twitterfacebookgoogle+register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 65 of 65
  1. #61
    OPINION | Why Pinoys don't bring their 'bad habits' abroad, Part 1 of 2

    By: Cesar Polvorosa Jr., InterAksyon.com

    May 12, 2015 11:18 AM

    InterAksyon.com
    The online news portal of TV5


    (Editor’s note: Cesar Polvorosa Jr. is a business school professor of economics, world geography, and international business management in Canada. He is also a published writer in economics, business, and literature.)

    The streets of Manila embody chaos: Masses of vehicles crowd the roads, crisscrossing each other’s paths with buses and jeepneys stopping almost everywhere to disgorge and pick up passengers amidst the incessant assault of blaring horns and suffocating, lingering smog.

    Equally ill-disciplined pedestrians trudged across sidewalks cheek by jowl with makeshift stalls in a landscape of potholed roads.

    A sudden thunderstorm leaves commuters stranded and wading in putrid floods aggravated by overflowing clogged esteros.

    The gridlock in the streets of Manila symbolizes the glacial pace of good governance and progress in the sprawling archipelago. However, as I have observed in my three-part article on the Filipino Diaspora, the Filipino driver and commuter easily adapts to traffic conditions in say, North America and does not bring over his/her “bad habits” from the Philippine homeland. Why?

    ‘Survival of the fittest’ behavior

    The unruly Filipino suddenly transforms into a courteous and law-abiding driver and/or commuter when overseas especially in western countries (though ingrained “bad habits” occasionally surface). What is it about the West such as Canada that encourages people to obey traffic rules?

    The Filipino is acutely aware that traffic rules and regulations will be applied strictly and equally with stipulated sanctions regardless of class or status. To violate traffic rules is to stick out like a sore thumb because almost everyone else is following them. Furthermore, attempts to bribe or pull rank and exhibit arrogance from a sense of entitlement will only worsen the situation.

    The “survival of the fittest” behavior is not needed since infrastructure is much improved.

    On the other hand, what is it about the Philippines that fosters anarchy on its roads? Traffic rules are frequently violated or often ignored in exchange for a bribe or because of connections. The infrastructure is also so broken down and inadequate that drivers take “creative shortcuts” to reach their destination in the quickest possible time.

    In short, the Filipino driver or commuter’s behavior is shaped by “the rules of the game” which is the popular definition of “institutions.”

    The institutional approach spells out the role of the reward and punishment mechanism of institutions in influencing behavior.

    There is no clear incentive in the Philippine setting to follow the basic courtesy of the road. There is a widespread perception that rules are not applied equally that combines with a deep distrust of authority.

    In fact, following rules such as staying in line will almost guarantee that one will fall behind because others are not lining up properly and are getting ahead.

    Particularly in North America, celebrities and politicians are sometimes in the news for publicized traffic violations and the sanctions meted out. For instance, a popular mayor in the Toronto area struck a sign post with her car some years ago for which she was fined $110. Can this actually happen to a Filipino politician or to politicians of many other countries?

    What is the origin of this distorted incentives mechanism and flawed institutions?

    Causes: Small elite, extractive institutions

    The centuries of colonization under the Spaniards and the half century of American rule installed a small elite, extractive institutions and engendered dynasties that aggrandize themselves and controlled the country’s resources.

    The outcome over generations had been institutionalized corruption and poor governance which permeated the bureaucracy. If franchises can be granted that strengthens the oligarchy how much more for receiving bribes to overlook traffic violations?

    Vested interests and the rule of a small elite lead to corruption and class privilege resulting eventually in highly unequal income distribution and the quagmire of poverty. The people subsequently endure years of inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure. Minor functionaries had no incentive to be honest when the officials above them are corrupt. In turn, the impoverished state of the country leads droves of its citizens to immigrate.

    Poor governance, deplorable road discipline, and traffic conditions are just symptoms of Philippine under-development. Note the similar conditions in many developing regions such as Africa which has the highest road fatality rate among the regions of the world. Under-development in turn is a multi-faceted process involving history, culture, institutions, geographies, and resulting motivations.

    There is a rich literature on modernization theory or explanations on the prosperity and poverty of nations which include a classic work such as Webber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” to a present day influential work, “Why Nations Fail” by Robinson and Acemoglu.

  2. #62
    ^^^ (Cont'd)

    Growth from achievement motivation

    For our purpose, David C. McClelland’s landmark book “The Achieving Society” (1961) wherein he argued that cultural customs and especially the motivation for achievement are the major triggers of economic growth is especially relevant for the focus of this article as he discussed the role of the need for achievement through entrepreneurship. He observed that long run economic growth is preceded by a high level of achievement motivation.

    We analyze the work of McClelland and examine their implications in the Philippine context. The achievement motivation and success is hobbled in societies where a small elite corners resources and where it is widely perceived that unequal advantages are critical for upward mobility.

    In short, personal networks and financial resources become the vital ingredients of success. Philippine society is notorious for reliance on family connections and padrinos - the patronage system.

    The amassing of wealth and influence becomes a self-perpetuating system of the elite few. As business Professor Michael Lewis noted about the Philippines, “Leadership is based on family name, age, and connections.” (When Cultures Collide: 477).

    There is distrust of outsiders for they may desire the same positions and resources and thus, hampers cooperation transcending the family and clan.

    Over the generations, Philippine politics have degenerated into dynasties and personality based contests. Laws and regulations i.e. formal institutions are not taken seriously and are weakly implemented such as in poor traffic management.

    Subsequently, informal institutions i.e. beliefs, customs value systems, etc. try to compensate and become the basis for interactions and transactions such as using personal connections in traffic violations. The distorted incentive system and unfairness leads to cynicism, apathy, and resignation - and the Philippines is certainly not unique in this regard.

    Similarity with Latin America

    Why did Latin America to which the Philippines is highly similar in culture and colonial history lagged behind North America which was also colonized by the Europeans? In both Philippines and Latin America the encomienda model was instituted by the Spaniards which concentrated wealth in the hands of the few that led to a vicious cycle of corruption and penury.

    In contrast, famed British historian Niall Ferguson (6 Killer Apps) observed the high rate of land ownership of household heads in Canada and the US compared to a Latin American nation such as Mexico. Canadian and American pioneers were motivated to work hard and become entrepreneurial as they own land and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

    The historical and economic paths of the US vs. Russia are also worth analyzing.

    Independent American immigrant families settled the Western frontier and developed self-reliance and entrepreneurship incentivized by the free enterprise system and enforcement of private property rights.

    The Russian nation developed through their conquest of their Eastern frontier eventually reaching Alaska beyond Siberia and the Pacific. These rugged Russian pioneers were mostly serfs in servitude to their nobles. They were motivated to work hard to ensure survival in the harsh environment but they cannot be entrepreneurial nor become prosperous under feudalism. The Russian character of expansionism became an antecedent to Marxism and authoritarianism. For the serfs, resiliency became the imperative amidst hardships and an unjust system.

    Resiliency is basic human trait

    In the wake of the horrific devastation of typhoon Haiyan the public discourse centered on the celebration of the resiliency of the Filipino. Indeed, the Filipino is a hardy race.

    “Resiliency” or the “ability to bounce back” is however a basic human trait as self-preservation requires resiliency. Many nations notably the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans have gone on to excruciating war time sufferings, demonstrated admirable resiliency, and advanced beyond survival to unprecedented heights of prosperity in their countries’ histories.

    There are various inspiring national motivations - attaining the American dream through free enterprise and the conquest of the frontier, the passion of the Chinese to reclaim past glory, the fortitude of the Japanese and the Germans to rise like the phoenix from the ashes of defeat, the ascent of South Koreans under the shadow of a hostile North, etc.

    What about Filipinos? What is the distinct narrative that the Philippines offers to the world? What motivates Filipinos to become achievers - or are they in fact motivated to succeed? The focus has been on the resiliency of Filipinos because as Philippine history would demonstrate, the nation survives and endures through wars, natural disasters, and years of misrule - but is unable to become an achieving and prosperous society. As I posed the issues before: Is there a Filipino Dream? Is it a well-articulated, deeply and widely shared national vision? Finally, do Filipinos dare to dream big?

  3. #63
    History repeating itself

    Randy David

    @inquirerdotnet

    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    12:09 AM | Thursday, June 4th, 2015

    In the last decades of Spanish colonial rule over the Philippines, Filipinos found themselves split into basically three groups. The first accepted Spanish rule but called on Spain to reciprocate their loyalty with better treatment. The second took Spanish rule as a given, but campaigned for a greater voice in the governance of the islands. The third group rejected foreign rule and pressed for full independence.

    The same divisions reappeared under American colonial rule. The three groups were called, respectively, “annexationists,” “autonomists,” and “independentists.” The first desired full integration of the islands into the United States. The second called for self-rule under American patronage. And the third worked for full independence from foreign rule.

    These categories occur wherever the inhabitants of a place think of themselves as constituting an entity distinct from those who wield power over them. The perceived difference typically draws from various sources of identity: race, ethnicity, religion, language, culture, history—or a mixture of any of these. Where we were as a people not too long ago, there the rebels of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front find themselves today. They and those who came before them have long regarded our government as a foreign imposition on the Bangsamoro community. They draw their emancipatory aspirations from the same sentiments that animated the American Revolution against the British, and, indeed, the Filipino wars of liberation against Spain and the United States.

    The affiliations described are, of course, never permanent. Some start out as “reformists” and graduate to being “revolutionaries.” Others begin as revolutionaries and turn into reformists. After a long and difficult struggle, they are persuaded to lay down their arms in exchange for a political settlement that is less than their original goal but promises to be better than the status quo. Indeed, some go back to being revolutionaries after their hopes are dashed by recurrent duplicity and betrayal.

    I imagine that the same divisions exist today in Southern Mindanao. The “annexationists” demand greater attention by the Manila government for neglected Mindanao, but they think this can be achieved by a respectful integration of its institutions into a more inclusive Filipino nation. Mindanao’s traditional elites belong to this mold.

    Then there are the “autonomists.” Most of them are original advocates of secession who, having grown weary of war, agree to negotiate a political settlement that permits them meaningful self-rule within the framework of the Philippine Republic. The MILF is the current champion of this path.

    At the polar end of this political spectrum are the motley rebel groups who are still calling for secession. We can count among them the so-called Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and the many idealistic but unaffiliated Moros whose disenchantment with previous peace agreements has made them totally distrustful of the Manila government.

    If it successfully hurdles the legislative process with its key provisions intact, the Basic Law of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region would be the most comprehensive measure ever to be crafted by any Filipino administration to address the Moro problem. It would be, by any measure, a bold and gigantic step toward curing the historical injustice that was produced by the unilateral annexation of Muslim Mindanao by an independent Filipino nation.

    A Bangsamoro law that is basically a rehash of the congressional act that created the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao would only maintain the same systemic conditions that led to the failure of the ARMM experiment. I dare say that all the Mindanao peace accords that had been signed under previous administrations essentially entailed buying off the loyalty of Moro leaders in order to keep the region exploitable for the benefit of interests other than those of the peoples of Mindanao. The inevitable failure of such a law would only recruit more people into the secessionist rebellion.

    It is remarkable that the legislators who demand guarantees that the creation of a Bangsamoro Autonomous Region would not be a prelude to an independent state are the same ones who seek to strip the autonomous region’s government of the very powers and resources it needs to make genuine autonomy viable. In so doing, they are only creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    To me, the main message of the bill now pending in Congress should be: that we, the Filipino people, recognizing the historic injustices that past generations inflicted on the people of this region, now seek to bind these wounds once and for all. That we do so of our own accord—not out of fear, but in solidarity with those who, like us, have felt the oppressive hand of colonialism.

    Once upon a time, Filipinos took comfort in the words of the American writer Mark Twain, who himself might have been branded a traitor by his own people. He used to be, he said, “a red-hot imperialist,” who could not wait to see the American eagle “spread its wings over the Philippines… put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific….” Explaining how he turned into an ardent anti-imperialist, he said: “But I have thought some more, since then… I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way.”

    * * *
    FRIENDS LANG KAMI

  4. #64
    E di pati nagtitinda sa bangketa Inglisero na din. Alangan naman yung lang mga naturingang pinagpala ang pwedeng umastang Kano...hehe.
    Last edited by danny; 10-18-2015 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Inglesin mo beybe!
    COURAGE SAN BEDA! / ¡ÁNIMO SAN BEDA!
    Understand? / ¿Entiendes?

  5. #65
    To Fil-Am Republicans: Do you really want to be part of this?

    By: Boying Pimentel

    @inquirerdotnet

    INQUIRER.net U.S. Bureau

    09:30 PM January 18th, 2016

    Twenty years ago, one of the biggest political questions in the United States was whether Colin Powell, the popular former U.S. general, was going to run for president and whether he would do so as a Democrat or a Republican.

    He eventually announced that he wasn’t running for president as he ended speculation on his party affiliation: Powell, the son of Jamaican immigrants, declared himself a Republican.

    In fact, he said he hoped to become an active member of the Republican Party, saying, “I believe I can help the party of Lincoln move once again close to the spirit of Lincoln.”

    A year later, he again used that phrase, calling on fellow Republicans to “let the party of Lincoln be in the forefront, leading the crusade, not only to cut off and kill discrimination, but to open every avenue of educational and economic opportunity to those who are still denied access because of their race, ethnic background or gender.”

    “It is our party, the party of Lincoln, that must always stand for equal rights and fair opportunity for all,” Powell said at the 1996 Republican National Convention.

    It was when I read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” that I really understood what Powell was talking about.

    It may come as a shock to many that the Republican Party was once the most progressive and most courageous political movement in the United States. This was, after all, the party that led the struggle in eradicating what’s still considered the ugliest stain on American history: slavery.

    Lincoln stands out in “Team of Rivals” as a skillful political strategist and a visionary leader with a big heart, who, even on a personal level, rejected the prevailing view (held by top Democrats of the time) that African Americans were subhuman.

    Recalling his relationship with Lincoln, the African American leader and abolitionist Frederick Douglass, said, “He treated me as a man; he did not let me feel for a moment that there was any difference in the color of our skins.”

    Fast forward 150 years and we have a radically different picture: The party of Lincoln is now the party of Trump.

    Today, the most popular politician in the party of Lincoln is calling for a ban on all Muslim travel to the United States and appears to become even more popular in Republican ranks with every brazenly racist comment.

    “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said early in his campaign. “ They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

    The party of Lincoln is now also the party of Ted Cruz who defended Trump’s comment on Mexicans by saying, “I don’t think you should apologize for speaking out against the problem that is illegal immigration.”

    The last six months have been excruciatingly painful for anyone trying to follow and understand U.S. politics.

    This Republican presidential primary season has been the nastiest and most mean-spirited campaign I’ve witnessed since I moved to the U.S. a quarter of a century ago. Last week’s Republican debate was simply mind-numbing.

    Take one of the highlights of the evening featuring yet another one of Trump’s over-the-top fear-mongering rants. Asked if he’d consider rethinking his call for a ban on Muslims traveling to the U.S., he quickly answered: “No.”

    “Look, we have to stop with political correctness,” Trump continued. “We have to get down to creating a country that’s not going to have the kind of problems that we’ve had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers, with the — with the shootings in California, with all the problems all over the world. I just left Indonesia — bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb. We have to find out what’s going on.”

    This is also a question Fil-Am Republicans should be asking: What’s going on? What’s happened to the party of Lincoln?

    As Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke described the debate in his headline: “Fear-filled GOP debate shows candidates lack one iota of self-awareness.”

    It was entertaining to watch, until one realizes that the debate featured leaders of a political movement that still exerts considerable influence on life in the U.S. and even the world.

    Tough to disagree with New York Times columnist Frank Bruni who writes: “The only sane response was sorrow that this is a presidential election in the greatest democracy on earth, and that blowhards like Trump and Cruz are, for now, setting the pace and the terms in one of our two major political parties.”

    Again to Fil-Am republicans: Do you really want to be part of this?
    FRIENDS LANG KAMI


 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

 
Visitor count:
Copyright © 2005 - 2013. Gameface.ph