Whatever Singapore is, that's what the Philippines is not

In Jessica Zafra's Twisted Travels, she described Singapore as the complete antithesis of the Philippines. In the former, everyone obeys rules and everything is clean and organized; the latter is completely the opposite. As a viewer of international politics, the media and reports will create a picture of the difference between the two of the ASEAN-5 members.

Take for example the template of governance that the two countries carry; the table below shows the scores of Philippines and Singapore in World Bank’s (WB) World Governance Indicators (WGI).

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/

These numbers show that with the exception of voice and accountability, the Philippines lags behind Singapore in maintaining (1) political stability, (2) government effectiveness, (3) regulatory quality, (4) rule of law, and (5) control of corruption. The low score of Philippines in voice and accountability can be attributed to the lack of accountability within the public realm while Singapore's low score can be explained by the lack of freedom of speech. Notwithstanding the lack of freedom of speech, Singapore maintains a politically stable country where the government is effective. In the Philippines, on the other hand, rallying is part of the mundane and journalists write what they want; however, journalists who are 'radical' are likely to be murdered and citizens view the government ineffective. Furthermore, the high scores of Singapore in regulatory quality and rule of law manifest the ability of Singaporeans to implement and follow rules effectively. In the Philippines, conversely, these two indicators of good governance are hardly seen; we see citizens crossing the street wherever they want and rules that are as basic as traffic rules are violated. Finally, corruption in the Philippines is not seen on how Singapore does things, which is manifested on the two countries' control of corruption scores.

It took an authoritarian to develop Singapore, does the Philippines need another one?

Kumain ka na ba?

Any liberal would argue that it is part of our individual rights to satisfy ourselves, but sometimes, exercising our rights is in itself socially irresponsible. A friend of mine drinks beer like it’s a substitute for water. My father smokes a pack of cigarettes every day. I drink coffee and not just any coffee, I prefer Starbucks. Everyone has vice or for the lack of a better term, addiction.

I am not going to talk about the protocols of a liberal, and I also implore you not to judge me after reading a realization that dawned on me today.

For almost five years now, Starbucks Torre Lorenzo has been one of my hangout places in Taft. Baristas know me and they usually offer me the beverage I frequently buy. After buying coffee, I walked as fast as I can for GLOBDEV class. On my way, a kid approached me and said: “Ate, akin nalang yan oh!” I didn’t give him my coffee, but I gave him twenty pesos instead. He sure looked very happy and even bragged to his two friends about his twenty peso bill seconds after I gave it to him. This is a perfect manifestation of unequal income distribution.

I spend 300 pesos per day for two cups of coffee and a friend once told me that I’ll save a lot if I stop buying from Starbucks. A realization that dawned on me today is that the magnitude of poverty in the country is to the extent that my coffee budget would already mean a lot for some families who succumbed to poverty. Allow me to deconstruct.

If I would give up Starbucks for a day and finance the food expenditure of a poor family of four using my coffee budget, its members can already buy the following:

2 kilos NFA premium rice	64
1 kilo of tomatoes	25
1 kilo of mackarel scad (galunggong)	120
4 packs of noodles	28
3 medium size eggs	18
Soy sauce	18
Cooking oil (375 ML)	27
Total	300

Source: http://www.magkano.com/market

Should I stop drinking coffee to help one family at a time? I would be a hypocrite if I answer affirmatively. My example is already a testament that inequality of income distribution is ridiculously blatant in the Philippines. It is recognizable that the country is decidedly in favor of alleviating poverty; however, we must go beyond giving donations because it is not sustainable. With this premise, it is functional to leave you with James Post's (2003) theorization of what corporation can do to solve poverty that can apply to individuals like us.

He argued that we should carry the template of being a global corporate citizen (GCC) and this lies on treating the public work as important as the private work. That is to say, we should pursue our individual goals or profitability concurrent with making ourselves primary stakeholders in protecting and developing communities. He also saw the role of educators in educating people about GCC so that society can learn that public work does not necessarily be outside one's private work. Ultimately, he holds us as accountable as the government in alleviating poverty.

Clearly, the road to solving poverty and unequal income distribution is not an easy path. Until then, there is a lot to be done.

Reference:

Post, J. (2003). Global corporate citizenship: Principles to live and work by. Business Ethics Quaterly, 12(2), 143-153.

Postmodernity at Its Finest

Lara Parpan, Women's Health Philippines EIC.

When I heard Lara Parpan, Women's Health Philippines Editor-in-Chief, talk about her experience in journalism last January, she made it clear that it is not an easy task. But what really struck me most in her talk is when she said:"Objectivity is bullshit." One can see the negativity and impossibility attached with objectivity in journalism. Fast forward two weeks ago, Maria Ressa's Storyline episode made a similar argument about objectivity: "The idea of standard model journalism came out in 1990...in quotes "objective journalism." I think that it is all a myth, you know maybe when the world was simpler it was possible. But I know, even with working for CNN, that it is impossible to be objective; impossible. You have your lenses, you have cultural lenses."

Part 3 of Maria Ressa's StoryLine Interview

The belief of these two journalists are testaments that individuals are only filtering news that are not free from subjectivity and also buttressed Lisle's (2009) argument that media does not revolve around a neutral space. When individuals rely on subjective truth because of the media, Baudillard's idea of a postmodern society and simulacrum materialize. (Merrin, 2005). The revolution of today's new media as a source of information is also a manifestation that societies today are embracing a postmodern world, which makes individuals have a more debilitating experience in knowing what is true.

The multitude of truths unlocked in media's avalanche of stories creates a double-edged sword. The unfavorable side of media as public space is its ability to make some individuals to succumb in the quicksand of poor reasoning. When an individual hears a news and simply scratch the surface, he may lose his way in understanding the mishap of a situation.because of the different truths. The comforting side, however, is the ability of media to allow individuals to analyze and stir a lot of questions to find out their 'truth'. That, in itself, can allow us to be better citizens because it saves us the mess of acting like a sheep when somebody says a thing in national television. This can ultimately help us in our choices as citizens, from choosing who to vote for to understanding the world we live in using our lenses.


References:

Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (2009). How do we find out what's going on in the world? . Global politics: A new introduction (pp. 147-169). London: Routledge.

Merrin, W. (2005). Baudrillard and the media: A critical introduction. London: Polity.

Empire: Holding the Steering Wheel of Globalization

A snippet of the email I received from the director of ICD.

An email I received days ago allowed me to think about controlling the effects of globalization. It was an invitation for an event in Germany to celebrate the fall of Berlin Wall and create discourse on globalization and our interdependent world. More than the excitement of being away from school and pressures in the country, I know that attending this event would allow me to get grit of how a powerful nation shares an important part of its history to citizens of other nations. However, given that the costs to be incurred would be way impractical within my means, allow me to just deconstruct.

Consider this as an example

This invitation manifests that countries today not only embrace the process of globalization, but continue to bring clear on who they are in global politics. How can Germany welcome people across the globe without hurting its citizens and forgetting about the idea of european harmony? How can Germany uphold its sovereignty without being frowned upon by other countries as anti-immigrant? These questions are asked by countries today. Globalization is important in sustaining the resource pool of countries, but so is sovereignty. If sovereignty is about jurisdiction within one's borders (Elden, 2009), what determines what is right and what is wrong in global arena given that sovereignty protects a nation to do what it wants?

Hardt and Negri's idea of 'Empire'

Hardt and Negri (2000) argue that the idea of a world government, the empire, would put an end to national conflicts that continue to threaten countries today. While Arendt believe that one way to control power structures is to cooperate with other countries or individuals (Tétreault & Lipschutz, 2009), the two move beyond cooperation as they propose that the creation of empire that would homogenize countries. Notwithstanding they propose a possible panacea to end the world problems, it is clear that this will happen at the expense of discarding our national identities.

By the time we have to choose, who will hold the steering wheel?

References:

Elden, S. (2009). Why is the world divided territorially? In J. Edkins, & M. Zehfuss, Global politics: A new introduction (pp. 192-219). London: Routledge.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. London: Harvard University Press.

Tétreault, M., & Lipschutz, R. (2009). Global Politics as if People Mattered. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jumping in the Pits of Uncertainty

It’s not a secret that the Philippines is under a quicksand of poverty. With this quicksand and the mounting surplus of the unmet needs of Filipinos, one shouldn’t be so surprised of the materialization of the Filipino diaspora. Filipinos pack up their bags and jump in the pits of uncertainty for a chance of a better life. While the opportunities abroad can be luring, surviving outside home to seek for greener pastures is not an easy task. Herein lies the question on how Filipinos (or individuals) fit in the globalized world.

Going global, furthermore, requires us to understand that the sustainability of today’s world requires households to do what they have to participate in the social, economic, and political production, which sometimes urge them to leave home (Tétreault & Lipschutz, 2009). At the other end of the spectrum, desire alone wouldn’t suffice to live in another country as countries today protect their citizens through deterrence efforts and migration laws (Elden, 2009). However, some succumbed in the throes of illegal migration because of, for the lack of a better word, “desperation” to get out of the quicksand; the Filipinos did not escape the said human propensity.

Illegal migration, therefore, requires an individual to deny or lie about his identity to avoid being caught and suffer deportation and other legal sanctions. This inevitably makes illegal immigrants a multitude of subalterns living in devoid of rights and privileges of those within the inner circles of power. If a legal migrant suffers from different problems, from deculturalization to racism, an illegal migrant suffers from the same problems with the constant fear of deportation.

In the end, we do what we have to, right?

References:

Doty, R. (2009). Why is people's movement restricted? In J. &. Edkins, Global politics: A new introduction (pp. 170-191). London: Routledge.

Tétreault, M., & Lipschutz, R. (2009). Global Politics as if People Mattered. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.