The venerable national artist for literature. F. Sionil Jose, in his column last Monday, lamented why we failed as a country in term of economic development, despite the fact that we were among the first the to be granted independence by our colonial masters.
Since 1946, we have had twelve Presidents but no breakthrough economic growth on a consistent basis which would make us at par with any of our Asian neighbors who have broken through third world status.
“It is very painful for me to do this, having witnessed so many of the obvious mistakes that our leaders and, of course, how we, as a people, failed. We must remember that in the 1950s and 1960s, although World War II laid waste to Manila and much of the countryside, we were the richest, most modern country in Asia, next to Japan.
South Korea and its capital, Seoul, were far more devastated than Manila by the Korean War in the early 1950s. In one generation, however, it has not only recovered, but it has also gained ascendancy; without a shipping industry to begin with, South Korea is now the builder of the biggest ships in the world, a leading car manufacturer and the home of Samsung, one of the world’s best electronics giants.
The South Korean economic miracle is instructive. Development starts with capital accumulation, whether it is by the state or the oligarchy. We had lots of that capital, but much of it went out, hoarded in Switzerland or invested in China, Spain and other countries. If it was not sent abroad, it was used to fund nonproductive enterprises, the golf courses and swanky resorts, the condos, all of which are not producing goods.
This can be explained by the people who held all this financial wealth. Their attitudes are not those of creative nation builders but those of exploiters and landlords, which they inherited from the colonizers for whom they worked either as partners or as agents. They are of course indolent, for their attitudes are those of landlords waiting only for the rent or their share of the harvest. Landlordism is one of the basic cultural obstructions to development. How to change landlords into producers is the primary challenge to the Filipino elite.”
The short of it is our oligarchs invested mostly in rent-seeking businesses and not those which focused on manufacturing right after the war. What was destroyed was not rebuilt because those who invested in the establishing the plants left the Philippines to go back to their home countries after experiencing the horrors of the war at the hands of the Japanese. What kept the Philippine economy going were the Chinese. The old rich Filipinos were busy rebuilding the fortunes they lost in whatever way possible.
The Americans didn’t bother to fund the reconstruction of the infrastructure built mostly by the Spaniards and whatever they added during their watch. We were short-changed in war reparations since Japan was their new democracy project and even with independence, Americans still had parity rights until 1974. It was only after Marcos was elected President that the infrastructure was rebuilt.
“The Korean War in the early 1950s devastated Korea, too. I saw that nation on its knees. After General Park Chung Hee’s successful coup in the 1960s, he summoned all the big business leaders and told them to modernize South Korea, and he would assist them. But if that country was not modernized after 20 years, he would cut off their heads. The people believed him. At one time when the economy faltered, the women bequeathed their jewelry and their gold to the government. Korean overseas workers enlarged the domestic capital. In the 1960s, all of Korea’s mountains were bare; now they are reforested.
It has been claimed that the progress in South Korea was also primarily powered by the Confucian ethic which made the Koreans more amenable to an autocratic government. This point of view is debatable. But one thing is for sure: the Koreans work harder than most, and they produced cheaper and better-quality products that could compete in the world market. South Korean industry is supported by an understanding government for as long as the businessmen are modernizers.
The South Korean movie industry is also instructive, utilizing native and historical themes with scripts written by their best writers. It has captured the world’s imagination and with it, the international market.
It must be remembered that all these economic developments were made even under the threat of war with North Korea. The possibility of the resumption of the Korean War is always imminent in the South Korean mind.
South Korean democracy is thriving, and the justice system is working, making it possible for that system to punish its highest officials who have done their country wrong.”
When I first went to Seoul after their market opened to Philippine marine products, particularly black tiger prawns, I saw first-hand how the Koreans did it. The former Japanese colony forced their former colonial masters into technology-transfer agreements in return for setting up plants and taking advantage of cheap Korean labor then. The plants also manufactured products for the domestic market under Korean conglomerates or the chaebols. This is what Jose was referring to as the captains of industry whom Park Chung Hee called after he established a dictatorship in South Korea. You didn’t see much imported products in the domestic market at this time. Even the whisky served in karaoke joints were Korean brands.
Today, the Koreans have taken over where the Japanese have left off. China is closely following in the footsteps of South Korea in technological development, in some areas, they’re even ahead. The Chinese have manufacturing prowess but some is focused on their own needs while the rest export-oriented. But it won’t be long before the Chinese crowd the South Koreans out of the market niches they now control. In the smartphone category alone, China is dominating Samsung. LG has gone out of that line of business as it couldn’t compete with Chinese OEMs anymore.
“Now, let us look at our leaders, particularly Marcos, when the rot really started. His election was a landslide, his term foisted by this country’s finest technocrats. But towards the end of his second term, the glory had faded; to continue his reign, he had to declare Martial Law which enabled him and his wife to plunder the country with the help of his oligarchs and the monopolies he created.
After him, the so-called colorless reformist leaders, all of whom were hobbled by corruption. Duterte, it is now evident, is not much different, although he has a lot of new infrastructure to show. Like Marcos, he has his own circle of favored oligarchs, and only God knows his real SALN and the pile he made, the tremendous debts he had incurred which future Filipino generations will have to pay.“
The national artist is not fond of Marcos, even if they’re both Ilokano. Jose is more fond of Elpidio Quirino, who is also Ilokano but not quite as brilliant as Apo Lakay. Marcos had a vision but was derailed by his hubris and the prevailing economic conditions at that time which wasn’t favorable to the growth strategy he pursued. At the same time, financing at that time was controlled by the IMF-WB, which served as a tool for American hegemony. It didn’t allow country’s it lent to to have control over their fiscal policy and was constantly forcing the wrong policies as a control mechanism to achieve their political ends. Marcos was felled by his hubris and his single biggest mistake was not effecting a transition when he became seriously ill. Think of what would’ve happened had Marcos not called for the snap election but instead transferred power to either Juan Ponce Enrile or Eduardo Cojuangco.
We have been witness to thirty years of Yellowtard rule where not much was accomplished in terms of governance and infrastructure. Jose lumps Duterte together with Marcos again but he does have a lot to show as accomplishments during his tenure. Duterte has proven that political will combined with strongarm leadership is what the country needs. What Jose describes as Duterte’s failures, particularly when it comes to debt isn’t all true. Most of the debt incurred has been since the pandemic began when government revenues dropped and the budget deficit had to be plugged in order for the government to do what it needed to in terms of pandemic response and keeping the economy afloat. But more important are Duterte’s achievements in the peace and order front, particularly the drug war and bringing a measure of peace to Mindanao with the implementation of the Bangsamoro Organic Act and the establishment of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. Duterte also managed to reign in the power of the oligarchs up to a certain extent. Jose himself has given Duterte credit for the closure of ABS-CBN.
“In light of the South Korean experience, pessimists say it is, and they have a lot of empirical evidence to back this conclusion. I disagree; the leaders who led us to perdition are, in the long run, minor incidents in our history. Some of our problems are not their creation but are inherent in an archaic, outmoded political system that needs to be changed immediately. Persistent social engineering can also change barnacled attitudes and customs. Nationalism as inspiration is the crucial ingredient in development. Unfortunately, the wealthy Filipinos and their political collaborators have no love or devotion for our country which they plundered.
I hope it will be possible to do all these things after the elections next year. That is, if we vote wisely.“
We have never addressed the root of our problems because the leaders who are the true patriots are always sidelined. Witness the fates of Bonifacio and Luna at the hand of Aguinaldo. Then there is the lack of national identity. As Filipinos, we identify more as American than Asian. This isn’t only true in the Philippines but even in the US. Just watch The Fabulous Filipino Brothers on Netflix and you’ll have an idea of how dysfunctional Fil-Ams are.
Then there are the oligarchs. The quislings who have been in control of politics and business in the country. Since the Spanish time up to now, they have been the reason why we have always been left behind. The economy needs to be opened to foreign direct investment. It cannot protect the oligarchs from competition so they can continue exploiting the Filipino consumer.
It was Duterte who broke the political stereotype with his victory in 2016. His declaration of an independent foreign policy was also unprecedented since we have always been under the fingers of Uncle Sam. This is why the question now is, what comes next? A family feud has Duterte ending his term on a low note. His supporters expected him to anoint his successor but that isn’t the case. For the first time post-Marcos, the administration party has no standard bearer and an incomplete Senate slate for the election.
Of the current field of Presidential candidates, only two are qualified; Sen. Ping Lacson and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Both share the stand that they are open to endorsements but will not seek one from the President. It remains to be seen if the President will endorse either of the two, or no candidate at all.
Unity is an important criteria for nation-building. The Philippines is still divided because of the Aquino-Marcos narrative long after both are six feet under the ground. Ninoy Aquino’s legacy of the Liberal Party and the CPP-NPA-NDF continues to divide Filipinos. It doesn’t help that there are also foreign agents like Maria Ressa, who continue to promote division and instability and make it appear to the global community that the Philippines is under a demagogue for the simple reason that it is not supporting America in its fight for democracy against China and Russia.
The next President faces a host of serious problems which needs to be squarely addressed. Foremost of these is the transition to the Covid is endemic phase and economic recovery. Then there are the long-term unsolved issues of corruption and the absence of long-term planning among government departments and agencies. Bureaucratic reform through digitization and the hiring of competent and qualified personnel.
But most important is the change in political structure. We don’t have up and coming political leaders because the system only favors those who are already in power with their only qualification being their surname. The other option is popularity. Raffy Tulfo for Senator not because he is qualified but because he is popular and has name-recall. The same with Arjo Atayde for Quezon City Congressman. What will happen to the country if these are the kind of leaders we elect to office? We are also running out of leaders. Just look at the present crop of Senatorial candidates. Most of them are returnees who don’t have much innovation to offer. It is mostly the same old faces who have spent how many terms in the upper chamber without much accomplishment to show for.
We need consistency in leadership which the present political structure doesn’t offer owing to the incestuous nature of the system. We insist on keeping the republican bicameral form of government when it has always been the root of our failures because it doesn’t truly represent the people given its reliance on popularity and money to get elected. At the very least, we should go back to the 1973 Constitution with the unicameral parliamentary system but this time based on the British model.
We as a people, also need to change our mindset. Mediocrity is more the norm now than the exception. This is evident in all levels of society and even in companies in the private sector and more so in government where credentials are bought in order to qualify for promotion. This is partly attributable to what “freedom and democracy” wrought in the past thirty years.
Comments