead to peaceful co-existence with our fellowmen.
Mindanao State University
When an individual chooses reintegration over a simple cooperation, the autonomy implication is quite high, for it involves commitment on the parts of the individuals to pursue a meaningful meeting point to resolve peacelessness. And this commitment also absorbed responsibility to do on the part of the individuals. Why this is so? Because reintegration results into the creation of an “authoritative” framework in which decisions made by the individuals are legally and morally binding among themselves. As a consequence of this, individuals, given their freedom as capability factor are also in the position where they can affect State strategies in relation to ethnic conflict.
They can provide the necessary leadership to direct the State to formulate strategies to further the development of each individual. In other words, in the reintegration approach the target is the attitude of the State. By, for instance, embarking on a consciousness raising strategy, the individual, because of his humanness to resolve the causes of his dehumanization, may change the attitude of the “individuals who occupy offices that authorize them and them alone to make and apply decisions that are binding upon all segments of specific society” (Nordlinger 1981, p.11), and consequently either raise or lower their autonomy status.
A major potential determinant for a state’s policy is the societal input, comprising among others, public opinion, interest groups, and political parties. It is thus society, which in the last resort determines whether government can fulfill her main goal. It is important to point out, however, that societal input to government are highly biased. In its policy, the state will not simply take for granted the interests of all societal groups. Rather, I believe, it will take more into consideration the interest of those groups which are active in the reintegration issue on the basis of “intuition” and common sense.
The reintegration approach deals with both ethnic animosities and the problem of ethnic intolerance by integrating transformation of relationships into each level of peace building. The dimensions of this approach can be identified, among others as: social, economic, political, and physical transformations. An example of social and cultural transformations would be through interactive approach of sustained interethnic dialogue/ exchange for conflict transformation.
For most of us, peace seems like unattainable endeavor, and would remain something that we hope for and dream of. Little do we realize that there are concrete steps that we could take in order to achieve peace. One step starts in the classroom. Indeed, there is no better place to lay the foundation of a dream than in the minds and heart of the students inside the classroom. Teaching the students the value of reintegrating oneself to the realities of ethnic conflict by highlighting the idea of interdependence can, in a small way, as a beginning attempt, build a capability for a peaceful co-existence. Finding ways to create a constructive philosophy of life that gives life meaning is the over-aching goal of reintegration. For, in the first place, every conflict is about life, about human beings. But it is a substantial challenge to shape minds, to eradicate prejudice, to learn from history and to nurture nature - all of which lead to peaceful co-existence with our fellowmen.
IN SEARCH OF A NEW DEMOCRACY
By Fernando Bergado
MA in Philosophy
If Philippine democracy has yet to mature, are we as nation capable of handling democracy? Or perhaps are we to look for another system that will work best with us Filipinos?
In the midst of President Arroyo’s wiretapped conversation with Garcilliano where she admitted in public her lapsed of judgment in talking to the Comelec official in the middle of the presidential campaign, she had blamed the system as “having degenerated to such an extent that it is very difficult to move within the system with hands totally untainted” and proposed a constitutional convention to supervise a transition from the current Manila-centered presidential system to federal republic with a parliamentary government which, according to oppositionist, is only meant to distract people’s attention from the charges against her and at the same it will only perpetuate herself in power (Steven Rogers, Philippine Democracy in Turmoil). No matter how good the intention but we cannot deny that we have leaders who will convene as “Constitutional Assembly’ ( Con Ass) who is preoccupied with power politics making people’s interest their last priority while disguising themselves as the herald champion of people’s interest. The change is undeniably necessary but how can we trust changing our constitutions to people who are only interested of protecting themselves and their interest.
No matter how many times we will be changing our form of government if we have the same faces of recycled politicians we could not master ourselves to be politically and economically ahead with our neighboring countries. Changing it into a parliamentary form of government with several self-ruled states; we are only cementing political warlords into immortality (powerful elite) because they will surely lord it over in perpetuity. Why not put our interest on how we can salvage Philippine democracy as what we have done in the original EDSA no matter how less democratic it is but it is the best way to save our democracy. There is a need for a total makeover of our political system so that genuine democracy will function. Such makeover must not be merely a facelift but something that emanate from its very core, from its citizens.
What we have are leaders who can not go beyond their personal interest and a system that is only created for the purpose of benefiting the elite.
Ultimately, ours is not a broken state that needs to be escorted and assisted through its first step towards genuine democracy. Ours is a country that stands on the verge of democratic maturity requiring that its people will have to stand up and claim what is theirs. Democracy cannot be given to Filipinos by an outsider not they have to wait for an enlightened ruler to appear and bestow a good government upon them. Filipinos will have to do it themselves and claim what belongs rightfully to them. We can do it!
MA in Philosophy
If Philippine democracy has yet to mature, are we as nation capable of handling democracy? Or perhaps are we to look for another system that will work best with us Filipinos?
In the midst of President Arroyo’s wiretapped conversation with Garcilliano where she admitted in public her lapsed of judgment in talking to the Comelec official in the middle of the presidential campaign, she had blamed the system as “having degenerated to such an extent that it is very difficult to move within the system with hands totally untainted” and proposed a constitutional convention to supervise a transition from the current Manila-centered presidential system to federal republic with a parliamentary government which, according to oppositionist, is only meant to distract people’s attention from the charges against her and at the same it will only perpetuate herself in power (Steven Rogers, Philippine Democracy in Turmoil). No matter how good the intention but we cannot deny that we have leaders who will convene as “Constitutional Assembly’ ( Con Ass) who is preoccupied with power politics making people’s interest their last priority while disguising themselves as the herald champion of people’s interest. The change is undeniably necessary but how can we trust changing our constitutions to people who are only interested of protecting themselves and their interest.
No matter how many times we will be changing our form of government if we have the same faces of recycled politicians we could not master ourselves to be politically and economically ahead with our neighboring countries. Changing it into a parliamentary form of government with several self-ruled states; we are only cementing political warlords into immortality (powerful elite) because they will surely lord it over in perpetuity. Why not put our interest on how we can salvage Philippine democracy as what we have done in the original EDSA no matter how less democratic it is but it is the best way to save our democracy. There is a need for a total makeover of our political system so that genuine democracy will function. Such makeover must not be merely a facelift but something that emanate from its very core, from its citizens.
What we have are leaders who can not go beyond their personal interest and a system that is only created for the purpose of benefiting the elite.
Ultimately, ours is not a broken state that needs to be escorted and assisted through its first step towards genuine democracy. Ours is a country that stands on the verge of democratic maturity requiring that its people will have to stand up and claim what is theirs. Democracy cannot be given to Filipinos by an outsider not they have to wait for an enlightened ruler to appear and bestow a good government upon them. Filipinos will have to do it themselves and claim what belongs rightfully to them. We can do it!
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Democracy, Philippine Style
By Fernando Bergado
MA in Philosophy
‘I’d rather have a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government run like heaven by Americans’ (Manuel L. Quezon).
The practice of continuously switching allegiance has perpetuated the politics of survival in this country at the detriment of the ordinary people. Leaders have to enter into compromise and accommodation with various leaders such as political warlords at the local level, business elites including church leaders. This makes our political landscape captive of the interest of these actors that weakens its ability to govern effectively at the people’s expense.
What we have is a democratic system that is almost entirely built that will only benefit the landlord class. This runs contrary to the idea that landlords are supposed to dislike democracy but in the Philippines it is quite different because they loved much democracy because they have effectively controlled it. The Philippines’ house of representathieves (pardon me for the wrong spelling) for instance, has become the power-base of the old regionally based political elite, dominated by members of the traditional political clans, many of them have an absolute lock on their districts, but lack the national prominence needed to gain election to the senate, which was dominated by nationally known actors, athletes, media figures and other celebrities.
We may have a democratic government but it does not operate according to the tenets of democracy but according to self-styled democracy that is only bred in the Philippines. Among the democratic principle, for instance, ‘that members of the society have equal access to power’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) that should have been in place was actually absent. Although, non-elites were already included in the electorate process but the traditional oligarchs, the traditional political warlords have dominated the political landscape in the Philippines. To win a local election, one has to assemble a coalition of families; to win a provincial election, the important families in each town must be drawn into a wider structure and to win a national election, the most prominent aristocratic clans from each region must temporarily come together. A family’s power is not necessarily correlated with wealth instead numbers of followers matter most and the middle class and the poor are sought mainly for the votes they can deliver.
Thus, we have a democratic state that has yet to mature and unless we can move forward toward a maturing democracy this country would perennially in a vicious cycle of poor governance and poverty.
MA in Philosophy
‘I’d rather have a government run like hell by Filipinos than a government run like heaven by Americans’ (Manuel L. Quezon).
The practice of continuously switching allegiance has perpetuated the politics of survival in this country at the detriment of the ordinary people. Leaders have to enter into compromise and accommodation with various leaders such as political warlords at the local level, business elites including church leaders. This makes our political landscape captive of the interest of these actors that weakens its ability to govern effectively at the people’s expense.
What we have is a democratic system that is almost entirely built that will only benefit the landlord class. This runs contrary to the idea that landlords are supposed to dislike democracy but in the Philippines it is quite different because they loved much democracy because they have effectively controlled it. The Philippines’ house of representathieves (pardon me for the wrong spelling) for instance, has become the power-base of the old regionally based political elite, dominated by members of the traditional political clans, many of them have an absolute lock on their districts, but lack the national prominence needed to gain election to the senate, which was dominated by nationally known actors, athletes, media figures and other celebrities.
We may have a democratic government but it does not operate according to the tenets of democracy but according to self-styled democracy that is only bred in the Philippines. Among the democratic principle, for instance, ‘that members of the society have equal access to power’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) that should have been in place was actually absent. Although, non-elites were already included in the electorate process but the traditional oligarchs, the traditional political warlords have dominated the political landscape in the Philippines. To win a local election, one has to assemble a coalition of families; to win a provincial election, the important families in each town must be drawn into a wider structure and to win a national election, the most prominent aristocratic clans from each region must temporarily come together. A family’s power is not necessarily correlated with wealth instead numbers of followers matter most and the middle class and the poor are sought mainly for the votes they can deliver.
Thus, we have a democratic state that has yet to mature and unless we can move forward toward a maturing democracy this country would perennially in a vicious cycle of poor governance and poverty.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Re-integration as Capability Building for Peace
By Fernando Garingo
Mindanao State University
Perhaps, in some areas of reintegration processes, the State might very well remain in the driver’s seat, i.e., security of the process; but in most cases, the State shall surrender this position to the people themselves, assisted by neutral interest groups who could work to build a trust relationship with representative of each conflicting parties, and hears what fears or concerns needed to be addressed. This is a far cry to the present process of consultation where the interests of both parties are already laid down on the negotiating table before even the consultation could start. Thus, in the process, the capabilities of the people to find, according to Sen, “alternative functioning combinations” or “the freedom to achieve various lifestyles” vis-à-vis peacefulness on their own is bypassed. Furthermore, every time a state is forced to develop a policy on a specific issue area, it is enveloped in its own shadow of the past. Decisions taken in the past are thus limiting its room to maneuver at present because a dramatic change in the policy can lead to loss of reputation, i.e., it might suddenly discover that the policy is part and parcel of a major package deal which can be very costly to untie.
Why reintegration? It means simply abandoning the traditional “to the centre” approach of integration where the individual must conform to the majority culture, as defined by the State, discarding their “freedom to achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular” (Sen, 1985, p. 266) in order to “lead the kind of life [one has] reason to value” (Sen, 1999 p. 14). It means, further, that in abandoning the old integration practice, it gives priority to the individual as the focal center, regardless of cultural memberships, where everything is said to be gravitating towards, especially in determining his own development.
Reintegration produces inter-individual bargaining that would promote the interest of everybody since, by experience in the old integration process, they were marginalized by the makings not of their own, rather by the interests of the State and other supranational interests. Here, the individuals themselves will do the unlocking of their undevelopment and marginalization because they are the one holding their own keys to the mysteries of peacelessness in their own midst. Why should the individuals participate in the reintegration process in the first place? Taking a cue from liberal theory, the explanation is rooted in interdependence. In an interdependent set up of different individuals, every individual will find themselves constantly subjected to external pressures of different kinds, even to the extent of destroying one’s individuality or fomenting violence against everybody. The wish to avoid these externalities provides the main incentive for cooperation. Only by reintegrating themselves to one another can individuals solve their problems. Here, reintegration implies cooperation, but not vice-versa.
Mindanao State University
Perhaps, in some areas of reintegration processes, the State might very well remain in the driver’s seat, i.e., security of the process; but in most cases, the State shall surrender this position to the people themselves, assisted by neutral interest groups who could work to build a trust relationship with representative of each conflicting parties, and hears what fears or concerns needed to be addressed. This is a far cry to the present process of consultation where the interests of both parties are already laid down on the negotiating table before even the consultation could start. Thus, in the process, the capabilities of the people to find, according to Sen, “alternative functioning combinations” or “the freedom to achieve various lifestyles” vis-à-vis peacefulness on their own is bypassed. Furthermore, every time a state is forced to develop a policy on a specific issue area, it is enveloped in its own shadow of the past. Decisions taken in the past are thus limiting its room to maneuver at present because a dramatic change in the policy can lead to loss of reputation, i.e., it might suddenly discover that the policy is part and parcel of a major package deal which can be very costly to untie.
Why reintegration? It means simply abandoning the traditional “to the centre” approach of integration where the individual must conform to the majority culture, as defined by the State, discarding their “freedom to achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular” (Sen, 1985, p. 266) in order to “lead the kind of life [one has] reason to value” (Sen, 1999 p. 14). It means, further, that in abandoning the old integration practice, it gives priority to the individual as the focal center, regardless of cultural memberships, where everything is said to be gravitating towards, especially in determining his own development.
Reintegration produces inter-individual bargaining that would promote the interest of everybody since, by experience in the old integration process, they were marginalized by the makings not of their own, rather by the interests of the State and other supranational interests. Here, the individuals themselves will do the unlocking of their undevelopment and marginalization because they are the one holding their own keys to the mysteries of peacelessness in their own midst. Why should the individuals participate in the reintegration process in the first place? Taking a cue from liberal theory, the explanation is rooted in interdependence. In an interdependent set up of different individuals, every individual will find themselves constantly subjected to external pressures of different kinds, even to the extent of destroying one’s individuality or fomenting violence against everybody. The wish to avoid these externalities provides the main incentive for cooperation. Only by reintegrating themselves to one another can individuals solve their problems. Here, reintegration implies cooperation, but not vice-versa.
The Bansangmoro Struggle
By Sixto Domogen
Philosophy Graduate Student
Mindanao is plagued by endless war between the insurgents and the military. This leads to the evacuation of thousands of residents, thus, stalling any economic progress in the region. This is the reason why Mindanao is highly underdeveloped and high poverty incidence is prevalent. One of the reasons of this conflict is attributed to the deep animosity between the Christian and Muslim settlers. This can be traced back to historical accounts, which shows how this conflict originated.
Various negotiations and agreements have been attempted by previous government administration. First of which is the Tripoli Agreement signed during the Marcos administration in 1976. This agreement was forged with the MNLF. However, no significant aspect of agreement was implemented during the aforementioned administration. It was only during the take over by the succeeding government administration that another peace accord was signed. This was after the dictatorial rule was overthrown in 1986. After the dictatorial rule was overthrown, the new government decided to alter key aspects of the Constitution. Together with the ratification of the new constitution, an Organic Act was also enacted. This Organic Act became the legal basis for the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
The ARMM is a separate legislative region composed of four provinces. The constituents are asked to elect executive officials for their local government as well as representative to the national legislative body. This is, however, a far cry from the principles espoused by the Tripoli Agreement.6 The territories have a local government but the set-up is the same with other local government units occupied by Christians in other parts of the country. No separate judicial courts were created to provide venue for litigation of cases under sharl’a law. In other words, it does not really represent real autonomy (Alim 1995). The autonomy granted does not fully represent the Bangsamoro’s claim to self-government since it is still highly dependent and under the supervision of the national government. The existing government does not reflect the government based on Islamic tradition. There is no room for the Bangsamoro to govern themselves based on their way of life. Thus, it appears that the Philippine government is not really committed to protect and support the Bangsamoro’s struggle for self-determination.
Philosophy Graduate Student
Mindanao is plagued by endless war between the insurgents and the military. This leads to the evacuation of thousands of residents, thus, stalling any economic progress in the region. This is the reason why Mindanao is highly underdeveloped and high poverty incidence is prevalent. One of the reasons of this conflict is attributed to the deep animosity between the Christian and Muslim settlers. This can be traced back to historical accounts, which shows how this conflict originated.
Various negotiations and agreements have been attempted by previous government administration. First of which is the Tripoli Agreement signed during the Marcos administration in 1976. This agreement was forged with the MNLF. However, no significant aspect of agreement was implemented during the aforementioned administration. It was only during the take over by the succeeding government administration that another peace accord was signed. This was after the dictatorial rule was overthrown in 1986. After the dictatorial rule was overthrown, the new government decided to alter key aspects of the Constitution. Together with the ratification of the new constitution, an Organic Act was also enacted. This Organic Act became the legal basis for the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
The ARMM is a separate legislative region composed of four provinces. The constituents are asked to elect executive officials for their local government as well as representative to the national legislative body. This is, however, a far cry from the principles espoused by the Tripoli Agreement.6 The territories have a local government but the set-up is the same with other local government units occupied by Christians in other parts of the country. No separate judicial courts were created to provide venue for litigation of cases under sharl’a law. In other words, it does not really represent real autonomy (Alim 1995). The autonomy granted does not fully represent the Bangsamoro’s claim to self-government since it is still highly dependent and under the supervision of the national government. The existing government does not reflect the government based on Islamic tradition. There is no room for the Bangsamoro to govern themselves based on their way of life. Thus, it appears that the Philippine government is not really committed to protect and support the Bangsamoro’s struggle for self-determination.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Smallness of the Filipinos is the Fountain of their Greatness
By Dr. Romulo Bautista
The small Filipino is the hero of bayanikrasya toward the noble achievement of “self-reliant empowerment” that grants hope to the hopeless and helpless, and courage to the desperate and the faint-hearted.
Smallness is greatness. The smallness of the Filipino is the fountain of his greatness. The small Filipino, as it were, is Zero. At first blush, “zero” appears to be insignificant or of no value, but ironically it is zero that tremendously adds values to numbers. For example, 1 is the lowest number and will always be 1 until you add a number to it. When you add 1 to it, you get 2, but when you add 0 to 1, you get 10, 100, 1000, 1000,000, and so on. Many small Filipinos are “zeros” in terms of opportunity, but if they are provided with appropriate empowerment and opportunities, however small these may be, they could heroically transform themselves into bigger people capable of greater accomplishments.
Bayanikrasya is Humanistic
Bayanikrasya – the synergy of Bayanihan and demokrasya - is essentially humanistic, and as such, it is built upon five principles:
1. It is democratic. It aims at the fullest development of every small Filipino as human being at the grassroots.
2. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively.
3. It is ethical. It affirms the dignity of the small Filipino and his rights to the greatest possible freedom of development compatible with the rights of others.
4. It insists that personal liberty is an end that must be combined with social responsibility in order that it shall not be sacrificed to improvement of material conditions.
5. It is a way of life, aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment, thru the cultivation of ethical and creative life.
There is a need for a more active and direct involvement of the small Filipinos to organize an orderly and satisfying grassroots communities where every member finds a clear role to play for his involvement in community-building, without having to be involved in the parliament of the streets, without need to recourse to violence and revolution. This is the way of bayanikrasya for social action and social transformation of the small Filipinos. Bayanikrasya should, therefore, be institutionalized.
The small Filipino is the hero of bayanikrasya toward the noble achievement of “self-reliant empowerment” that grants hope to the hopeless and helpless, and courage to the desperate and the faint-hearted.
Smallness is greatness. The smallness of the Filipino is the fountain of his greatness. The small Filipino, as it were, is Zero. At first blush, “zero” appears to be insignificant or of no value, but ironically it is zero that tremendously adds values to numbers. For example, 1 is the lowest number and will always be 1 until you add a number to it. When you add 1 to it, you get 2, but when you add 0 to 1, you get 10, 100, 1000, 1000,000, and so on. Many small Filipinos are “zeros” in terms of opportunity, but if they are provided with appropriate empowerment and opportunities, however small these may be, they could heroically transform themselves into bigger people capable of greater accomplishments.
Bayanikrasya is Humanistic
Bayanikrasya – the synergy of Bayanihan and demokrasya - is essentially humanistic, and as such, it is built upon five principles:
1. It is democratic. It aims at the fullest development of every small Filipino as human being at the grassroots.
2. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively.
3. It is ethical. It affirms the dignity of the small Filipino and his rights to the greatest possible freedom of development compatible with the rights of others.
4. It insists that personal liberty is an end that must be combined with social responsibility in order that it shall not be sacrificed to improvement of material conditions.
5. It is a way of life, aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment, thru the cultivation of ethical and creative life.
There is a need for a more active and direct involvement of the small Filipinos to organize an orderly and satisfying grassroots communities where every member finds a clear role to play for his involvement in community-building, without having to be involved in the parliament of the streets, without need to recourse to violence and revolution. This is the way of bayanikrasya for social action and social transformation of the small Filipinos. Bayanikrasya should, therefore, be institutionalized.
We do not live in a just world
By Ryan Maboloc
We do not live in a just world. This, according to Thomas Nagel, is the least controversial claim one can make in political theory. No food, no toilet – nothing. The very poor, almost half of humanity, or three billion people, including twenty poor million Filipinos, live on less than two dollars a day. Another billion people, the extremely poor, live on less than one dollar a day.
According to the Human Development Report (2005), 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases. In 2004 alone, 10.4 million children died before reaching the age of five. Why, indeed, is the human condition is so inhuman? This makes me think that perhaps the human condition, for many people, or whatever is left of it, is impossible to live.
The problem of global justice can be attributed to the fact that sovereign states first and foremost consider the welfare of their own citizens before that of other states. The goods or wealth produced in a wealthy country primarily serves the benefits or is for the advantages of its own citizens. Take, for instance, the case of the $700B bail-out of Wall Street, $2T over-all for world markets. In a very stark contrast, the WFP has been struggling to get its $2 B funding to feed millions who are in danger of dying due to starvation.
The problem of global justice can also be linked to the absence and impossibility of a world government. This means that the political conception of justice limits justice to the basic structure. Thus, the problem of global poverty is not a moral concern for rich nations. The basis of justice is the moral equality of persons. But in the global order, sovereignty implies that citizens, and not persons, are morally equal.
We do not live in a just world. This, according to Thomas Nagel, is the least controversial claim one can make in political theory. No food, no toilet – nothing. The very poor, almost half of humanity, or three billion people, including twenty poor million Filipinos, live on less than two dollars a day. Another billion people, the extremely poor, live on less than one dollar a day.
According to the Human Development Report (2005), 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases. In 2004 alone, 10.4 million children died before reaching the age of five. Why, indeed, is the human condition is so inhuman? This makes me think that perhaps the human condition, for many people, or whatever is left of it, is impossible to live.
The problem of global justice can be attributed to the fact that sovereign states first and foremost consider the welfare of their own citizens before that of other states. The goods or wealth produced in a wealthy country primarily serves the benefits or is for the advantages of its own citizens. Take, for instance, the case of the $700B bail-out of Wall Street, $2T over-all for world markets. In a very stark contrast, the WFP has been struggling to get its $2 B funding to feed millions who are in danger of dying due to starvation.
The problem of global justice can also be linked to the absence and impossibility of a world government. This means that the political conception of justice limits justice to the basic structure. Thus, the problem of global poverty is not a moral concern for rich nations. The basis of justice is the moral equality of persons. But in the global order, sovereignty implies that citizens, and not persons, are morally equal.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The right to self-determination
By Ryan Maboloc
The Moro youth want self-rule. One young man told us in a recent talk. The right to self-determination, he says, is based on the historical fact that the Moro people were never defeated by the conquestadores. He asserted that they have the original claim to Mindanao – Mindanao, he said, is their ancestral land. But I told him that it always matters that any state should be sustainable – politically, economically, culturally, and socially to be able to pursue authentic autonomy.
Going to war is never a moral option. But it is fully rational for any entity with a superior firepower to engage a perceived enemy of the state. Such, however, is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because innocent lives – the poor, women and children, will suffer. Of course, the attacks against innocent civilians by some MILF commanders are a criminal offense. In this sense, the state has a duty to protect its people.
In the end, obviously, the moral option is peace – the only question is how? Democracy is a child of the enlightenment. The basic structure of government exists by virtue of human reason – men and women come into an agreement that they will be governed by “fair terms of cooperation”. If we want peace in Mindanao, I think we should be guided by the concept of moral power in politics – a “sense of justice” and a “moral conception of the good”.
The question of whether or not the Moro people should be granted autonomy is not for the Moro people to answer. Unless we can say that Manila has been fair to them in terms of the distribution of this country’s resources, I think that there is a need to rectify decades of neglect. Of course, there is a great possibility that Moro “self-rule” might fail. But it is not for us to decide. In any democracy, the liberty of people, which empowers them to conceive of the good, is a priority that can never be compromised.
The Moro youth want self-rule. One young man told us in a recent talk. The right to self-determination, he says, is based on the historical fact that the Moro people were never defeated by the conquestadores. He asserted that they have the original claim to Mindanao – Mindanao, he said, is their ancestral land. But I told him that it always matters that any state should be sustainable – politically, economically, culturally, and socially to be able to pursue authentic autonomy.
Going to war is never a moral option. But it is fully rational for any entity with a superior firepower to engage a perceived enemy of the state. Such, however, is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because innocent lives – the poor, women and children, will suffer. Of course, the attacks against innocent civilians by some MILF commanders are a criminal offense. In this sense, the state has a duty to protect its people.
In the end, obviously, the moral option is peace – the only question is how? Democracy is a child of the enlightenment. The basic structure of government exists by virtue of human reason – men and women come into an agreement that they will be governed by “fair terms of cooperation”. If we want peace in Mindanao, I think we should be guided by the concept of moral power in politics – a “sense of justice” and a “moral conception of the good”.
The question of whether or not the Moro people should be granted autonomy is not for the Moro people to answer. Unless we can say that Manila has been fair to them in terms of the distribution of this country’s resources, I think that there is a need to rectify decades of neglect. Of course, there is a great possibility that Moro “self-rule” might fail. But it is not for us to decide. In any democracy, the liberty of people, which empowers them to conceive of the good, is a priority that can never be compromised.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Why for the Moros...
By Jamil Adrian Matalam
The decades-long war in the Bangsa Moro has now reached a point that is probably near its end—thank God. The Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, it seems, would have a final peace agreement with the emergence of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). Yet many Filipino politicians, it would seem, are against it. They oppose it because it would be like surrendering Philippine sovereignty over a portion of Mindanao with the MILF or the Moros. Some of them say it is like carving out a portion of the Philippines. To this I say NONSENSE!
To carve out something presupposes a solid block. The history of the Islands does not support anyhow this illusion that the Philippine archipelago is a solid block. During the pre-Spanish colonization in the Philippines the Islands were divided among independent Barangays. During this period there is no such a thing as a Philippine nation, as we now conceive of it. Loyalty then was not to a Philippine nation but to one’s barangay. The inception of a Philippine nation began towards the 3rd century of Spanish domination in the Philippines. The common hardships and sufferings of the Indios led to a himagsikan para sa Inang Bayan—The Philippines. Even then the Inang Bayan for Bonifacio, the father of the mga anak ng bayan, was simply the Katagalugan. During these periods the Moros were then divided into different Sultanates, independent and recognized as such by the Spaniards. The American colonizers did not anyhow consider the archipelago as a solid block. They divided it into two separate administrative provinces, the Christian North and the Moro administrative province. By the inception of the Philippine Republic there is still no considering the archipelago as a solid block. By the time of Quezon to Marcos the Philippine Republic speaks of integrating the Moros into the greater Philippine nation. Thus, the Bangsa Moro has always been separate from Bansang Pilipinas. This truth has been the basis of the struggle of the two biggest Moro liberation fronts. Therefore there is no such a thing as carving out a portion of the Philippines by the Moros. Nonsense and hilarious!
Am I not here fostering separation instead of solidarity among the beautiful people of these struggling and blessed Islands? Well, explicitly no. If the history of the Philippines has to move further then it must address this great issue. In the resolution of this issue the historical truth about the Bangsa Moro must be included in the equation. It must not be covered or veiled by political nonsense blubbering by some Filipino politicians, whose grounds for their blubbering is merely the Philippine Constitution and a legal definition of a state. A dialogue on peace can never be limited by a state constitution.
I agree with retired General Esperon that the best way of solving the issue is to consult the inhabitants of the proposed BJE through a plebiscite. It is only through it that we could achieve true solidarity. The greatest historical error of the Filipinos is there failure to consult the Moros if they would like to be part of the greater Filipino nation. The Philippines, if it is to take a further step into its history as a nation, must rectify this error. Otherwise, any attempt of applying Filipino sovereignty over the Moros would be a foreign imposition over them, and for the Moros that means war.
The decades-long war in the Bangsa Moro has now reached a point that is probably near its end—thank God. The Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, it seems, would have a final peace agreement with the emergence of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). Yet many Filipino politicians, it would seem, are against it. They oppose it because it would be like surrendering Philippine sovereignty over a portion of Mindanao with the MILF or the Moros. Some of them say it is like carving out a portion of the Philippines. To this I say NONSENSE!
To carve out something presupposes a solid block. The history of the Islands does not support anyhow this illusion that the Philippine archipelago is a solid block. During the pre-Spanish colonization in the Philippines the Islands were divided among independent Barangays. During this period there is no such a thing as a Philippine nation, as we now conceive of it. Loyalty then was not to a Philippine nation but to one’s barangay. The inception of a Philippine nation began towards the 3rd century of Spanish domination in the Philippines. The common hardships and sufferings of the Indios led to a himagsikan para sa Inang Bayan—The Philippines. Even then the Inang Bayan for Bonifacio, the father of the mga anak ng bayan, was simply the Katagalugan. During these periods the Moros were then divided into different Sultanates, independent and recognized as such by the Spaniards. The American colonizers did not anyhow consider the archipelago as a solid block. They divided it into two separate administrative provinces, the Christian North and the Moro administrative province. By the inception of the Philippine Republic there is still no considering the archipelago as a solid block. By the time of Quezon to Marcos the Philippine Republic speaks of integrating the Moros into the greater Philippine nation. Thus, the Bangsa Moro has always been separate from Bansang Pilipinas. This truth has been the basis of the struggle of the two biggest Moro liberation fronts. Therefore there is no such a thing as carving out a portion of the Philippines by the Moros. Nonsense and hilarious!
Am I not here fostering separation instead of solidarity among the beautiful people of these struggling and blessed Islands? Well, explicitly no. If the history of the Philippines has to move further then it must address this great issue. In the resolution of this issue the historical truth about the Bangsa Moro must be included in the equation. It must not be covered or veiled by political nonsense blubbering by some Filipino politicians, whose grounds for their blubbering is merely the Philippine Constitution and a legal definition of a state. A dialogue on peace can never be limited by a state constitution.
I agree with retired General Esperon that the best way of solving the issue is to consult the inhabitants of the proposed BJE through a plebiscite. It is only through it that we could achieve true solidarity. The greatest historical error of the Filipinos is there failure to consult the Moros if they would like to be part of the greater Filipino nation. The Philippines, if it is to take a further step into its history as a nation, must rectify this error. Otherwise, any attempt of applying Filipino sovereignty over the Moros would be a foreign imposition over them, and for the Moros that means war.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
What is bayanicracy?
(Insights from Dr. Romulo Bautista)
Bayanicracy is a concept coined by Dr. Romulo Bautista which is a combination of “bayanihan” and “democracy”. He advocates for people empowerment, and such begins with the notion of helping each other in the community, thus the concept of bayanihan. He makes an analogy of community empowerment to a “walis tingting”. Alone, he says, a man may not be able to do anything. But with a community united together, people can do a lot to help themselves.
Dr. Bautista argues that such a concept can be useful in helping farmers and small fishermen. It can begin with some form of micro-lending, or what he calls “piso-piso”. With any accumulated capital, small farmers and fishermen can become entrepreneurs themselves. Before the explosion of the rice crisis, he has conceived of how farmers can form groups and become marketers of their own produce.
With the problems we have, Dr. Bautista thinks that the academe can be at the forefront of this endeavor. He suggests that teachers should begin looking beyond the classroom, and move to action by sharing ideas to the common people in order to help those who are in need. Even with the doubts and opposition of a few critics, Dr. Bautista has always been consistent and clear with his advocacy, which in the end, hopes to bring about concrete change in the lives of people by making ideas result into action.
Bayanicracy is a concept coined by Dr. Romulo Bautista which is a combination of “bayanihan” and “democracy”. He advocates for people empowerment, and such begins with the notion of helping each other in the community, thus the concept of bayanihan. He makes an analogy of community empowerment to a “walis tingting”. Alone, he says, a man may not be able to do anything. But with a community united together, people can do a lot to help themselves.
Dr. Bautista argues that such a concept can be useful in helping farmers and small fishermen. It can begin with some form of micro-lending, or what he calls “piso-piso”. With any accumulated capital, small farmers and fishermen can become entrepreneurs themselves. Before the explosion of the rice crisis, he has conceived of how farmers can form groups and become marketers of their own produce.
With the problems we have, Dr. Bautista thinks that the academe can be at the forefront of this endeavor. He suggests that teachers should begin looking beyond the classroom, and move to action by sharing ideas to the common people in order to help those who are in need. Even with the doubts and opposition of a few critics, Dr. Bautista has always been consistent and clear with his advocacy, which in the end, hopes to bring about concrete change in the lives of people by making ideas result into action.
Monday, May 26, 2008
On Property Ownership
by Dr. Sherlito Sable
Philosophy Faculty, Ateneo de Davao University
Death among the poor is a common reality in our country. I would like to focus on the issue of property ownership in the institutional sense. Does any one have absolute ownership of the temporal properties of this cosmic world? If that is true then man has all the power to generate temporal properties. Absolute ownership is as I view it is associated to the power to generate. Meaning, I can claim absolute ownership of certain properties only when I am capable of creating it. If this land is mine, then I also at the same time claim that this land is my creation.
But no one yet has made a scientific claim that man is capable of creating land. Because if man can, then there will be no landless. But the fact is lands are claimed to be owned by men. Worst, state institutions do not question this type of ownership. The basic principle that what man has is a matter of gift from above is a primitive assertion as advocated by modern society. Just like, if I will claim the life that I have is my property, it also follows that I am capable of creating life. But no one has yet claimed that he has the power to create life. Because if this is true, there will be no death. Meaning, if I am about to die what I will do is I will just go to my laboratory and mixed life elements and then recreate my life.
This is the kind of thinking that this country is disillusioned. The thinking that one can claim absolute property over things is basically an illusion. Then, why does this kind of thinking drive people to kill another. May be this could be a good point reflect on.
Philosophy Faculty, Ateneo de Davao University
Death among the poor is a common reality in our country. I would like to focus on the issue of property ownership in the institutional sense. Does any one have absolute ownership of the temporal properties of this cosmic world? If that is true then man has all the power to generate temporal properties. Absolute ownership is as I view it is associated to the power to generate. Meaning, I can claim absolute ownership of certain properties only when I am capable of creating it. If this land is mine, then I also at the same time claim that this land is my creation.
But no one yet has made a scientific claim that man is capable of creating land. Because if man can, then there will be no landless. But the fact is lands are claimed to be owned by men. Worst, state institutions do not question this type of ownership. The basic principle that what man has is a matter of gift from above is a primitive assertion as advocated by modern society. Just like, if I will claim the life that I have is my property, it also follows that I am capable of creating life. But no one has yet claimed that he has the power to create life. Because if this is true, there will be no death. Meaning, if I am about to die what I will do is I will just go to my laboratory and mixed life elements and then recreate my life.
This is the kind of thinking that this country is disillusioned. The thinking that one can claim absolute property over things is basically an illusion. Then, why does this kind of thinking drive people to kill another. May be this could be a good point reflect on.
Libertarianism Contra Liberalism
by Eugim Migue
Philosophy Graduate Student
The justification for the extensive state lies in its capacity to apply “distributive justice”. But is this “justice” really just, if we take in to account a state’s neutrality over its citizens? When distributing certain goods and services to society, with some parameter in mind (income, age, gender), aimed at promoting justice, there is this the possibility that the chosen parameter or criteria for such a distribution is inappropriate if compared with the original conception what is just one has in mind, thus really unjust.
One cannot simply “correct” the previous mistake. Why? Because there is no central distribution of goods, Nozick points out. In a democratic society, no one is given central and absolute access to goods – and so if this is the case, it will be quite improbable to correct the previous erroneous distribution; and if it is improbable to correct it, since it was previously mistaken – then there is still a probable injustice (such mistake as an injustice, and assuming the current time-slice principles of justice is almost always mistaken). Further, in a free society goods and assets (which later will be included in the distributed goods) arise out of voluntary and arbitrary exchanges and actions of persons. The very notion of arbitrariness upsets the idea of distributive justice that relies on a pattern – there is no such pattern.
Now, if we reject the idea of a distributive justice, which relies on a pattern, implying that assets acquired in such scheme of distribution does not make one justly entitled to it, how should we justify holdings? What insures the just acquisition, its entitlement, of a holding – such distribution of holdings as the usual basis of a just society? What would be a more appropriate scheme for a distributive justice? One’s holdings, Nozick suggests, are justly acquired (or one is rightfully entitled it) if: (1) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition; (2) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer (implying that the holding transferred satisfies the previous condition); and, (3) the first and second principles are repeatedly followed.
This conception of a distributive justice is historical – whether one’s holdings are just depends upon the basis of the distribution or on the nature of the acquisition of such holdings: on what really happened, i.e. if it was in accordance with the first principle, and so on. Its counter-part, which Rawls, seems to propose is based upon some current “structure” or pattern which Nozick thinks inadequate to be the whole basis of a just method of acquisition and distribution of holdings. Again, Nozick does not think that a pattern exists by virtue of the way goods and holdings are circulated in society; it is plainly arbitrary. Rawls, on the other hand, thinks that there is a structure to which in the original position should be considered i.e., that there is a structure that illuminates this least and most advantaged, the former to be the priority. Nozick finds it relevant to ask, “How this kind of ‘structure’, or distribution did, come about?”, i.e. that there was a previous event, that there was a history, and not only the present time. A criminal, for example, is punished, or is in his current state, because of his crime – and that to settle at his current particularities e.g. his age, income, number of children, is somewhat irrelevant and ultimately unjust if we are to design a scheme to distribute goods solely on such bases.
We do not think it just if a terrorist, fallen under the category of Rawls’s “least advantaged” (as achieved through patterns and specific parameters) is to receive a substantial increase in life-prospect in society. We think it just to extinguish him from society if possible. Moreover, an entrepreneur’s, using Rawls’s example, deliberate (or non deliberate, since society and its institutions was so designed as to make it impossible) actions that could improve a working class’s position does not suffice to show that the latter really deserves or is justly entitled to an improved life-prospect (the life-prospect as a holding). This is the problem of the free-rider but the thing is that it has a historical element. The conflict between the two, I observe, lies more on the implementation (on the economic area of justice): Rawls as being current and, in a sense, unhistorical; Nozick being historical and retentive.
Philosophy Graduate Student
The justification for the extensive state lies in its capacity to apply “distributive justice”. But is this “justice” really just, if we take in to account a state’s neutrality over its citizens? When distributing certain goods and services to society, with some parameter in mind (income, age, gender), aimed at promoting justice, there is this the possibility that the chosen parameter or criteria for such a distribution is inappropriate if compared with the original conception what is just one has in mind, thus really unjust.
One cannot simply “correct” the previous mistake. Why? Because there is no central distribution of goods, Nozick points out. In a democratic society, no one is given central and absolute access to goods – and so if this is the case, it will be quite improbable to correct the previous erroneous distribution; and if it is improbable to correct it, since it was previously mistaken – then there is still a probable injustice (such mistake as an injustice, and assuming the current time-slice principles of justice is almost always mistaken). Further, in a free society goods and assets (which later will be included in the distributed goods) arise out of voluntary and arbitrary exchanges and actions of persons. The very notion of arbitrariness upsets the idea of distributive justice that relies on a pattern – there is no such pattern.
Now, if we reject the idea of a distributive justice, which relies on a pattern, implying that assets acquired in such scheme of distribution does not make one justly entitled to it, how should we justify holdings? What insures the just acquisition, its entitlement, of a holding – such distribution of holdings as the usual basis of a just society? What would be a more appropriate scheme for a distributive justice? One’s holdings, Nozick suggests, are justly acquired (or one is rightfully entitled it) if: (1) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition; (2) it is in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer (implying that the holding transferred satisfies the previous condition); and, (3) the first and second principles are repeatedly followed.
This conception of a distributive justice is historical – whether one’s holdings are just depends upon the basis of the distribution or on the nature of the acquisition of such holdings: on what really happened, i.e. if it was in accordance with the first principle, and so on. Its counter-part, which Rawls, seems to propose is based upon some current “structure” or pattern which Nozick thinks inadequate to be the whole basis of a just method of acquisition and distribution of holdings. Again, Nozick does not think that a pattern exists by virtue of the way goods and holdings are circulated in society; it is plainly arbitrary. Rawls, on the other hand, thinks that there is a structure to which in the original position should be considered i.e., that there is a structure that illuminates this least and most advantaged, the former to be the priority. Nozick finds it relevant to ask, “How this kind of ‘structure’, or distribution did, come about?”, i.e. that there was a previous event, that there was a history, and not only the present time. A criminal, for example, is punished, or is in his current state, because of his crime – and that to settle at his current particularities e.g. his age, income, number of children, is somewhat irrelevant and ultimately unjust if we are to design a scheme to distribute goods solely on such bases.
We do not think it just if a terrorist, fallen under the category of Rawls’s “least advantaged” (as achieved through patterns and specific parameters) is to receive a substantial increase in life-prospect in society. We think it just to extinguish him from society if possible. Moreover, an entrepreneur’s, using Rawls’s example, deliberate (or non deliberate, since society and its institutions was so designed as to make it impossible) actions that could improve a working class’s position does not suffice to show that the latter really deserves or is justly entitled to an improved life-prospect (the life-prospect as a holding). This is the problem of the free-rider but the thing is that it has a historical element. The conflict between the two, I observe, lies more on the implementation (on the economic area of justice): Rawls as being current and, in a sense, unhistorical; Nozick being historical and retentive.
On the Rice Crisis
By Bernard Escarza, MA
Faculty, University of Mindanao
Why do we have a rice problem? In the province of North Cotabato, for instance, poor rice farmers lose their spirit due to the prohibitive costs of planting rice. Moroever, they cannot dictate on the price of their produce come harvest time. Thus, they end up break even or sometimes, they are on a losing end.
Now, this month tons of imported rice will arrive from the US. This is a great insult to all of us. Why can’t we have the capacity to feed ourselves; worst we are importing rice from a potato eating land.
On the other hand, the news says the Sumilao farmers have finally been awarded the land they been clamoring to own for a decade, though not all of it. It would be a bad idea for the government to favor SMC and others because of their capability to pay tax and generate employment. But are not taxes intended for the people?
What is the role of philosophy in all of these issues, i.e. the problems of our farmers? If the government cannot do anything about these problems, all the more the poor will suffer.
Perhaps, there is still hope for the Philippines but it will not be that soon. Thus, I am not sure if I will be able to see the light of day at the end of the tunnel. But I hope my children will.
Faculty, University of Mindanao
Why do we have a rice problem? In the province of North Cotabato, for instance, poor rice farmers lose their spirit due to the prohibitive costs of planting rice. Moroever, they cannot dictate on the price of their produce come harvest time. Thus, they end up break even or sometimes, they are on a losing end.
Now, this month tons of imported rice will arrive from the US. This is a great insult to all of us. Why can’t we have the capacity to feed ourselves; worst we are importing rice from a potato eating land.
On the other hand, the news says the Sumilao farmers have finally been awarded the land they been clamoring to own for a decade, though not all of it. It would be a bad idea for the government to favor SMC and others because of their capability to pay tax and generate employment. But are not taxes intended for the people?
What is the role of philosophy in all of these issues, i.e. the problems of our farmers? If the government cannot do anything about these problems, all the more the poor will suffer.
Perhaps, there is still hope for the Philippines but it will not be that soon. Thus, I am not sure if I will be able to see the light of day at the end of the tunnel. But I hope my children will.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
On Globalization
by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE
Should we or should we not buy foreign goods? There are many factors to consider, like any imported product should not hurt locally made ones. But first things first, being pro-Filipino does not mean that we should be an autarkic regime. Being pro-Filipino does not mean that we continue the failure of protectionist policies in the past in the spirit of nationalism!
We live in the age of globalization. We are not the only inhabitants of the planet. We have to compete. It is a matter of survival. It is one thing to protect ourselves from the forces of the global economy and another to question unjust global structures enunciated by pro-US World Bank policies. It is a matter of fact that there are WTO policies that are pro-West. It does not make sense to compete against the US in terms of farm outputs because the US subsidizes its farmers billions of dollars. But this is not the only reason why we have been underdeveloped. There is something else.
The problem is not because you are wearing shoes made in Indonesia, or that you bought cheap christmas lights from China last year or because your shampoo is really made in Thailand if you care to read the label. The fact that we lag behind in economic growth is not to be totally blamed on the power of foreign economies - rather, it is because we have not fully taken advantage of globalization from a positive end that we have not climbed "the ladder of growth". Thus, the problem lies not in the global structures of trade but in the failure of governance, in policies that have long neglected agriculture, infrastructure, education and health!
Locally, small enterpreneurs will not survive because of lack of financial support from the government. Thus, many people, especially the poor, resort to lending which charge high interests, usually at twenty percent a month. Why would small businesses resort to this? It’s because government requires a bucketful of papers before anybody is granted any loan. The sad part of it is this: recipients of government grants or small loans think that the money is a dole-out. Why? It is because of the mentality that any money from the government is their own money! “My government is corrupt so why should I return this money?”
The reality is that our government is not providing enough to care for our people for them to live a life they have reason to value. There is no such thing as farm subsidies in the past. It's only now that farmers have been given some kind of assistance, but until when, only God knows. Economics is all about incentives, even going to school too. Students study because they hope to find work after graduation. But let us consider education for a moment. Who do you think are successful and who are not? The simple math is that the measure lies in the top ten (not ten per cent) students in class. The rest of the students go nowhere and will not be able to finish college.
And the saddest part of it is that many who finish college go abroad because there is not much in our country. What do you think will happen to many of them especially those who end up as DH in Saudi Arabia? Check your International Labor Organization website and it will tell you three words – life there is “difficult, depressing, and demeaning”.
India is developing and is moving forward because of one person and that is Manmohan Singh, a real economist who studied at Oxford and Cambridge. China is reaping unprecedented growth and is catching up in 500 years of lost opportunity by opening its market to the outside world. Why did America emerge from the depression? Just three words – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In a highly competitive global world, we need some kind of balance. I argue that we compete, but that shouldn't mean we simply become a dumping ground for cheap commodities that will hurt our local industries. What that means is that we elevate our competititiveness to the next level. This should require, world class leadership and a government at par with the world's most efficient.
Linkoping, SE
Should we or should we not buy foreign goods? There are many factors to consider, like any imported product should not hurt locally made ones. But first things first, being pro-Filipino does not mean that we should be an autarkic regime. Being pro-Filipino does not mean that we continue the failure of protectionist policies in the past in the spirit of nationalism!
We live in the age of globalization. We are not the only inhabitants of the planet. We have to compete. It is a matter of survival. It is one thing to protect ourselves from the forces of the global economy and another to question unjust global structures enunciated by pro-US World Bank policies. It is a matter of fact that there are WTO policies that are pro-West. It does not make sense to compete against the US in terms of farm outputs because the US subsidizes its farmers billions of dollars. But this is not the only reason why we have been underdeveloped. There is something else.
The problem is not because you are wearing shoes made in Indonesia, or that you bought cheap christmas lights from China last year or because your shampoo is really made in Thailand if you care to read the label. The fact that we lag behind in economic growth is not to be totally blamed on the power of foreign economies - rather, it is because we have not fully taken advantage of globalization from a positive end that we have not climbed "the ladder of growth". Thus, the problem lies not in the global structures of trade but in the failure of governance, in policies that have long neglected agriculture, infrastructure, education and health!
Locally, small enterpreneurs will not survive because of lack of financial support from the government. Thus, many people, especially the poor, resort to lending which charge high interests, usually at twenty percent a month. Why would small businesses resort to this? It’s because government requires a bucketful of papers before anybody is granted any loan. The sad part of it is this: recipients of government grants or small loans think that the money is a dole-out. Why? It is because of the mentality that any money from the government is their own money! “My government is corrupt so why should I return this money?”
The reality is that our government is not providing enough to care for our people for them to live a life they have reason to value. There is no such thing as farm subsidies in the past. It's only now that farmers have been given some kind of assistance, but until when, only God knows. Economics is all about incentives, even going to school too. Students study because they hope to find work after graduation. But let us consider education for a moment. Who do you think are successful and who are not? The simple math is that the measure lies in the top ten (not ten per cent) students in class. The rest of the students go nowhere and will not be able to finish college.
And the saddest part of it is that many who finish college go abroad because there is not much in our country. What do you think will happen to many of them especially those who end up as DH in Saudi Arabia? Check your International Labor Organization website and it will tell you three words – life there is “difficult, depressing, and demeaning”.
India is developing and is moving forward because of one person and that is Manmohan Singh, a real economist who studied at Oxford and Cambridge. China is reaping unprecedented growth and is catching up in 500 years of lost opportunity by opening its market to the outside world. Why did America emerge from the depression? Just three words – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In a highly competitive global world, we need some kind of balance. I argue that we compete, but that shouldn't mean we simply become a dumping ground for cheap commodities that will hurt our local industries. What that means is that we elevate our competititiveness to the next level. This should require, world class leadership and a government at par with the world's most efficient.
Charter Change?
By Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE
The sole reason why there are politicians who want charter change is power, not public service. This idea does not fail to give the best possible hindsight as to the real motives our leaders have in changing the constitution.
Charter change is not a magic formula. Notwithstanding all the provisions in the constitution that can be altered in order to favor foreign investments and thus bring in capital into the economy, the whole storyboard regarding charter change is political – not social nor economic change.
Politics is about men in power. The present constitution prescribes a bicameral chamber, and proponents of Cha-cha argue that it slows down the process of legislation. A shift to a unicameral system will expedite the passage of laws that will benefit the people in the long run, or so they say. For instance, they accuse the Senate of spending hundreds of hours investigating anomalies and sitting on essential legislative measures. But there is something more to this common sense argument. Charter change will enable the ruling coalition to get a grip into power, and transfer the all-important ingredient of democracy – the will of the people – to the will of the majority (in the parliament).
It would be ridiculous to compare ourselves to successful unicameral governments. Ours is not a problem of structure – it is a problem of bad governance. For instance, a shift to a federal form of government is no guarantee that Mindanao shall be lifted from its war-torn history. While Metro Manila already has three light rail running and four more in the horizon, Mindanao’s dream of a railway system remains all that - a dream. While powers that be may have already decided on how they may divide the pie on the Northrail and the Southrail, Mindanao’s planned railway is all that – a plan. As to how a federal state can make sure that such a project will be implemented – only God knows how and why.
Institutions are about people. A thick book about justice, however well-argued or eloquently written, is useless if those who profess to promote and defend its maxims do not live by the principle “public service is a public trust”.
The country need not rush things nor alter its course by committing another blunder. The kind of democracy we have, however worse, will be sufficient enough to get us through until the first ballot in 2010 shall have been cast. By then, we can start dreaming again.
Linkoping, SE
The sole reason why there are politicians who want charter change is power, not public service. This idea does not fail to give the best possible hindsight as to the real motives our leaders have in changing the constitution.
Charter change is not a magic formula. Notwithstanding all the provisions in the constitution that can be altered in order to favor foreign investments and thus bring in capital into the economy, the whole storyboard regarding charter change is political – not social nor economic change.
Politics is about men in power. The present constitution prescribes a bicameral chamber, and proponents of Cha-cha argue that it slows down the process of legislation. A shift to a unicameral system will expedite the passage of laws that will benefit the people in the long run, or so they say. For instance, they accuse the Senate of spending hundreds of hours investigating anomalies and sitting on essential legislative measures. But there is something more to this common sense argument. Charter change will enable the ruling coalition to get a grip into power, and transfer the all-important ingredient of democracy – the will of the people – to the will of the majority (in the parliament).
It would be ridiculous to compare ourselves to successful unicameral governments. Ours is not a problem of structure – it is a problem of bad governance. For instance, a shift to a federal form of government is no guarantee that Mindanao shall be lifted from its war-torn history. While Metro Manila already has three light rail running and four more in the horizon, Mindanao’s dream of a railway system remains all that - a dream. While powers that be may have already decided on how they may divide the pie on the Northrail and the Southrail, Mindanao’s planned railway is all that – a plan. As to how a federal state can make sure that such a project will be implemented – only God knows how and why.
Institutions are about people. A thick book about justice, however well-argued or eloquently written, is useless if those who profess to promote and defend its maxims do not live by the principle “public service is a public trust”.
The country need not rush things nor alter its course by committing another blunder. The kind of democracy we have, however worse, will be sufficient enough to get us through until the first ballot in 2010 shall have been cast. By then, we can start dreaming again.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
On the problem of overpopulation
By Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, Sweden
Ask your favorite barber and he will say that there are too many Filipinos, that there are too many mouths to feed, that there are too many kids to send to school, that there are too many houses to build, that there are too many people to serve, and that there are just too many people for a poor country like us.
If we take a look at the world’s wealthiest nations, almost all of them do not have a problem of overpopulation – so few people and yet they have huge economies. Think, for instance, of Iceland, Norway, Sweden or Singapore. It can also be said that these societies have attained a certain kind of maturity. It is also this kind of maturity that has made the reality of God non-existent for them. Their cathedrals are huge and fascinating. But these structures are oftentimes empty.
Jeffrey Sachs considers demography as part of the reason why certain countries fail to thrive. China has a one-child policy, fearing that overpopulation will undermine its ascent to economic growth, and prospectively, its momentum. Amartya Sen believes that a country need not force upon its people the concept of family planning. In Kerala, a state in India, he says, democratic discourse has helped bring down fertility rates. The argument points to the fact that all advanced economies are into the replacement rate of fertility, one or two child per mother, whereas in poor countries like the Philippines, most mothers have four or five.
I am not against family planning. I think it is stupid to have five or six children and yet you cannot even send them all to school. The problem really is that people who are supposed to be too poor to afford a decent standard of living are the ones who have too many children.
People above the poverty threshold have long since realized that two kids are just enough. Why have so many when you cannot even buy each one a new pair of sneakers during Christmas? But of course, I have not answered my question. Is it the Catholic Church’s stance on family planning that underdeveloped 24 million Filipinos? My answer is no. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with all those babies.
The Philippines is not poor because there are too many Filipinos. We are poor, and indirectly, as a result of that an overpopulated country, because of graft and corruption. If only we have had good governance, say after the popular Pres. Ramon Magsaysay died then most poor Filipino women beginning in the fifties would have had finished college. Most of Europe attained tremendous development after World War II through the Marshall Plan. The Philippines stagnated and failed due to bad governance beginning in the early sixties. It is not the Church’s fault. It’s due to bad governance.
If it would have been the case that Filipino women consider a profession the primary option in life, they would have been more empowered to say no to their husbands. Our society is patriarchal. Women grow up thinking that men make decisions. “Women govern the house – but it is men who rule”, so they say. The Church is not the real enemy. It is partially culture.
Well, the Catholic Church tells its followers not to use condom – but the Catholic Church does not prohibit couples from making love. I don’t think people don’t use condoms or that they have too many kids because the Catholic Church is against artificial family planning. People choose and make their own lives – including the number of children they want (whether intentionally or unintentionally). The Church is not the culprit. It is the government’s failure to sustain its family planning program.
If only Filipino women had a say, they would have chosen better options or married men who are more understanding. If one lives inside a ten square meter house, there really is no escape – thus you say goodbye to a life “one has reason to value”, as Sen would say.
Mahbub Ul Haq says it well, “people are the real wealth of a nation”. Graft and corruption is the single biggest reason why the state of Philippine education is unwell, health care is almost non-existent for the poor, and real purchasing power is equal to nil. This is the reason why 24 million Filipinos live miserable lives.
Linkoping, Sweden
Ask your favorite barber and he will say that there are too many Filipinos, that there are too many mouths to feed, that there are too many kids to send to school, that there are too many houses to build, that there are too many people to serve, and that there are just too many people for a poor country like us.
If we take a look at the world’s wealthiest nations, almost all of them do not have a problem of overpopulation – so few people and yet they have huge economies. Think, for instance, of Iceland, Norway, Sweden or Singapore. It can also be said that these societies have attained a certain kind of maturity. It is also this kind of maturity that has made the reality of God non-existent for them. Their cathedrals are huge and fascinating. But these structures are oftentimes empty.
Jeffrey Sachs considers demography as part of the reason why certain countries fail to thrive. China has a one-child policy, fearing that overpopulation will undermine its ascent to economic growth, and prospectively, its momentum. Amartya Sen believes that a country need not force upon its people the concept of family planning. In Kerala, a state in India, he says, democratic discourse has helped bring down fertility rates. The argument points to the fact that all advanced economies are into the replacement rate of fertility, one or two child per mother, whereas in poor countries like the Philippines, most mothers have four or five.
I am not against family planning. I think it is stupid to have five or six children and yet you cannot even send them all to school. The problem really is that people who are supposed to be too poor to afford a decent standard of living are the ones who have too many children.
People above the poverty threshold have long since realized that two kids are just enough. Why have so many when you cannot even buy each one a new pair of sneakers during Christmas? But of course, I have not answered my question. Is it the Catholic Church’s stance on family planning that underdeveloped 24 million Filipinos? My answer is no. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with all those babies.
The Philippines is not poor because there are too many Filipinos. We are poor, and indirectly, as a result of that an overpopulated country, because of graft and corruption. If only we have had good governance, say after the popular Pres. Ramon Magsaysay died then most poor Filipino women beginning in the fifties would have had finished college. Most of Europe attained tremendous development after World War II through the Marshall Plan. The Philippines stagnated and failed due to bad governance beginning in the early sixties. It is not the Church’s fault. It’s due to bad governance.
If it would have been the case that Filipino women consider a profession the primary option in life, they would have been more empowered to say no to their husbands. Our society is patriarchal. Women grow up thinking that men make decisions. “Women govern the house – but it is men who rule”, so they say. The Church is not the real enemy. It is partially culture.
Well, the Catholic Church tells its followers not to use condom – but the Catholic Church does not prohibit couples from making love. I don’t think people don’t use condoms or that they have too many kids because the Catholic Church is against artificial family planning. People choose and make their own lives – including the number of children they want (whether intentionally or unintentionally). The Church is not the culprit. It is the government’s failure to sustain its family planning program.
If only Filipino women had a say, they would have chosen better options or married men who are more understanding. If one lives inside a ten square meter house, there really is no escape – thus you say goodbye to a life “one has reason to value”, as Sen would say.
Mahbub Ul Haq says it well, “people are the real wealth of a nation”. Graft and corruption is the single biggest reason why the state of Philippine education is unwell, health care is almost non-existent for the poor, and real purchasing power is equal to nil. This is the reason why 24 million Filipinos live miserable lives.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Public Service
by Ryan Maboloc
Linkoping, SE
(Conversations with Dr. Christopher Agulanna and Ryan Urbano)
It is difficult to understand why a country of 90 million people cannot find other minds to make the governance of this country healthier. Many of our bureaucrats have not produced significant results. Of course, there are some who are good. The basic idea in public service is that any government should have bureaucrats who will serve, in the best possible way, however inimical sincere public service can be to one’s financial gain. Soon, reporters will quote from them that they serve at the “pleasure of the President”. That’s wrong – it is the Filipinos whom they should please, not the President.
But the saddest part of it is that a lot of our leaders steal money from the people. The thing is, they go abroad when they are sick. It is a wonder why our leaders don't build good hospitals for the poor in the country too, since poor people cannot afford to go abroad or the private hospitals in the country.
There are people with IQ 140 + in the academe, but of course, politics is something beyond theoretical analysis. It takes courage and a lot of will to be of real service to one’s country. Many bright boys would rather seek greener a pasture in America. Thus, the bad news is, with the way things are going, we doubt if we can ever hire bright people in the future to help the poor. Of course, the best way to entice them, I think, is the assurance that this government will do away with political accommodation and will consider seriously the principle that “public service is a public trust”. But that’s a long shot – so there you go. Ockham’s razor tells us this: New faces mean new ideas; old faces, the same old tricks – tricks that don’t work, as one failure after another of this government have shown.
Billions and billions have been squandered. Money that could have otherwise been spent for the good of the people.
The point of the matter is that our country needs sincere people to get things done. Just consider the Philippines or Nigeria, for example, as a patient inside an operating room. Ask a fifth grader and I am sure he or she will tell you that the hospital should assemble the best medical team in order to save the patient from an impending date with eternity. That is pure and simple logic. For instance, I don’t believe that changing our form of government will solve our problems. It is just like transferring the patient to another hospital. If the patient gets the same kind of doctors, then he will still have his date with eternity.
Linkoping, SE
(Conversations with Dr. Christopher Agulanna and Ryan Urbano)
It is difficult to understand why a country of 90 million people cannot find other minds to make the governance of this country healthier. Many of our bureaucrats have not produced significant results. Of course, there are some who are good. The basic idea in public service is that any government should have bureaucrats who will serve, in the best possible way, however inimical sincere public service can be to one’s financial gain. Soon, reporters will quote from them that they serve at the “pleasure of the President”. That’s wrong – it is the Filipinos whom they should please, not the President.
But the saddest part of it is that a lot of our leaders steal money from the people. The thing is, they go abroad when they are sick. It is a wonder why our leaders don't build good hospitals for the poor in the country too, since poor people cannot afford to go abroad or the private hospitals in the country.
There are people with IQ 140 + in the academe, but of course, politics is something beyond theoretical analysis. It takes courage and a lot of will to be of real service to one’s country. Many bright boys would rather seek greener a pasture in America. Thus, the bad news is, with the way things are going, we doubt if we can ever hire bright people in the future to help the poor. Of course, the best way to entice them, I think, is the assurance that this government will do away with political accommodation and will consider seriously the principle that “public service is a public trust”. But that’s a long shot – so there you go. Ockham’s razor tells us this: New faces mean new ideas; old faces, the same old tricks – tricks that don’t work, as one failure after another of this government have shown.
Billions and billions have been squandered. Money that could have otherwise been spent for the good of the people.
The point of the matter is that our country needs sincere people to get things done. Just consider the Philippines or Nigeria, for example, as a patient inside an operating room. Ask a fifth grader and I am sure he or she will tell you that the hospital should assemble the best medical team in order to save the patient from an impending date with eternity. That is pure and simple logic. For instance, I don’t believe that changing our form of government will solve our problems. It is just like transferring the patient to another hospital. If the patient gets the same kind of doctors, then he will still have his date with eternity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
