GLOBDEV #7 Shallow Minds or Shallow Input?

I give up! I know one main reason why it took me so long to write a blog entry about F Sionil Jose's "Why we are shallow" is because I didn't want to agree with him. I wanted to find arguments that would prove him wrong but I couldn't. In the first GLOBDEV class, I was asked whether I agree with the author after having shown the article. I said I didn't but I was not able to give any concrete reason for my stand. I guess I agreed even then but stubbornly did not want to accept it. Now, I'd like to enumerate the reasons why I've given up.

The author made a clear emphasis on the role of mass media on making the Filipinos generally shallow. On my first reading of the article, my eyes were immediately caught by the line "We are shallow because we don’t read." I know a lot of young people my age who love to read a lot. I myself have read books of various genres. Then I realized that we probably represent a very insignificant part of the population, those who have the luxury to buy books. I would not blame Filipinos if they'd rather buy food than books. The only thing that's wrong is if you buy magazines that probably contain 90% ads, 3% information, and 7% more text that implicitly encourage you to buy more luxurious products that you don't really need.

Another point given by the author I agree with is the deterioration of the Filipinos' interest in our own culture. According to Jose, "There is less emphasis now on the humanities, in the study of the classics which enables us to have a broader grasp of our past and the philosophies of this past." I agree on this. Even in our Philippine history class where we were supposed to research on our national hero's life, only a few was eager to know more about Jose Rizal. When we know exactly why we have become who we are today, we could make more meaningful decisions that can make up for all the bad ones we made in the past. When our professional organization offered a museum tour for us, I've come to appreciate our race even more. I learned that we were not at all shallow then. Our ancestors loved spending their time painting, making music, turning gold into very beautiful art pieces, etc. They were great potters and poets!

Lastly, Jose also mentioned that "We are shallow because we have become enslaved by gross materialism, the glitter of gold and its equivalents, for which reason we think that only the material goods of this earth can satisfy us and we must therefore grab as much as can while we are able." I think materialism in the Philippines should not only be blamed on the Philippine mass media but on the influence of Western culture that continues up to now. I blame this on globalization. Generally, more Filipinos prefer to watch news about Hollywood stars than watch local news about national events. We are more interested in what Angelina Jolie wore in her latest pictures than in how the impeachment trials are going.

Our shallowness, is like a gift to the businessmen. It is the reason why we continue to base our consumption on the advertisements we see everywhere. I guess the real problem here is the quality of information that is available. We see more news about fashion and entertainment online than global news that would affect our country. Our curriculum as of now only requires a minimal number units allotted for studying history. I know a lot of Filipinos who graduate from High School who can't even speak straight Filipino; and the worst part is, colleges tolerate this!

If we simply accept that we are shallow and join the majority, we will only be giving the next generations the same thing. I hope that the added two years of education in the secondary levels would give emphasis on Philippine culture. :)

GLOBDEV #6: K+12: More than just Additional Expenses

“Our success as a nation is not measured by how many years we have governed or how many wars we have won. It is measured by the quality of life which we have created for the society that our ideals were founded upon. ” - Matthew Morgan

It seems that the Filipinos are still divided on approving and disapproving the implementation of DepEd's K+12. Personally my initial view on this is that it would be beneficial to those who would like to pursue graduate school outside the country. Since primary and secondary education in the Philippines is currently squeezed into ten years, with the exception of a few schools offering 7th grade, most graduates who continue their studies abroad will have to take up a year or more of school in order to align with the international standards. Al

so, graduates will become more marketable in the global scale as their competency and skills will be honed in the additional two years of secondary education even before they enter college.

It was only later that I figured out a few disadvantages of the aforementioned project.

1. Just like any other national project, it gives some perverse government officials a lot of opportunities to pocket a share of the budget allocated for this.

2. Even without the additional year levels in high schools, many schools (especially public schools) already lack classrooms and other facilities to hold classes. This might result to more night shifts for the students or a few more year levels would have to share the same classroom.

3. The ratio of teachers to students have always been low. This could worsen the problem if not addressed before or during the implementation of K+12.

4. The lengthened secondary education could discourage some students from entering high school. The fact that you'd have to work more to earn your allowance two more years can entirely discourage students from attending in high schools.

5. MORE EXPENSES! Parents would have to break their backs working for a few more years.

Despite all these, I believe that the K+12 will have long term effects of improving lives in our country. I remember my statistics professor, Dr. Roberto Raymundo, telling us that we can't simply use the same formula that gives us bad results. He was referring to the current curriculum that produces deteriorating quality of education. He also said that this program will not only benefit those who plan on working abroad but those who will be working here as well. He emphasized that the program will help the country produce more globally competitive workers so investors will have more confidence in hiring them. This will also equip even high school graduates with the skills that will help them qualify for the jobs available in the market. He explained that as it is, parents still pay expenses for their children to graduate at least high school and their kids end up unemployed high school graduates. If K+12 is properly implemented, the percentage of educated unemployed could decrease.

When Dr. Raymundo mentioned that the K+12 will also prepare high school students to become emotionally mature individuals before entering the tertiary level, I instantly nodded. He cited that he has observed students who only take their studies seriously at their second year or later years in college. I was struck by this as I have also experienced the difference between high school subjects and college courses. I definitely did not expect college to be as difficult as it is. I even flunked a math subject on my first year. I strongly agree that a few more years in high school will enable most of the high schools all over the country to offer subjects like Pre-Calculus, Drafting, Foreign Languages, etc. which my high school did not have the time to include in our curriculum.

I used to tease my younger cousins who'll be affected by this program. Now, I somehow envy them as I think of the possible interesting subjects that I might be missing. I'd surely love another year of Foreign Language, Literature and Music. I'd say a Pre-Calculus subject would have helped me a lot in college.

GLOBDEV #5: Netherlands: A Wonderland in the Eurozone

Although the Netherlands have been affected by the current crisis in Europe, they still manage to keep low inflation and unemployment rates.

So how can the Netherlands maintain unemployment rate low?

Even when their country provide unemployment benefits, which can decrease the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs, their unemployment rates have been kept low. This could be a product of their effective system of providing jobs to unemployed that suit their skills, knowledge, and experience. According to an article in BBC (Reed, 2011), young Dutch people are offered jobs according to their skills, and are deprived of their unemployment benefits if they don't take the offered jobs after three offers.

Other parts of the Europe provide very limited unemployment benefits yet could not keep their unemployment rates low. The Dutch government however, offers generous unemployment benefits but compels the unemployed to take jobs that are available. This is what makes them different from other European countries.

So can we apply the same in the Philippines? Well, I doubt if we even have the resources to provide unemployment benefits when we can't even afford to provide jobs in the first place. I think we should make low-skilled jobs or jobs which less people target more appealing to the unemployed. One factor that contributes to our high unemployment is that most graduates force themselves into saturated sectors of the labor force.

If we give enough support for farmers, more people will find incentives in farming and will no longer compete for jobs that require a lot of investment in education. If we hire more teachers and increase their benefits, more brilliant people can opt to teach and the average ratio of teachers to pupils may increase, therefore improving quality of education at the same time. If we limit mining or other industries that provide temporary jobs and put more attention to emerging markets like coconut water, which PNoy recently brought home after being introduced by New Yorkers, more coconut growers can find a more permanent living.

Reference:

Reed, J. (2011, October 21). Youth jobs: Is unemployment answer in the Netherlands? Retrieved March 27 , 2012, from BBC Radio Newsbeat: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15387800

GLOBDEV #4: The Destructive Capabilities of Media Use

Media is such a powerful tool. It can change a multitude of people's perspective on almost every matter, big or small. As much as various media can help enlighten people about events in places unreachable, it can also direct people's minds into conclusions they cannot possibly verify and it can create things which can be hard to take back.

One classic example given in class on how media can make things worse is the Manila hostage taking that happened years ago.Many critics, including myself, believe that the media took a very improper decision when they covered the arrest of the hostage-taker's brother when there is a clear possibility that the hostage-taker had access to live news through the television inside the bus. This may have triggered him to kill more hostages.

Another example of how easy access to media such as the internet can worsen an issue is the current form of online protest. I've been seeing a lot of complaints about how our current president Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino is occupied by things that are not for the public's best interest or how he ignores issues that need immediate attention. Their words imply how lenient PNoy is at a time of great crisis that worsens each and every day. They even came up with a term "noynoying" which is supposed to be used as a verb that means: letting time pass doing nothing or ignoring important problems. Well, I don't think he's not doing his best to find ways to improve life for his people. Clearly, the path our economy takes must say something about his efforts.

It is really ironic how foreign people trust our leader more than his own people do. A lot of news everyday attest to how large investments from foreign businessmen come to our country. These investors would not even give our country a single gaze if they do not believe in the credibility of our leader.

We have learned in our macroeconomics class that the inflation rate and the unemployment rate of a country has a negative relationship. It means that when an economy would like to lower the aggregate level of prices of the basic needs, they can choose to let unemployment increase. However, in certain situations, inflation can decrease without unemployment having to increase. If people believe that inflation would not rise and the economy would be stronger, they would not bargain for their wages to increase, the cost of production would not increase and the prices set by the producers would also not increase. One can only imagine how much the total perception of a nation of its economy can actually change the direction it actually takes. Wrong speculations can damage our economy gravely and would harm investors' confidence.

There really is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion on an issue and exercising one's right to question the government. People should not forget, however, that whatever they say or post online can affect how other people, may they be Filipinos or foreign men, perceive our country and the economy. Perception greatly determines how people act.

On the other hand, the "noynoying" protest may have some good effects on how PNoy may run the government for the rest of his term. This could become a challenge for him to change the perception of his critics. In these matters, it is important that media practitioners and those who use media to provide information to the public try their best to avoid biases when presenting information.

GLOBDEV #3: The Ultimate Question: "At What Cost?"

When precious gold is underground, do you instantly dig for it even when the land you're going to destroy is the only rain forest left?

In one of our classes. my microeconomics professor, Dr. Joel Tanchuco, told us that one of the most important question businessmen constantly ignore is this: "At what cost?" He gave the following example: If the prices for palm oil used in producing bio-diesel increased, would you immediately turn an entire rain forest into a palm farm? No. Stop first and ask yourself this question, "At what cost will we earn profit?"

Photo source:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=28483&topic=23&section=37

Last March 2, 2012, I attended a two-day Young Economists' Convention held in the Angelo King Institute Bldg. and in De La Salle's Teresa Yuchengco Auditorium. I was fortunate to have witnessed in the first day of the convention the lecture of Ms. Regina Lopez, managing director of ABS-CBN. She discussed her advocacies and the concrete projects she has done or was involved with to preserve what’s left of our natural resources. One of her major and ongoing project is“No to Mining in Palawan”.

The day after the lecture, I read in a news article that Ms. Lopez attended a forum on the same day she lectured in our convention. She was one of the most active speakers from the environmentalists' side, constantly delivering arguments against business tycoons, like Mr. Manny Pangilinan, Philex Mining chairman.

In the forum, Mr. Pangilinan argued that mining is not bad if done responsibly. He even claims that it will pull us out of poverty. His most convincing argument, for me, is that we can't live without mining.The cell phones we use, the laptop I used to write this blog, the cable wires used to make distant communication possible, and even the microwave ovens the canteen people used to reheat our food contain metals.

One does not need a degree in Economics to know that supply of a particular good is affected by the demand for it. Mining industry has grown in terms of the number of firms, big and small, legal or illegal, because our demand for technology is continually increasing at a rapid rate. All these happen, thanks to globalization and consumerism.

Globalization made it possible for Philippine industries to cater not only to local demands but also to demands from other countries. This is why our our exports of mines and metals increased through the years. Foreign investment in our mining industry also increased due to globalization.

Consumerism also affected the demand for metals. Businessmen knew that while the rich continue to patronize highly expensive phones, they should look for a bigger market. And so, they targeted the middle class. Now, even people earning less than 12,000 pesos a month can afford to have two phones. This is also true for other gadgets that contain metals. We have been led to believe that everyone should own a set of gadgets. We used to live without cell phones. We used to be fine with just one personal computer per family. Now each family member has to have his or her own laptop. We used to have a family car. Now, everyone has his own car. We no longer settle for less than a flat screen LCD TV even if our old television set still works perfectly. Condotels around De La Salle University sprout like mushrooms all over Taft, Manila even when there's already enough of them; but of course, students wouldn't want to stay in the old ones.

Demand for metals would not diminish considering the consumption behavior of people today. So should we grab this opportunity that might help bring more income to our country? I don't think so. I believe our laws and implementers lack the capability to protect our environment and the state from the damage it would bring. I think we should strengthen the rules that guide mining in the Philippines.

There may be a hundred reasons why mining should be regulated. I chose to list a few important ones. 1) In our country, most of the places where mining operations are held do not benefit from the profit of the mining firms. My father told me that the this happens because most firms file for their taxes in their main offices which are usually located in the cities. That is why the GDP of the places mined do not increase from the mining industry. 2) Another point is that usually, mining sites are left by the firm after operation without allotting a portion of their profits to rehabilitate the place.This should be made as a requirement for mining companies. 3) Also, mining firms only provide temporary employment to locals and leave them without livelihood after.

4) Mining also affects other industries like agriculture. The chemicals used to extract some mines damage the land of mining and sometimes flow down to agricultural lands, damaging crops. 5) Another factor is that mining companies get away with their violations to the environment and to people and accidents by paying the government officials who should have been the ones to look after these things.

I also don't think that the the government effectively examines the places before allowing mining companies to operate there. All of the possible damage to the environment and to the livelihood of locals should be weighed before permitting them to go on business.

Let's not stop asking the ultimate question, "At what cost?" Whenever we buy food, we first look at the price and the satisfaction we will get from it. Then we weigh the pros and cons. Let's do the same in bigger things that affect many in real life. Is mining worth damaging our environment for? (if there really is something that's worth harming nature for)

We may not stop consuming products but we can reduce consumption. We may not be able to stop mining everywhere but we can fight every opportunity we get. Sign http://no2mininginpalawan.com/ for a start.

Reference:

Dumlao, D. C., & Alave, K. L. (2012, March 3). Manny Pangilinan: Mining is not the enemy, poverty is. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from Inquirer News: 2012

GLOBDEV #2: Poverty: A Never Ending Tale

Taking sides

In our last meeting in Globalization & Development, the class was divided into two. One side of the class is where those who believe in the neo-liberal project as a solution to poverty sat. The people on the other side did not believe in the solution. I was seated on the side who believed in neo-liberalism. Honestly, I was one of the many who, at the time, did not have a clue on what neo-liberalism is and what it has to do with poverty. Scanning my notes, I saw the name Karl Marx and the term “laissez faire”. These things I’m quite familiar of. I began to see the connection.

After the session, I started gathering arguments for the two sides and found myself leaning on to the other side. I actually don’t think neoliberalism would be a good solution to, of all things, poverty. Our professor said the neoliberal project is idealistic. I think both situations, neoliberalism and government intervention, are idealistic.

The connection

Liberalists believe in free market. On the other hand, the Keynesian economists believe in government intervention through policies that ensure economic stability. I think both ideas can ensure development but are both inconceivable when implemented separately. Entirely eliminating government control would enable giant companies to monopolize the market, dictate prices and widen the gap between the poor and the elites. What is presently implemented in majority of the countries is a combination of both.

The government is tasked to regulate the dictating power of firms, ensure that there is competition so firms would strive to compete in terms of quality of products and services, protect workers from abusive employers, protect local businesses from non-state actors, etc. Also, a free market has been adapted gradually. As globalization became widely accepted, free trade gained popularity and even our country succumbed to the trend. In 1992, we signed up for AFTA(ASEAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT). Over decades, Philippine relations with the United States led us to lower our trade barriers. Almost all of our industries have been open to foreign investors, even the power sector. More investors could have meant more financial resources for the country. That was the idea. Apparently, they get more than what they pay us for. It is either our laws are still not good enough to guarantee that we will receive enough payment to compensate for the lost opportunity we could have given to local businessmen, or we have good policies but corrupt implementers.

The verdict

Free market just won't work. Some say that if we allow firms to profit as much as they can, more jobs will be generated. Presently, laws protecting workers are implemented but the number of firms who actually respect these rights are relatively low. An established firm in the Philippines avails of contractual labor to avoid giving out incentives and to be able to easily decrease hired workers whenever they need to. This is a fact most people are aware of. Now, many more firms are doing the same.

Internationally, liberalism in the form of free trade would only aggravate the economic condition of developing countries like the Philippines. We only continue to be consumers of other countries' goods. I remember looking for a pancake mix in the grocery store. Comparing the prices, the imported mix costs much less than the local one. If I had not tasted the local product, I would have bought the imported one which is cheaper.

Complete government control over the market is not good as well. Even now that our policies seem to be enough to regulate those who abuse power over their workers and their dictating power over prices, government officials can still be bribed. I learned from a professor that a friend of his, an owner of a small-scale mining company, has to give 8 million pesos to government officials each year to stay in the business.

I guess, when Filipinos learn to know the boundaries of "utang na loob" (sense of gratitude or reciprocity), when Filipinos no longer tolerate their friends' malicious acts for friendship's sake, and when laws and justice can no longer be bribed, we can get out of poverty. We suffer because our leaders are cuffed by the business people who financially supported their candidacy. We suffer because abusive business people escape proper sanctions by buying themselves out of the hands of law. With or without government intervention, poverty will exist if we lack cultural reform. For now, all I can do is share my knowledge, donate some of my stuff, patronize local products, and other little things that can help the poor.

GLOBDEV #1: Living in a Self-Help World

Last week, I was listening to the radio. I was tuned in to a particular station that plays old songs which I’m guessing were from the 60s to 80s. I would know if there was any song from the 90s since that’s my childhood years. Anyway, one song caught my attention. It was Eagle’s “Love will keep us alive”. The tune was very calming and almost got me sleepy until I heard the line when we’re hungry, love will keep us alive. That line could have meant something else to the artists but I can’t help thinking that the line captures exactly why some families now are headed by teenage parents. Many young people enter into parenthood without considering what life they’d be able to give their future children. Assuming “love” is what drove these young parents to raise their own families, I don’t think love alone could help them get through the challenge they have entered into. What social settings will their kids be pushed into when they enter this world?

I remember one of the topics discussed in GLOBDEV (Global Development) was the distinction of a household from a family, and how they affect global politics. Prior to this, social and liberal individuals were also explained as they were defined by Tetreault and Lipschutz in their book “GLOBAL POLITICS as if PEOPLE MATTERED”. According to these authors, a liberal individual is a person who depends on the state and to whom obligations, rights, duties and liabilities are manifested through legal documents. On the other hand, a social individual is one who constitute the society and one who was born and socialized into relationships. Furthermore, these individuals make up groups bound by biology, law, norms and customs, or simply by the economy of production and ecology of reproduction (The former being a family and the latter being a household). A family is functionally organized to enable survival and NURTURE children. In the same way, a household works according to rules, roles, and culture. While a family may constitute a household, a household is not always made up of a family.

A household is considered the fundamental unit of society. Every individual has a predetermined social setting. Given all these, I believe it is the duty of parents to register their children as citizens of the state in order to avail them of the rights a citizen/liberal individual is entitled to. Another duty of parents is to make sure their future children would grow up in the most ideal set of social factors that may affect who they become. By social factors, I mean education, social class, family set-up, religious institution, etc. How many of the teenage parents’ kids are registered to the state? How many of them go to school? How many of them still live with both of their parents?

Some may argue however, that they themselves were forced into a harsh social setting. Does this pass as an excuse? Well, even I would agree that certain situations limit our freedom to successfully change our fate. Now, does the responsibility of ensuring a good future for the youth end with their parents? I guess not. We are all connected to one another, intertwined by an immense social web. Like the old Filipino song says: “Walang sinuman ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang... tayong lahat ay may pananagutan sa isa’t isa.” (Nobody lives for himself alone…we are all responsible to one another.) The government is also bound by their social contract with the citizens to ensure the best quality of life for them. After all, the government is tasked to handle the economy of the state. The word economy was derived from the greek words “oiko” and “nomos” which, when put together, means “management of households”.

It is however sad to note that in some instances, parents lack the education to handle their children’s future well. In some other situations, it is the government who don’t work competently for the task the people entrusted to them. Is there anyone else who could help a person better than himself? In our present world, we could not rely on others to help us reach our goals, just like states can’t rely on other states for protection. Even when treaties are made between states, how many of these are really followed during desperate times?

In this self-help world, I guess Jean-Paul Sartre’s statement proves true “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

source:

Tetreault, M. L. (2009). Global politics: As if people mattered. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.