Baptism of Fire

When you are in a new university you must remember that you are entering another universe altogether. This is a piece of advice I have learned the hard way because I rush into things with blind enthusiasm and naivete. Falling flat on one's face or slamming straight into a wall of humiliation are distinct posibilities.

In another universe there are new planetary arrangments, new constellations and laws of nature that may or may not coincide with one's already known ideational realm. One cannot assume the same rules, norms and habits apply. To an extent, one cannot take for granted that certain things are already understood in School C when plenty of experience on these things have already been learned and imbibed in Schools A and B.

So of course it is absolutely shocking, shocking! when in School C, where I am a newbie, I am expected to explain to my students why I gave them failing marks. It is not enough that I have assiduously explained to them my course requirements and the percentages on the very first day of class. It is not enough that I have given them back the results of their written and oral work. It is not enough that, similar to a mother hen, I have constantly reminded them of their obligations. It is not enough that where English is the standard medium of teaching and communication, I encourage use of Filipino to those who are not linguistically gifted.

Like an errant school-child I am summoned, Summoned! by my boss to come to the department as swiftly as can be humanly done to explain myself and my decisions. A Horror of horrors has happened, 11 students failed in a class of 27. Gasp. And so, exhausted and semi-conscious from a 10-hour/6-day work week in the past 5 weeks, I drag myself to a caucus of students and boss. In the power-point presentation of my head "Diploma Mill" and "No Academic Freedom" and "No Academic Integrity" flash alternately in big, bold colors.

The Boss is calm and collected. The students are solemn and in deep thought (something most of them have never exhibited in class). The Boss speaks to me in measured tones. These are graduating students. Some of them have already been accepted in graduate schools. Higher administration is breathing down my neck. Parents are a pack of wolves biting at my heels. Save me. I want to give everyone a fair chance and protect your academic integrity and standards. We can say we've done everything humanly possible to accomodate all parties involved. I feel ashamed for having to ask you this. I apologize. Do you agree to giving them another crack at the finals? I promise nothing like this will happen again. This I do solemnly swear. Amen.

What can I, a lowly peon, do when my superior so humbles himself for me? I say yes. Another exam it is. If the borderline cases prove themselves come Monday, then 4or 5 should be on the road to salvation. And I? Well let's just say, the more I age, the more I compromise.

More Random Bitchiness

I disliked this film.

It wants to be an intelligent and important film. It is not.

Its a movie. And so, its a make-believe story. It is well-directed and edited yes. The supporting cast is impeccable. You can tell an actor is great when he makes a memorable performance out of a not too well elaborated character. Jeremy Irons rocks.

The film studio spent lots of money for the elaborate sets and it shows, yes. They could have chosen brighter coloring though, but they wanted a "dark" film. The blue hues don't make Orlando Bloom a better thespian. Heck, even Edward Norton "acting" in that silver mask did a better performance than our Legolas. I want my blonde elf back. This role was better suited to someone like Viggo Mortensen for example. And yes, Kingdom of Heaven is too "LOTR-ish." The battle scenes were taken straight out of Two Towers. Blech.

Another thing I don't like about sensitive "stories" like this is it simplifies complex events in history with trademark Hollywood story-telling. The power Hollywood films is that many people in the world who get to see this film will think its an accurate rendering of something that happend almost a thousand years ago.

Random Bitchiness


Oh how the mighty have fallen. My malevolence for this particular woman was so great that one evening while the boyfriend and I were on the way home on that flyover on the EDSA-Quezon Avenue intersection, I turned off the lights on her Bench billboard. Yes. I was safely in the car driving, but the sheer venom of my "I absolutely abhor that woman" strangely coincided with the lights on said billboard (showcasing her artificially enlarged breasts) going out! I shit you not.

Why do I abhor her? Aside from the fact that she has cheapened her parents' legacy (especially her father's), she is the quintessential media whore. She sells her life to anyone who cares to purchase. Such a waste for someone who is purportedly smart.

The Machinist is one of those few films which remind you that moving pictures on the screen are still works of art. Visually striking and thought provoking, each and every frame in Ben Anderson's masterpiece is beautifully shot it looks as though you were looking at a series of forehead-creasing paintings.

The narrative is taught as a string you find you need to relax those muscles you've been clenching for the last few scenes. This is a horror movie. Probably the most-talked about aspect of this film is lead actor Christian Bale's "horrific" transformation. He lost 63 pounds to play the role of a man who hasn't slept in a year method-acting-insane-a-la-Daniel Day Lewis convincingly. He doesn't need to act, just looking at his Holocaust-survivor body is excruciating enough.

In the end, the film's resolution, and ultimately the whole story, is simple enough. Although it may look as though Bale's Trevor Reznik is on a down-ward spiral to hell, this is about a man's journey to salvation.

My dog Rune gave birth to 5 cute lil pups about a month ago. Here they are! We haven't named them yet. We're waiting to see til they exhibit a little bit of their personalities. I personally like the one at the back. He likes following me around.



This is the only dark-colored one among the bunch. Cute lil rascal.



This one's the biggest and fattest. Probably because she gets to her mum's teats the fastest. I'm inclined to call her "Dagul." Hehe.

We can't possibly keep all 5 pups, so we'll be needing nice people to bathe, feed and care for them. Anyone interested to take one? Please leave a message. Thanks!

Reaching all-time highs of exhaustion, sleep-deprivation and stress is bad. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad. *Sigh* Somebody mail me a million peso cheque please? So I can rest for a bit in comfort. Catch up on pleasurable and leisurely reading. Sleep well without thinking of the things to do the day after in advance. Eat ice cream nuggets in peace. *Double sigh*

I Profess, To You My Brothers and Sisters...

I am about to embark on a new and exciting challenge in my adventures as one who "professes" truths (or perceived truths) to young and impressionable minds. It seems far-fetched from what I do now, because I will (attempt to) teach politics of the international kind. It is really not that different from teaching a foreign language because it entails pretty much the same dynamics. Throughout the last 3 years I profess that these dynamics are:

1. To be an effective teacher, one must first and foremost be engaging. It evidently matters that you know your area of study like the back of your hand, but a good scholar does not make an effective teacher. You could be a genius in your field but without succesfully inciting the curiosity of your students and engaging their interest by showing how study of a certain discipline matters in the real world, then why bother? Your students will just as soon catch ZZZs than listen to your expert diagnoses.

2. To be engaging one must entertain. You are evidently in front of an audience, and within the anonimity of a crowd, students' consciousness are liable to wander. And wander they will. And so you must work assiduously to keep their attention. If you skilfully guise imparting knowledge in lively banter and occasional jokes, then you have won half the battle.

3. To conduct lively banter, one must be open to critique. Just because you are the one standing in front, armed with the numerous letters after your name, does not mean you are God, that is, all-wise and all-knowing. Respect your students, respect their views and opinions because they too are thinking individuals like yourself.

4. To be open to critique and be entertaining, one must be humble. You may think yourself exceptionally gifted with mental capacities, but that doesn't make you the master of anyone, least of all your students. By all means speak with authority, but always be conscious that you are human and are fallible. Don't take yourself too seriously, the capacity for self-deprecation is crucial in letting your students know you are there not to pontificate but to primarily incite their curiosities and encourage and sustain the different directions these may take.

5. Finally, you are there merely to guide, to point out certain possibilities, to enlighten. Present as many versions of truths there are on offer, and let them decide. Bolster their courage and confidence. Do not privilege your own to the detriment of theirs. Fear and intimidation does not engender respect. If you want to be respected because you are feared, then that is the EASY way out.

So there. Armed with these comforting philosophies, I brace myself to conquer new territory come Monday. Baptism of fire indeed.

Another plea to a Boy

Seated here on your throne, in this little corner of the universe where you are king to no one but yourself, I wish I could say to you my plea. There is so much I want to tell you but I can't, bound as we are by blood and all the history and baggage this creates between the two of us. I can't speak with you as freely as I would in an audience of twenty, where I regularly implore kids not far from your age of the things I value in life's struggle and journey.

We are fruits of the same tree, you and I. And yet, I hesitate to remind you of how far you have fallen off the path I and our parents would have you take. I know you are your own person and you must learn to live your life your own way as I have, but how can I idly stand by as you while your precious time away in pursuits as empty as the sea of blinking images in this kingdom of yours, as you play your games for hours, as you slay your monsters on this computer screen?

I do not want you to wake one day with regret, as you realize life has passed you by. And it is, passing you by. Would that you could wake from this wretched slumber, where you lay immobile and in fear. What are you afraid of I wonder? Why be consumed with all that you can't do when you haven't even tried?

I love you dearly. But I can't wake you. It is your life to live, your decisions to make, your failures to live by. Would that you were a friend I could be more open and frank with. Then I wouldn't hesistate if my words hurt. But you are my brother, and I your older sister. And there are barriers I just can't break.

Teacher, Teacher I am Sick. Get the Doctor Very Quick

I miss last semester. I miss the best batch of students I've ever had ever (so far). It rained A's last sem. And I am not known to give them out so easily. They were just the right combination of smarts and charm. They were funny, interested and engaged. Meeting them twice a week was enough to offset the four times I have with a group of kids in Taft who are less...talented. I miss them even more so now because the present crop of summer students pale in comparison. I can't say they're slow or dim-witted. Most of them are just plain disinterested. And without interest, why bother trying right?

Which gets me back to the Taft kids, most of whom were more than happy to welcome the free teacher they had in me. Free because they didn't have to pay for the extra units they took in my classes. Although the foreign institution pays me quite well to give these kids free lessons, and much as my conscience is nagging me against the decision, I will not be coming back next semester. My conscience is telling me, "These kids need you even more than those rich kids in QC." They need me because I know what I'm capable of as an educator. They need me because I've seen the poor academic standards in their school. They need me because I show up when the profs they paid for don't.

But I won't be back because it is too tiring. And depressing. It reminds me of the big, bad and ultimately unfair world where not everyone is created equal. And indeed, we aren't. Some seem born with just enough amount of capabilities and talents to stand out and excel. And when they aren't, are lucky enough to be born in a family able to provide for extra "support." What about the more unfortunate ones? Well, they seem doomed to mediocrity or worse.

The Taft kids are noticeably less able. The reasons why are probably a combination of the misfortunes of nature and the lack of nurture. Economic reasons are also in the mix. I've had students who skipped classes because they had to work. I've had students who couldn't come to class anymore due to financial reasons. Some couldn't afford books or photocopies of books. In a society that puts a premium in a particular kind of intelligence, one whose key is first and foremost dictated by mastery of the English language, how could these kids excel? When they were sometimes too tired to come to class, when they couldn't match the words they read in English textbooks with clear and coherent concepts, when they couldn't afford these books in the first place?

The kids in QC are generally more able by any standards. Perhaps because they have been well-fed and cared for most their lives. Most belong to prominent families. They have the world laid at their feet and in the past two years it always breaks my heart when I see so many succumb to complacency and laziness. There's no doubt about it, some day these kids will lead. And if the time they're supposed to grow back bone is rather spent obsessing about sports, gimmicks, the latest fads and gambling, what will become of the rest who are supposed to be led?

It is frustrating to be a teacher. On my puplit I am supposed to rail against the injustices of the world. On my pulpit I am supposed to inspire change. But Life has been teaching me valuable lessons these past few years. And I am not sure I like being taught reality.

I immensely enjoyed this film (and highly recommend that you see it) for the following reasons:

1. Although the context was not well-explained, it had a pretty decent political statement underneath the action-packed sequences, explosions and all that Texan eye-candy. *Wipes drool.*

2. And the political statement is, curiously enough, stated by an African in the movie: "It's Africa. Nobody cares about Africa."

3. It didn't resort to the US government saving the day in a foreign land once again. It's very rare that a Hollywood flick actually shows US ambiguity in times of another country's distress. Although the lead male characters are ex-Navy men.

4. It is set in Africa. Mali and Nigeria to be exact. Which makes one wonder why in the heck they named this film after the desert to the north, when the storyline doesn't have anything to do with the desert at all. Lemme see, its probably because Americans don't know shit about Africa but the Saharan desert? And this film would have tanked to the high heavens had they entitled it..."Mali" or "Niger River?"

5. I liked the humor liberally sprinkled all over the script. It helps that the actors had good on-screen chemistry. Funny guy #1 is, contrary to the usual formula, actually decent-looking, musckled and dare I say, hot? Although next to Matt McConnoughey, nobody else is hotter. *Drool.*

6. Lambert Wilson, the actor who played Merovingian in Matrix Reloaded, plays the French bad guy once again. For someone who is actually half-French, he has a funny, funny accent.

7. While the story might seem incredibly far-fetched, its not very far from what has happened and what continues to happen in the "dark continent." European business interests (among others) prevail above all else. Colludes with African dictator. African dictator amasses wealth through brute force over the people. "The people" are frequently warring tribes who found themselves in one "state" after Europeans partitioned the continent like a pizza pie about 100 years back. Shit from the past goes right on into the future.

8. Penelope Cruz is dirty, looks a bit sickly and make-up-less. And did I say dirty?

9. The tough, musckled, ex-Navy men are also nerds by heart. Wow. Imagine the combination if it were possible in real life.

So there kids, your 100++ is money well-spent. Enjoy.

Beautiful Aninuan Beach in Puerto Galera


Spent 3 days and 2 nights on what has got to be Puerto Galera's most serene and peaceful stretch of white sand and crystal blue waters. If only because 2/3 of this little piece of heaven is reportedly owned by the Ayalas. Too bad my boyfriend didn't take pics of their series of "huts" and I say "huts" because they looked more like houses on stilts with nipa decor. Because we came on weekdays the resort only had a few guests (most of whom were German) and the only other resort also housed some 20-30 people or so. Lucky for us.

How to get there:

1. Take a Jam Tritran Bus for Batangas Pier. Terminal located along EDSA between Kamuning Road and Timog Avenue. Fare costs PhP 143. Their earliest trip is at 1am and buses leave on hourly intervals. I recommend you take the 5am trip. It will take you 2 hours (give or take a few minutes) to get to your destination.

2. When you get to the pier, you'll find quite a few ferries going to White Beach. We took the M/V Brian 8:00 trip. PhP 140. Ferries leave as early as 5:30 in the morning and as late as 4:30 in the afternoon. The passage through Maricaban strait is quite choppy so I suggest you pop some Bonamine before the boat ride.

3. When you land on the loud, dirty and fly-friendly White Beach, go straight for the main road and take a tricycle to Aninuan Beach. The drivers will charge you PhP80, but the fare should really only cost PhP 9 per person. Besides, its just a 5-minute ride.



4. We checked in at the Aninuan Beach Resort. PhP 1,800 for 4 people, non-aircon room. You wouldn't need aircon anyway because their accomodations are cool. Besides, you wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time indoors when the outdoors is just gorgeous.

Food is relatively cheaper in the other resort. Check out the pizza and past place in between. Yum.

Its the summer! Travel! Enjoy. :)

Isa na namang balitang nakakayamot!

Onli in da Pilipins nga naman na ang biyuda ng isang ex-Presidentiable ay maisipang "pamalit" sa kanyang yumaong asawa. Ano ba itu?

*Flashback Famas Awards: On behalf of my husband I would like to accept this award. Sniff Sniff.*

Katawa-tawa at tunay nga namang nakakayamot na ngayo'y tila nag-aalsa na naman ang isang grupo ng mga politiko, artista at mga samu't saring asungot na nais yatang manggulo habang ang administrasyong Nunal ay mala-bampirang humihigop sa mga kusing at sentimo ng bawat Pilipino.

Halatang sinasamantala ng grupo ng mga asungot na ito ang kasalukuyang pagkadismaya ng mga tao sa iba't-ibang paraan ng pagtugon sa krisis piskal ng pamahalaan at ang mga epekto nito; ang VAT, ang pagtaas ng petrolyo, pamasahe, toll, tubig, kuryente, mga pamilihin at liposaksyon!

Ang tanong, ano kaya ang ang pakay ng mga asungot na ito na hanggang sa ngayon ay ginagamit ang tila mala-agimat na pangalan ni FPJ?

Sa palagay kaya nila ay mag-aalsa masa ang mga fans ni FPJ upang itaob ang Administrasyong Nunal? At kung gayon, alam kaya ni Susan Roces na pihong gagamitin lamang s'ya at ang alaala ng kanyang lasenggong asawa upang maisakatuparan ito? At mauunawaan naman kaya ng mga Pilipinong target ng moro-morong ito na sila'y gagamitin rin upang ang Grupong Asungot naman ang pumalit sa gobyerno at magpatuloy na magpasasa sa yaman ng bayan?

Tunay ngang nakakatawa sapagkat sa bayang ito, ang pulitika ay talaga namang parang pelikula. May script, may mga aktor at lahat ay nagaganap sa entablado ng media. At pagkatapos na magpalitan ng mga maanghang na salita at ng mga pangako ng kaginhawaan, magsisiuwian ang mga manonood, papatayin ang mga ilaw at magsasara ang teatro.

Pagkatapos ng moro-moro ay wala namang tunay na nagbago. Magpapatuloy na magpayaman ang mga pulitiko sa kaban ng bayan at magpapatuloy ang pag-inog ng kanya-kanya nating mundo. Papugak-pugak at lalong naghihingalo, pero umiinog.

Kailan kaya tayo titigil sa pagtitiis sa mga kundisyong ito kung saan lahat tayo'y kailangang mabuhay? Kailan kaya natin mauunawan na ang lipunang ginagalawan natin ay patuloy na bulok sapagkat hinahayaan natin ito?

Hemingway, tuloy ang ligaya ni lola Susan habang nalalanta naman ang pamumukadkan ng Pangulong Nunalin. Siguro bulag at pipi na lang ang di makakapagsabi nito. Kailangan pa ba ng mga sarbey sarbey? (Oo, kasi kailangan ng trabaho ng is prop ko sa UP dati.) Hay gulay. Ganyan talaga ang buhay. Sige mga ka-blagista. Ilabas na ninyo! Ilabas na ninyo ang nagngangalit ang naghuhumindig ninyong buwisit at pagkadismaya sa mga weblag n'yo! Hala! Humayo't magparami!

In the Inquirer the other day, Walden Bello writes:

Afterthoughts : Debt and denial
Or how to make sure that the Philippines will end

FINANCE Secretary Cesar Purisima recently characterized the Philippines’ debt burden as a “lingering issue.” This reflects not so much the nature of our debt problem but that the government is in denial. The truth is, the Philippine national debt that has now reached 3.8 trillion pesos, or 69 billion dollars, is out of control. Total public sector debt is now estimated at 130 percent of GDP as of the end-2003.

Of the 3.8-trillion-peso debt, 1.8 trillion pesos, or nearly half, is foreign debt, according to the official story. However, according to some sources, about 80 percent of the total debt is owed to foreign creditors, including resident foreigners.


These are indicators not of a “lingering problem” but of the biggest economic problem we face. We are staring default in the face. Yet our policymakers are paralyzed.

Let me clarify: An effective solution to our current fiscal crisis would consist of three prongs: raise revenue, cut borrowings, rein in debt service. The first two do not elicit much controversy, though there is little confidence that the government will be effective in either raising its revenue collection or refraining from going to local and international capital markets to finance its deficit. When it comes to renegotiating the debt, however, there is strong resistance in influential circles.

For instance, at a recent forum sponsored by the Management Association of the Philippines in which I participated, former central bank governor Gabriel Singson and World Bank country chief Joachim von Amsberg warned us not to even raise the possibility of debt renegotiation as an option. Why is the foreign debt such a sacred cow?

To answer this and understand the deleterious impact of our debt policy on the economy, we need to reach back into recent history. It is time we stop blaming all our debt-related ills on the Ferdinand Marcos regime. The Corazon Aquino administration and its successors played a key role in aggravating the situation. And the IMF and Mr. Amsberg’s institution, the World Bank, also figured prominently.

Crossroads in the mid-1980s

Let me focus on the foreign debt. At the beginning of the Aquino period, the Philippines’ foreign debt had risen to over 26 billion dollars from 21 billion dollars in 1981. This led the World Bank and the IMF, under strong pressure from the big commercial creditors, to put the emphasis on debt repayment in their agenda for the new administration of President Corazon Aquino. Fairly quickly, international finance faced the fledgling democratic administration with an unpalatable choice: either limit debt service payments or fully comply with debt obligations in order to preserve creditworthiness even at the risk of throttling growth.

The first position was espoused by Solita Monsod, who became director of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and some of her colleagues at the University of the Philippines School of Economics, who wrote: “The search for a recovery program that is consistent with a debt repayment schedule determined by our creditors is a futile one and should therefore be abandoned.” The central bank and the Department of Finance, dominated by figures with links to international finance, lined up behind the second position. Then-governor “Jobo” Fernandez of the now-defunct Central Bank, a Marcos holdover, “warned of the risk of ‘economic retaliation against the country’ should it take unilateral actions in defiance of its creditors. Trade credit lines could be withheld ‘paralyzing foreign trade,’ and foreign assistance could be terminated.” Then Citibank President John Reed visited the Philippines and warned that debt repudiation “would produce immense suffering and difficulty for the people.”

The so-called “model debtor” strategy won out, partly because proponents of the opposite position like Monsod did not put up more than token resistance. This was a mistake, notes economist Jim Boyce, in the light of concurrent developments:

The credibility of these threats is … open to serious doubt. Brazil defied its commercial creditors for 18 months, beginning with the unilateral suspension of debt service announced in February 1987. Its defiance provoked much posturing by the banks, but little genuine retaliation. The holders of paper assets proved to be paper tigers. Similarly, the well publicized but less drastic debt service ceiling imposed by Peruvian President Alan Garcia did not bring grievous penalties; the Garcia government’s heterodox economic program ultimately failed despite the debt policy, not because of it. More quietly, Bolivia halted most debt service payments in 1984, and three years later won [a] very favorable debt buy-back deal.

The “model debtor” strategy was inaugurated with President Corazon Aquino’s Proclamation 50, which committed the government to honoring all of the Philippines’ debt, including odious debts like those contracted to build the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant as well as the so-called “behest loans” made by cronies of the Marcos dictatorship. The strategy was institutionalized by Executive Order 292, which affirmed the “automatic appropriation” of the full amount needed to service the debt from the budget of the national government that was originally mandated by Marcos’ Presidential Decree 1177.

Impact of the model debtor strategy

A financial hemorrhage marked the succeeding years, with the net transfer of financial resources to external creditors coming to a negative 1.3 billion dollars a year on average between 1986 and 1991. In late eighties, foreign debt servicing came to 3.5 billion dollars a year, or about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. A decade later, in 1999, the level of outflow of financial resources continued to be massive. The fundamental irrationality of the process was underlined by the fact that as overseas workers were remitting hard earned dollars into the country, an equal if not greater amount was leaving it.

Making constantly rising debt payments a sacred cow legally not only made the national budget structurally prone to deficits. Government is usually the biggest and most important investor in developing countries like the Philippines. Owing to the prioritization of foreign debt repayment, government spending has been, over the last two decades, confined largely to financing salaries and other operating expenses. For the last 18 years, very little of the budget could be devoted to capital expenditures, thus practically eliminating government spending as an engine of development. In our neighboring countries, in contrast, government spending became the catalyst of development and sizzling economic growth.

Along with the structural adjustment measures imposed under the guidance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the strategy of making debt repayment the national priority -- which has been followed by every administration since Marcos -- has created a condition of structural stagnation -- what Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Rudiger Dornbusch describes as a low-level trap in which low investment, increased unemployment, reduced consumption, and low output interacted to create a vicious cycle of stagnation and decline. This is the source of what we have called in a recent book the permanent structural crisis of the Philippine economy.

Almost 20 years after the beginning of the Aquino presidency, our foreign debt has nearly trebled, from 26 billion dollars to 69 billion dollars. We are still servicing the debt incurred for the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant! This is a case of skipping the possibility of death through a nuclear accident for the certainty of slow death through debt repayment. Debt servicing rose from 46 per cent of national government expenditure in 2002 to 81 percent in 2004 and is expected to hit 89 percent in 2005, according to former National Economic and Development Authority head Cielito Habito.

Another way of looking at this is that in order to enable the government to keep functioning, we must resort to borrowing from foreign and local creditors to stay current on our debt servicing. However one reads them, the figures underline one thing: We are essentially back where we were in the early 1980s, which is that of borrowing new money at increasingly disadvantageous rates to pay off old debts. And so long as our debt service remains uncontrolled, any sort of measures on the revenue side, such as more effective tax collection, tobacco and alcohol taxes, or the value-added tax will have little impact in terms of stabilizing government finances. Sure, some of these measures must be implemented, but they must go in tandem with debt devaluation.

Our policymakers, however, are still talking about maintaining the model debtor strategy that has brought us so much grief. Again Finance Secretary Purisima: “[W]e need to be responsible players in the international financial community, and honoring our obligations is one that we need to take pride in.”

Read the rest here.

The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines

I've finally finished a book I bought off the shelves of the UP Press last December. I am writing a comparative paper on the democratization of South Korea and the Philippines, and The Anti-Development State, written by my favorite scholar/advocate Walden Bello and his two proteges, has been a major eye-opener.

This seminal work is an excellent diagnostic tool for what ails our country today. In his usual lucid and very engaging writing style, he makes the argument that the Philippines is unable to develop due to the weak State that has historically been held hostage by factions the elite oligarchy. And that revolutions of the EDSA kind, are more "revolutions of our heads" than they are real social change.

I highly recommend that this book be read by any Filipino who wonders why the shit in the Philippines always hits the fan.

Prof. Lanuza of the UP Department of Sociology reviews:

The most recent book of Walden Bello, The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines, which he co-authored with three younger research assistants, has once again proven how prolific Walden is as an author.

In The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in the Philippines Walden finally provides his readers a systematic account of the major structural problems confronting the Philippines in n the light of globalization and the crisis of post-Edsa State.

The book is teeming with a lot of data on Philippine economy and political situation: from import and export to agriculture, from the impact of globalization on land reform to the crisis of NAPOCOR, from the ascendancy of Edsa II state to the looming bankruptcy of Maynilad Water Services, Inc. For those who want to have a glimpse or synopsis of Philippine political and economic situation Walden’s book will definitely be a good starting point.

The second virtue of the book is the acute analysis and framework that informs the analyses and arguments of the book. Without this second virtue, the book will be a mere exercise in investigative journalism, an incoherent account of Philippine economic crisis.

Personally, I find Chapter 7, which demystifies the popular conception that our people’s poverty is due to corruption, as the most interesting and the most theoretically engaging part. This chapter goes beyond the common moralistic discourse against corruption and the so-called value-orientation study (derived from modernization theory) that purports to explain the culture of corruption as the explanandum of our people’s poverty. The conclusion: we are corrupt because we are poor, and not because we are corrupt, that we are poor.

The book is not another cynical portrayal of Philippine economic crisis. To the contrary, the book is a rich source of social hope—that longing that we can get out of this national and global mess. After all, this crisis is structurally generated and is therefore not an iron cage to which we are forever condemned. Ironically the book analyzes the “permanent crisis” to show that this crisis is not as “permanent” as it might appear.

Let me end with a quote from my favorite chapter, Chapter 7:

"Ideas survive and flourish not necessarily because they are empirically or analytically sound but because they are useful for advancing and protecting the interest of certain people—forces who would then have the material incentive to ensure that such ideas are perpetuated and propagated (page 286)."

Let me assure the readers that I concur with most of the analyses of the authors not so much because they reflect the interests of the authors but because they represent the interest of those who want to end the permanent crisis of Philippine political economy. Also, I am convinced that the arguments that the authors are defending in the book are not just convincing, but more importantly, they support the interests of those who, by the fact they bear the brunt of this crisis, want to radically overhaul our present political and economic structures. I therefore invite readers to seriously read the arguments and analyses of the book and to judge for themselves what and whose interests do they espouse. After reading the book readers may as well ask themselves whose side they are on! That is the challenge of the book.

Reading the blogs on my blogrolling links, I came across Mell Ditangco's post:

Do Filipinos’ have a Victim’s Mentality?

I must confess that I am frustrated. Why? You ask. I really thought that micro-lending is the answer to the poverty that is gripping more than 60% of our countrymen in the Philippines. Based on my research results, the government’s initial micro-lending program was a failure. According to an independent study by the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants, recipients of the micro-loans thought that the funds received from the government were grants. The government’s micro-lending program was designed to be self-sustaining, but since too many beneficiaries defaulted it effectively shut down the program. This failure seems to imply that even if poor Filipinos are given an opportunity to improve his/her life he/she will manage to screw it up.

The Philippine government is always seen as a bastion of corruption. However in this case the common Juan Dela Cruz squandered a golden opportunity to improve his lot in life. Had those beneficiaries paid back what they were loaned, they would have had the opportunity to borrow larger sums in the future to further grow his/her business.

Filipinos need to change his/her mindset before he/she can improve his/her condition. I am afraid that a good number of Filipinos, whether from the lower and middle class, suffer from a victim’s mentality. Rather than look for ways to improve his condition, he would rather blame the government, the multinational corporations, the Americans, corrupt elite, etc.. Let me make myself clear, I am not saying that there are no injustices occurring in the Philippines, but let us not play the blame game and quit trying to improve our lives. Let self-reliance be our battle cry to combat the injustices that we see. Let us not sit idly by and let opportunities pass us by.

We have no right to hope for our beloved Philippines if we do not change our ways.

To which I responded:

I agree with this statement, absolutely. But material conditions structure people's lives. It is not as easy as saying "change our mindset." Being born of a poor family means being disadvantaged from the womb. The baby will come out malnourished, will stay malnourished from birth, and will tend to be under-educated if not uneducated altogether. Under these conditions, how can one "beat the odds" when one doesn't have a fighting chance from the beginning? "Mindsets" are the result of the material environment. So, the culture of "kawawa" didn't come out of nowhere. And if human basic needs aren't ameliorated, how does one expect a change in mindsets?

Now if only solving poverty were as easy as micro-lending. With financial institutions running the whole world, there shouldn't be any poverty left.