Is the Philippines Ready for “Change”?
May 23rd, 2009 by BongV
Metamorphosis
What is “Change”?
An open source definition of Change describes the term as “the process of becoming different” in terms of: a) Time; b) Social change; c) Biological metamorphosis, and; d) The mathematical study of change
For the purposes of this blog, “Change” refers to social change.
How does social change take place? When an organization is unstable, unviable, and unoptimized, how does it reach the peak state – viable, stable and optimized? Assuming we can conceive the ideal state, what is the mechanism for achieving the viable state?
Managing the Change Process
The venerable wiki defines Change Management as
the process during which the changes of a system are implemented in a controlled manner by following a pre-defined framework/model with, to some extent, reasonable modifications
Change Management can be used to describe
- a process in systems engineering
- an IT Service Management discipline
- a structured approach to change in individuals, teams, organizations and societies
- a systematic health-care reform
- a systematic process of managing the changes of official documents
For purposes of this blog, Change Management refers to “a structured approach to change in individuals, teams, organizations and societies from a current state to a desired future state.
There are many models and one can select a model that makes more sense to the target audience. Individual Change Management includes methods like Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze, Kubler-Ross, Formula for Change, People Centered Implementation (PCI) and Adkar. Organization Change Management methods include but are not limited to Dynamic conservatism, Decision downloading, Appreciative Inquiry, Scenario Planning, Organize with Chaos, Theory U, Solution focused brief therapy, Closework theory of intervention, and the Constructionist Principle.
The details of these methods are left to the reader for further reading. A starting point can be the Wiki on Change Management
Worth mentioning is the map/territory relation. The wiki expounds:
The map/territory relation is proven by neuroscience and is used to signify that individual people do not have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but in fact only have access to a set of beliefs they have built up over time, about reality. It has been coined into a model by Chris Argyris called the Ladder of Inference.
Ladder of Inference
As a consequence, communication in change processes needs to make sure that information about change and its consequences is presented in such a way that people with different belief systems can access this information. Methods that are based on the Map/Territory Relation help people to:
* become more aware of their own thinking and reasoning (reflection),
* make their thinking and reasoning more visible to others (advocacy), and
* inquire into others’ thinking and reasoning (inquiry).
What Needs to Change
Using models provide a basis for review, analysis, planning, design, implementation, and feedback on the process of rational change. However, the most essential question to ask is “What should the system be doing? How should it be working?”
The basic requirement for rational change is to have two models – the AS-IS and TO-BE to represent the before and after models.
The AS-IS influences the TO-BE. By identifying the diffferences beween the two models, a set of changes that need to be enacted in sequence or parallel can be defined and allows the creation of a transition plan. Note that there can be multiple AS-IS and/or multiple TO-BE models depending on the model framework or methodology used.
The AS-IS model enables diagnosis of the underperforming systems, procedures, and organizations. A TO-BE model is generated after designing the improvements and removing the inefficiencies in the AS-IS model. The transition plan provides a mechanism for effecting the change from the AS-IS to the TO-BE model, with due attention given to resistance to change. Modeling the TO-BE state makes the benfits very clear to the stakeholders of the system.
Effecting the transition from AS-IS to TO-BE
For the purposes of this blog, the AS-IS state can be described as:
- Very High Incidence of Corruption
- High income disparity
- Ineffective Leadership
- Apathetic Citizenry
- Unstable Business and Political Climate
Another example of an AS-IS Model is provided here.
Likewise the TO-BE state can be described as:
- Low Incidence of Corruption
- Low income disparity
- Effective Leadership
- Involved and Empowered Citizenry
- Stable Business and Political Climate
Transition plans can vary, and in a nutshell can encapsulated as any of the following:
- Blame Big Bad Government Only
- Blame Juan Only
- Hold Both Juan and Big Bad Government Accountable
- Assassinate Change advocates
- Silence alternative proposals and label such as “racist” or “elitist”
The debate on what the best transition plan is ongoing from Aparri to Jolo, to Riyadh, London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and all over the World Wide Web as culture warriors unsheath their swords to either clash as gladiators or to beat the swords into ploughshares and build a better prosperous future.
The differences between transition plans proposed to the general public may be seen in the following comparison between the positions of two candidates on the issue of jobs.
Differentiating "Transition Plans"
Clearly not all the transition plans can effect the transition from the AS-IS to the TO-BE. And when the dust settles, there will be more clarity and a common definition on the form and substance of the definition of a transition plan for “change” that matters.
Communicating the Message of Change
There are at least two models on the mechanics for communicating the transition plan for the purpose of effecting change.
The first model, hypodermic needle model, as expounded by our open source reference is
a model of communications also referred to as the “magic bullet” perspective, or the transmission-belt model. Essentially, this model holds that an intended message is directly received and wholly accepted by the receiver. The model is rooted in 1930s behaviorism created by the Frankfurt School in Germany and is considered by many to be obsolete today.
***
The hypodermic needle theory implied that mass media had a direct, immediate and powerful effect on their audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behaviour change. Several factors contributed to this “strong effects” theory of communication, including: the fast rise and popularization of radio and television, the emergence of the persuasion industries, such as advertising and propaganda, the Payne Fund studies of the 1930s, which focused on the impact of motion pictures on children, and Hitler’s monopolization of the mass media during WWII to unify the German public behind the Nazi party.This view of propaganda took root after World War I and was championed by theorists such as Harold Lasswell in his pioneering work Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927). He argued that the people had been duped and degraded by propaganda during the war. Lasswell based his work on a stimulus-response model rooted in learning theory. Focusing on mass effects, this approach viewed human responses to the media as uniform and immediate. E. D. Martin expressed this approach thus: “Propaganda offers ready-made opinions for the unthinking herd” (cited in Choukas, 1965, p. 15). The “Magic Bullet” or “Hypodermic Needle Theory” of direct influence effects was not as widely accepted by scholars as many books on mass communication indicate. The magic bullet theory was not based on empirical findings from research but rather on assumptions of the time about human nature. People were assumed to be “uniformly controlled by their biologically based ‘instincts’ and that they react more or less uniformly to whatever ’stimuli’ came along” (Lowery & DefFleur, 1995, p. 400).
The second model, the two-step flow model is unlike the first model. First developed by Paul Lazrasfeld and Elihu Klatz, the model states
“Mass media information is channeled to the “masses” through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others.”
The opinion leader is an individual who uses media actively, who provides interpretation or explanation of media content. Our open source reference further states
Typically the opinion leader is held in high esteem by those that accept his or her opinions. Opinion leadership tends to be subject specific, that is, a person that is an opinion leader in one field may be a follower in another field. An example of an opinion leader in the field of computer technology, might be a neighborhood computer service technician. The technician has access to far more information on this topic than the average consumer and has the requisite background to understand the information, though the same person might be a follower at another field (for example sports) and ask others for advice.
The two-step flow model laid the foundation for diffusion of innovations.
Diffusing “Change”
How, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures is explained by Everett Rogers in his theory of Diffusion of Innovations – “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.”
The theory further states that “The core elements that make up diffusion research are:
1. The Innovation
2. The types of communication channels
3. Time or rate of adoption
4. The social system which frames the innovation decision process
What is the Innovation all About
Is the innovation decision made by an individual who is distinguished from other individuals in the system? (as in raising the minmum fuel mileage to 35 mph)
Is the decision made collectively by all individuals in a system (as in electing a president).
Or, is the decision made for the entire society by a few individuals in positions of authority and power?
Suffice to say, decisions to innovate will be made and the mix of decision-making methods might vary from one social system to another.
Embracing Innovation
The process of adopting innovation occurs through a series of communication channels over a period of time among members of society.
Rogers categorizes the five stages as: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. To elucidate:
Knowledge – In this stage the individual is first exposed to an innovation but lacks information about the innovation. It should be noted that during this stage of the process the individual has not been inspired to find more information about the innovation.
Persuasion – In this stage the individual is interested in the innovation and actively seeks information/detail about the innovation.
Decision – In this stage the individual takes the concept of the innovation and weighs the advantages/disadvantages of using the innovation and decide whether to adopt or reject the innovation. Due to the individualistic nature of this stage Rogers’ notes that it is the most difficult stage to acquire empirical evidence (Rogers, 1964, p. 83).
Implementation – In this stage the individual employs the innovation on a varying degree depending on the situation. During this stage the individual determines the usefulness of the innovation and may search for further information about it.
Confirmation – Although the name of this stage may be misleading, in this stage the individual finalizes their decision to continue using the innovation and may use the innovation to its fullest potential.
Thus, different people may be in different stages of adopting innovation with respect to the timeline. Understanding the stages of adopting the innovation will help identify the interventions and the approaches that are appropriate for each stage.
How Soon Can Change Be Felt?
The speed by which members of society changes – or adopts an innovation is the Rate of Adoption. The rate of adoption depends on an individual’s adopter category. The theory is expounded in our open source reference:
Within the rate of adoption there is a point at which a innovation reaches critical mass. This is a point in time within the adoption curve that enough individuals have adopted an innovation in order that the continued adoption of the innovation is self-sustaining.
In describing how an innovation reaches critical mass Rogers’ outlines several strategies in order to help a innovation reach this stage. These strategies are:
- have an innovation adopted by a highly respected individual within a social network
- creating a instinctive desire for a specific innovation
- Inject an innovation into a group of individuals who would readily use an innovation
- and provide positive reactions and benefits for early adopters of an innovation.
How do different people embrace change?
Rather then re-invent the wheel, let’s understand the source itself and use the framework by which it categorizes people based on the manner they adopt to change.
Diffusion of Innovation
The reference states:
Rogers’ defines an adopter category as a classification of individuals within a social system on the basis of innovativeness. In the book Diffusion of Innovations Rogers’ suggests a total of five categories of adopters in order to standardize the usage of adopter categories in diffusion research. It should be noted that the adoption of an innovation follows an S curve when plotted over a length of time. The categories of adopters are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards [4]
Innovators - Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial lucidity, very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.
Early Adopters - This is second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories. Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters (Rogers, 1964, p.185).
Early Majority - Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and show some opinion leadership
Late Majority - Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and the majority of society has to have adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership.
Laggards - Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “traditions”, have lowest social status, lowest financial fluidity, oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends, very little to now opinion leadership.
Thus, in FV, when discussing topics which might be considered “innovative” or “out of the box” or “creative” – you can use the framework to gauge the reaction of the FV community and identify the innovators and early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and the laggards.
Celebrities, Pekeng Peryodistas and Bloggers as Opinion Leaders
There is evidence that individuals have different levels of influence in the diffusion process. Opinion Leaders have the potential of spreading positive or negative memes about an innovation and have most influence during the evaluation stage of the innovation-decision process and late adopters, according to Rogers. Typically, Opinion Leaders have more media exposure, more cosmopolitan, have higher socioeconomic status, have vast social networks, and are more innovative.
Philippine society’s Opinion Leaders traditionally consisted of celebrities and the MSM personalities. The rise of the Internet, however, has expanded the playing field.
The techonology brings :
- a new crop of Opinion Leaders
- a shorter Rate of Adoption of Innovation
- a faster diffusion of opinion
- more detailed analysis of the Philippine AS-IS state
- more views on what is the TO-BE state of the Philippine society.
- more exchanges of ideas
There is excitement in the air as people are hungry for change that matters.
A war of memes rages, may the best meme be defined as one that rationally and responsibly brings about prosperity to our society.
What then are the Prospects for Change?
We are still a long way off from effecting change that matters.
There are lots of inefficiencies that have yet to be addressed. And that will mean – innovating, communicating the innovation, managing the rate of adoption, and measuring the consequences of the innovations. There are many views, but ultimately, optimization will lead to but one viable/optimal strategy that leads to a society performing at its peak.
The fact that the discussion on how change should take place and what type of change should take place means we have a long way to go but we have taken the first step in a journey of a thousand miles.
Is the Philippines ready for “change”?
I will put it this way:
- The innovators and the early adaptors are ready for change
- The early majority is not ready, yet.
- The late majority is definitely not there, yet.
- The laggards, well… uhhhh…. hmmmm… ahh.. they don’t even wanna think about “change”.
May 23, 2009 at 1:50 am
CHANGE is the “HOPE FOR” words for those whose limits are stretched; their remedies exhausted. We, the Filipino People can
only change our situations. Not the Politicians, who do not want
any change. It will jeopardize their status and position. Not our
Leaders, with their families entrenched as political dynasties.
If the Young Filipinos can wake up. Be aware of what is going on in their country. Turn their APATHY into Real action for Real Change. Then, we can give life to the word: CHANGE. Otherwise, we will be just be content with the saying: “The more things change. The more they stay the same”.
May 23, 2009 at 6:54 am
Tasio:
imho, the young filipinos are aware of what’s going on, to the extent that they have experienced, read, seen, heard about the various irrational behavior that pervades society in general.
however, the youth is still skeptical and cynical about the current menu of solutions being offered – lots of new faces, same old family names, same old scripts, a one grand game of musical chairs punctuated by investigations, coups, electoral fraud, corruption in all layers of government.
to a certain extent a lot of the events that ignited change in recent Philippine society involved the youth – from the First Quarter Storm in Mendiola to the Welgang Bayans of the 80s, culminating in the removal of a dictator.
unfortunately, the removal of dictator was not seized as an opportunity for building a more equitable and prosperous meritocracy. instead, the Philippines sled back into an aristocracy – one rose on the basis of family name and largesse.
meanwhile, the generation that barricaded the urban centers in the 80s have since then moved on, raised families, went overseas, owned their own companies, rose in the corporate ladder.
in the process complacency and euphoria of removing a dictator distracted society from continuing the process of evolution and we end up with retrogression. the EDSA 1 generation spoke “mission accomplished” too soon.
today – a newer, younger generation breathes the air, it too stands at a crossroads, and it too has the potential of effecting change. but it cannot do the job alone – everyone or at least nearly everyone has to join in.
i think after a long hiatus, the EDSA 1 generation, the Martial Law Babies, the FQS generation and other generations before and after it, rife with life’s lessons , is ready to join ranks with the young filipinos – to finish the job.
May 23, 2009 at 2:31 am
“For the purposes of this blog, the AS-IS state can be described as:
-Very High Incidence of Corruption
-High income disparity
-Ineffective Leadership
-Apathetic Citizenry
-Unstable Business and Political Climate”-BongV
There, BongV, you said it, you admit it. Those are the problems, I agree with you. Clear as day!
All those problems you mentioned (except one) require good government as the ultimate solution, not Personal Responsibility.
The fourth, Apathetic Citizenry, is the only problem requiring Personal Responsibility.
See? Are you going to eat your words now?
May 23, 2009 at 2:39 am
Bert:
Those are problems; symptoms of an illness; consequences of a root cause – that ultimately boils down to the entity that makes the choices – the PERSON.
-Very High Incidence of Corruption (Who makes the choice of choosing honest leaders,who makes the choice of blowing the whistle – it is the PERSON)
-High income disparity ( Who makes the choice of grabbing opportunities – it is the PERSON)
-Ineffective Leadership ( Who makes the choice of selecting leaders – it is the PERSON)
-Apathetic Citizenry
-Unstable Business and Political Climate – ( Who makes the choice of selecting leaders who set the policy agenda – it is the PERSON)
May 23, 2009 at 2:41 am
bert, but who is responsible for electing “good government”? is that not a function of “personal responsibility”?
May 23, 2009 at 3:10 am
Bencard and BongV; one a very pious Catholic, the other an atheist…two very contradictory dudes.
Both of them blaming an Irresponsible God for electing to create Irresponsible Human Beings, heheh.
May 23, 2009 at 3:12 am
And corrupt human Beings.
May 23, 2009 at 3:19 am
Bert, mi amigo:
Bencard, places the responsibility on an individual by virtue of a the divine gift of free will.
I place the responsibility on an individual because there is no divine being that will do stuff for him, if anything has to happen – the responsibility falls on his shoulders – or as Sartre would say “We are condemned to be free”.
Here’s a copy-paste deconstruction by Rob Harle:
May 23, 2009 at 4:38 am
wrong, bert. God did not create irresponsible individuals. they chose, out of their own free will, to be irresponsible. they were not meant to be “perfect” robots (e.g. “transformers”).
bongv, you’re right except for one thing. i believe free will was not meant to be a “divine gift”. it was more like a consequence of eating the “forbidden fruit”.
May 23, 2009 at 5:18 am
@bencard
but adam freely ate of the fruit? would you not then say that free will predates eating of the fruit?
May 23, 2009 at 7:01 am
not quite, gabhbyd. adam was not free. he defied God’s instruction, so he got free will as a punishment. read bongv’s citation re sartre’s thesis above.
May 23, 2009 at 8:52 am
@bencard
but how could Adam have “defied God’s instruction” if he were not free to do so?
to defy God, don’t you need free will?
May 23, 2009 at 9:38 am
gabbyd, how can one be “free” to commit a PROHIBITED act and suffer punishment for it? how do you define free?
May 23, 2009 at 10:00 am
how can one be free to commit a prohibited act…
if an act is prohibited, that means someone said you cannot do that act (the definition).
if one is NOT FREE to do what one wants to do, then one would follow that prohibition without question — like a robot. this is especially true if we were created by the god that set that prohibition in the first place.
the robot analogy is useful. a robot will do whatever its programming stipulates. if the programmer says “don’t eat the fruit of knowledge… etc” then the robot is constrained not to do so.
hence, one can commit a prohibited act only if he is free to do so. a robot will never commit a prohibited act. a robot has no free will.
to sin, one must have the freedom to say “i will not follow your commnand”. correct?
May 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm
So Bencard and BongV, when the president who was clean before sitting on the throne in the palace decided to exercise her free will after the election to play dirty and messed up the country, was it the fault of your Gods, in BongV’s case, for being an atheist, the people, in Bencard’s, both the people and his God?
May 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm
i really don’t want to belabor the point, gabbyd, but let me put it this way.
your are FREE to choose to strangle renato pacifico, if you can, but unless your act is justified, you go to the calaboose for life (only because there’s no more death penalty). how’s that?
May 23, 2009 at 9:19 pm
bert @ 3:39pm, you seem to be a pretty decent guy, but i think you have a tendency to think with your puwet. first your question makes conclusive presumptions about your president – a living symbol of philippine nationhood. then you put the blame on God for people’s bad choices and personal decisions to side with the devil.
when will the likes of you ever learn to fez up with their own RESPONSIBILITIES?
May 23, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Bencard, you have your presumption about your president, I have mine. I guess that make us both think with our puwet, but it’s your word, not mine. Let the Filipino people be the judge.
Regarding the belief in God, we’ve been into this, there is no need to rehash it here.
Personal Responsibility? Let’s just say that you and BongV do not have the monopoly of it.
And, thanks, I think you are a decent person yourself.
May 24, 2009 at 12:46 am
wrong again, bert. i don’t presume ANYTHING, good or bad, about my president. all i KNOW is that nothing, absolutely nothing, has been properly proven against her. so, i have no right to make any kind of conclusion about her personal character.
btw, i don’t know about bongv, but did i ever claim a “monopoly” on personal responsibility?
May 24, 2009 at 3:25 am
@bencard
yes, i agree. if you do something wrong, you may get punished for it.
i was reacting to your original comment here: “i believe free will was not meant to be a “divine gift”. it was more like a consequence of eating the “forbidden fruit”.”
so this is about crime and punishment, unless you believe free will is punishment. is that what you believe?
that is, i don’t understand why free will is a consequence of sin, and why it wasn’t given to us by god.
for adam to have sinned in the first place, he needed to have free will. he needed to have taken a bite from the apple freely. he got punished for that later on (but he knew that going forward, as he’d been warned).
May 24, 2009 at 10:28 am
gabbyd, i really appreciate the opportunity to explain this to anyone with open mind. but i write with no claim of expertise on this subject but only with my faith and my own faculties, through which God might allow me to see His Truth.
the basic concept of freedom is the ability to do an act without any possibility of punishment or retribution. freedom to do the “right thing”, i.e. good, as opposed to “wrong thing”, i.e., evil, is absolute. in human context, a wrong thing is a subject of “crime and punishment”, whereas in divine affairs, it is “sin and damnation”. i believe God does not interfere with an individual’s conscious choice whether or not to commit sin. i believe once a sin is committed, God may or may not forgive the sinner according to His requirements. as there is no freedom to commit an illegal act, all the more is there no freedom to commit sin. of course, the actor can do the act, which he knows is evil, but with no freedom because he would most certainly suffer a commensurate penalty and he knows it.
a concomitant factor in the exercise of free will is the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.
with regard to adam, i think what distinguished him from a programmed robot, e.g., “commander data” of u.s.s. enterprise, is that adam was given the singular ability to CHOOSE to remain truly free with God by warning him not to “eat the fruit” under any circumstance. but he did. according to my faith, adam and all his progeny, i.e. man, was condemned to have inherent knowledge of good and evil.
can you comprehend the transcendental burden and responsibility of having free will coupled with knowledge of right and wrong? as i see it, all the evils in this world are caused by man’s misuse and abuse of free will, in disregard of its righteousness or wrongfulness. the devil who hoodwinked adam, and which according to pope john paul, is present and lurking in most human affairs and institutions, e.g. governments, church, schools, organizations, communities and homes, among others, is always there to ensnare those of shaky faith and the push-overs.
i would, therefore, say to you, gabbyd: don’t confuse an ability to choose with “freedom”. a choice may or may not be “free”.
May 24, 2009 at 12:48 pm
ah i get it. i’ve read/heard that before — freedom to do whats right, etc…
i was reacting to “i believe free will was not meant to be a “divine gift”.” so here, you mean freedom to do evil. ok.
May 23, 2009 at 3:05 am
u forgot another defintion of change: sukli! :)
May 23, 2009 at 3:11 am
GabbyD:
I purposely omitted the definition :)
May 23, 2009 at 3:45 am
The most hurtful corruption is extortion by kotong cops and traffic aides (probably not felt by Abe Margallo in New Jersey or blackshama when he was studying in Australia); exrortion by “fixers” abetted by civil-servants behind desks which creates the need to make four trips to a city-office to get a drivers license or similar paperwork (which can be reduced to one trip if one goes thru a fixer who is visibly offering his services to the crowd).
Pinas can hardly wait for his neighbor or his neighbor’s neighbor to work to eliminate those problems.
May 23, 2009 at 3:52 am
There are only three kinds of people in the Philippines:
1. THOSE WHO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.
2. THOSE WHO SIT BACK AND WATCH THINGS HAPPEN. THEN, COMPLAIN LATER
OF THE RESULTS.
3. THOSE WHO WONDER, WHAT IN THE WORLD HAS HAPPENED?
Which category do you fit? Give an honest look at yourself…
May 23, 2009 at 6:08 am
bong,
You sure must have read that, too – the work of Harold Lasswell, one of my favorites – entitled, “World Revolutionary Elites”
If indeed there exist this breed of young men and young women, then an ideal world order will usher 21st century humankind to a perfect if not the best of all possible worlds.
Surely, you are one of them? But play no assassin.
May 23, 2009 at 6:09 am
Kudos to bong for giving blogging his best each time.
His detractors follow the law of diminishing returns – why are they becoming less and less?
May 23, 2009 at 11:16 am
as more of the same topic is made , the end result increases at a declining rate. There is a point where, when adding one more of the same topic , it decreases one’s value and utility (usefulness in blogging). too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
May 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm
It was new to me. I am encouraged that Filipinos have an interest in change, and impressed with the analysis. I have more confidence in Filipinos as a result of perspectives such as this.
I also respect anyone who puts so much thought and effort into something, not for money, but because of social conscience.
True, detractors may be tired of the writer. But that doesn’t mean the writer should stop agitating for change. Where would that lead?
Joe
May 23, 2009 at 9:32 pm
leytenean, i don’t think anyone invites you, specifically, to participate in these discussions, much less force you to do so on pain of ostracism.
btw, harebrained people cannot distinguish between opinion and the individual expressing it. that’s why they use words like “detractor” when referring to someone else who disagrees with that opinion.
May 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm
bencard, you are always in the habit of making an opinion targeting an individual. Focus on the topic and make your opinion on that topic. i also did not invite you to talk to me. since you are a lawyer by profession, maybe you can help the country by sharing your opinion on what law needs to be legislated to lower the incidence of corruption? I am hoping you can share your expertise. Here’s some of the issues, maybe you can share an opinion about it.
May 26, 2009 at 7:59 am
leytenean, i challenge you to cite one specific instance where i “targeted” a person here rather than his/her opinion.
of course you didn’t invite me to “talk” to you. but when you, or anyone else, post here, you are fair game, whether or not invited. and when you decide to come in here, you don’t presume to dictate on what topic, or when and how, other posters should express their opinion on it.
May 23, 2009 at 10:14 pm
We still love our country. We ant the best of our fellow Filipinos.
We dont ask for anything. Except to give you the desire to awake you,
be aware of your situations, and have the commitment ot improve yourselves. We cannot help you, unless you help yourselves…
May 23, 2009 at 8:45 am
Bong, good post. I don’t think the Philippines wants to change because changing is always harder than the status quo. It take courage to face yourself to go beyond tragedies like the past twenty years, to go see beyond the reflection at being cheated at elections and be derailed by what could be a prosperous nation country instead of a nation drowning in corruption and to change that into something unimaginable or even incredible.
May 23, 2009 at 9:00 am
Gadzooks. You are trying to control the folly, neh?
I like the T-Shirt method of change myself. The T-shirts should read “Honor. I got mine. You got yours?”
As others have noted (Bert excepted), the main force against change here is failure to take personal responsibility for the aspects of culture that are dysfunctional. Corruption is “over there” at the LTO, not in my stiffing the American for a few pesos he can afford (same mentality). Trash is “out there” disappeared on the road; not in my back yard or even my mother’s back yard or stuck in some bird’s gullet. Being late is “no biggie”; who cares if someone else had plans I’ve just messed up. Corrupt politicians bought their way into office; I didn’t elect them (plus that P100 I got for my vote is already spent.) Etc. etc.
The Philippines needs an “intelligentsia of honor”, people who understand the connection between what “I” do, and what “we” do. When the group gets big enough, and the behavior constructive enough, it will not be an intelligentsia, it will be a very different culture.
The scorn for the old ways must be extreme. The “Road Czar” should not be able to show his face in the Senate, his shame should be so great. Which makes me wonder what the Tagalog word for shame is, and whether or not it even exists. (Put it on the back of the T-shirt.)
There are those who will indeed cry “unpatriotic” or “racist”, but they are simply a loud well-entrenched set of laggards. Many of them are in Congress.
Listen gleefully to their cacophony as the last wails of a dying breed. Trust me, preservationists will be happy to see it go . . .
Joe
May 23, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think what the Republic urgently needs now is a monumental CHANGE in the current system of electing public officials.
The 1987 Constitution already provides that: “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election” (Sec. 4, Article VII). Several other provisions limit the term of office of national and local officials, and there is even an anti-Dynasty Clause.
But it’s actually the RE-ELECTION of incumbents (and the chaos that usually goes with it), along with the absence of a DYNASTY prohibition that make a mockery of majority rule, a rule that is decided by the poor majority.
So, a ONE TERM ONLY, NO RE-ELECTION POLICY FOR ALL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS is, I think, the key CHANGE needed–a constitutional provision phrased to mandate the perpetual disqualification and absolute ineligibility of elective incumbents (and members of their immediate families to the nth consanguinity) from running for any other elective office forever upon the end of the elective incumbent’s term (local or national).
Let this constitutional CHANGE in the electoral system help solve the one problem that has strangled this Republic since 1946–OUST the incumbents (and their dynasties) at the end of one term only.
This system CHANGE would finally afford the poor majority the opportunity to choose from among a new breed of fresh, patriotic, hopefully idealistic one-term only trapos (if the term can still be made to apply under this new set-up) during each electoral process.
May 23, 2009 at 11:10 am
Are We Ready Yet?
http://blogs.inquirer.net/philippineelections/2009/03/27/are-we-ready-for-change/all-comments/#comments
May 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm
What’s all these fuzz for change? Have we all gone so low and desperate and all too negative that we think all of us the Filipino people a flawed race?
By all means, we must all strive to do our best, I think we are doing that. Didn’t you?
Please stop blaming yourself, it’s not only sadistic but masochistic as well.
Blame bad government! The people elected a clean politician for president. God gave her free will, Bencard said. She changed her mind after the election, heheh.
May 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm
bert:
just because there was no news about her then does not mean she was clean. given a coin-operated press, they might have been paid to shut up. para ka namang born yesterday :lol:
May 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm
bert:
if our best can only wind up with an estrada or an arroyo – our best is not good enough.
May 23, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Nice one, Bong. This is the sort of stuff that needs to be properly managed. Change is hard when one is emotionally invested in the status quo. And by its very nature, a society’s culture (which includes its traditions and belief systems) is a very emotional thing indeed.
May 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Change should have a strong anchorage on a universal morality.
This is what this present government utterly lacks.
May 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm
and, bongV, if you have your manok for president this coming election, don’t rely on the newspapers. if the person is a she, live with her, but don’t let the husband catch you, if she’s married. even if the husband is somewhere else he will know then you’re dead. if the person is a he, don’t tinker with the wife, you’ll be dead too.
the paramount objective is for you to know that your manok is clean, really clean.
but don’t blame me if she changed her mind after the election.
May 23, 2009 at 9:35 pm
ba’t doon napunta huling post ko? heheh, mali chronology ng oras dito????
May 23, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Bong,
i maybe tired of the same blog but let me provide this link that I have been pasting here for over 100 times. Here’s a study of PHILIPPINE FACTS. “Puede na rin” ang blog mo :)
For high level corruptionhere also a good link for Changes to happen in measurable terms.
May 23, 2009 at 11:03 pm
as previously mentioned
Leytenian:
The current Philippine Facts/Scorecard is the AS-IS model.
It does not provide the TO-BE model. However, if we go by mlq3’s reminder, the Millenium Development Plan serves as a TO-BE model.
The question now then becomes who among the candidates has the best plan for achieving the Millenium Development Goals, if not exceed it. Not only must he have the best plan, but he must also show he has the best team, and the best character.
May 23, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Bong,
honestly, yes you are on the right direction but if you will allow me to guide you on what to blog next time for the benefit of FV.
We need a true leader who can manage the FACTS.
Here’s our Global Scorecard. : Integrity Indicators
Change has been implemented already. We are scored moderately. What we need is to demand good governance to improve our score on each category. This topic will connect to , the right to information, whistle blowing ACT and many topics here at FV who were shared by many in the past.
We cannot raise the bar here a FV if we cannot provide a target subject or specific topic to discuss.
May 23, 2009 at 10:47 pm
this is no longer about – specific topics, the higher imperative is not just to understand each specific topic, but to understand the relationships between each topic. each topic does not exist as a vacuum, but belongs to specific categories which in turn relate with other components.
true, it is the details of each instance which provides the juicy tidbit that one can sink the teeth in.
but in the overall diet, we don’t just talk about low carbs but we talk about a balanced diet.
sure we can indulge in the nitty gritty of say the south beach diet, the atkins diet, the see food diet (when i see food, i eat) – each provides a limited window given that diet needs to go with exercise, physiology, lifestyle, and genetics.
thus, given the scope of the various topics on FV – authors can choose to narrow down the focus, i choose to look at the big picture. if it is not interesting to you, then just read the blogs of other bloggers who write about the topics that interest you.
or if the topic you prefer interests you that much, and you fancy yourself to have the prerequisite background to write about it – by all means leytenian – WRITE, BLOG, advance and let your voice be heard.
May 23, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Leytenian:
The current Scrorecard is the AS-IS model.
It does not provide the TO-BE model. However, if we go by mlq3’s reminder, the Millenium Development Plan serves as a TO-BE model.
The question now then becomes who among the candidates has the best plan for achieving the Millenium Development Goals, if not exceed it.
May 23, 2009 at 11:23 pm
TO-BE model is a given.It’s not NEW. It’s who would implement it and How. AS=IS and TO-BE are all Facts and the people are all aware of what they want for this country. The people have communicated CHANGE from Edsa 1, 2 and maybe 3 and yet , the agents of Change or the middleman of Change, or the personalities in public office can be all corrupt sitting pretty. Focusing on how to make their own money. Their personal responsibility are mixed with professionalism. Issues at home should be left at home. There’s a bigger job that they have accepted to perform. Overall, Gloria will take all the blame. She is the CEO and the managing director for this country. Problems are well communicated by many and yet very little change has been accomplished in her 8 years in office. Now who could move this country forward out of our old- AS-IS candidate. They don’t look like the TO-BE model president. kawawa talaga ang pinoy.
May 23, 2009 at 11:27 pm
You forget, there are many TO-BE models. The TO-BE model you cite is not necessarily the model that provides peak performance.
For instance, federalism.
Or a revolving presidency.
Or, the independence of Bangsa Moro.
The people communicated CHANGE, but did they choose well as to who the leaders who can bring about change is?
Moreover, communicating change is not equal to change As pointed out in the map-is-not-territory concept –
intention and action are two different things.
ika nga sa hood – the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
May 23, 2009 at 11:47 pm
bong.
Federalism might be a good topic but we have discussed that too with lots of ‘ohco ocho” I am for Federalism . I want the Visayans to manage its own affair. The management style right now is too centralize. But bOng this topic may attract many. Try it. I can only argue or agree.
May 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm
… daaaang
… i’m not interested on what’s been posted… with ’sang tambak na opinion/recommendation/blahs…
… if y’all want to tackle ‘CHANGE’, just like anything else, start with YOURSELF… and the rest will follow…
… bekos if y’all keep lecturing others about stuff, soon enough y’all realize that you are lecturing YOURSELF…
… ay sus ginoo… spare me the collegiate wisdom…
May 23, 2009 at 11:16 pm
insan that’s the shortcut version :lol:
May 23, 2009 at 11:25 pm
… daaaang
… ‘insan, i’m afflicted with adsd…
… long a.ss winded editorial type posts put to zzzZZZZ
May 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
‘insan…
‘lam mo naman sa kabila warp speed tayo dun
dito maraming seremonyas
kaya go with the flow
but mind you…
may groupies na si Pobz aka Renato Pacifico.. :lol:
May 24, 2009 at 3:12 am
That you Pareng Ulo? I-S T-H-A-T Y-O-U????? Whoooopeeee!!!!! IS THAT REALLY YOU????????
I missed you, dude!!!!
May 23, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I have no time Bong to follow thru and follow up. I have other obligations.
Specific topic targets a particular function and duties in public service but true your view is not about Management but you may be leaning towards culture and attitude of the people as the primary problem but Benigno is already doing that. It’s the leadership of public service that’s lacking . I don’t think these people are truly voted by the people. These people voted themselves to office by bribery. When a person is hungry, he has no choice but to accept. Put yourself at the level of Mang Juan and Pedro, what would you do? Now how can you break that chain of bribery? Is it not simple to legislate a law or make it a rule ” Buying of Vote is PUnishable by Law”, for example. Why is it not implemented? Who’s jOb is that. Mang Juan has no abilities nor skill to legislate or make the law. He did not go to school for that. Besides, he has no legal duty to implement because his job description is merely a citizen of this country who can follow according to what’s introduce to his environment. He has no positive role model. Mang Juan is out there trying to find food on the table. You cannot tell him either not to accept the 1000 pesos because he needs it. Give him a better job and the minimum requirement of his life then maybe CHANGE becomes obvious.
80 million poor discriminated by his own people. kawawa talaga ang pinoy.
May 23, 2009 at 11:18 pm
leytenian:
if they didn’t think of their stomach first when they sold their votes and used their brains instead, they would have had more opportunities to have lots of food – no one else is to blame baby. that’s the consequence of your poor choice, the responsibility is entirely yours.
May 24, 2009 at 7:39 am
I have a question to our kababayans from Florida.(Leytenian and Bong)
This is about that Cuban example given by Patricio Mangubat as an “ideal model” for change. I can only speculate and guess that he was way off.You guys from Florida must have dealt with Cubans who had stories about Cuba. Was PM even remotely correct in suggesting that the Cuban revolution is the best change model,even for America.
(leytenian, I hope you won’t tell me that Orlando is far from Miami)
May 24, 2009 at 12:21 am
… daaaang
… “… 80M poor discriminated by his own…”
… in my book, a couple is a crowd… 80M? that’s a force to be reckoned with… hindi sila kawawa… they brought it upon themselves… they let the ladrones garapales off the hook… they’re bunch of ijits, ‘toopids, and ignos…
May 24, 2009 at 3:47 am
Sssssh!!!!! Speakengese goot englischtzes … dey r bery partikular abawt verbs agreeing wit da sabjects!!!! :)
May 24, 2009 at 2:52 am
Have you people forgotten that people get shot in this country for meddling in affairs of State?
May 24, 2009 at 3:08 am
“Former President Roh Moo-hyun, embroiled in … corruption investigation, leaped to his death …an end for a man whose rags-to-riches rise took him from rural poverty to Seoul’s presidential Blue House. He was 62.
Roh, a self-taught lawyer who never attended college and didn’t have the elite background typical of Seoul politicians,….” — ABCNews.com
Roh can never be president of the Republic of the Philippines where CREDENTIALS are VERY IMPORTANT!
Funny, it’s always the CREDENTIALED who rob us the most without us knowing, if ever we know, they’re very difficult to prosecute because they hop-scotch around our laws and squirm thru loopholes that Arnold’s Hummer can drive thru without difficulty.
May 24, 2009 at 3:10 am
Koreans like Japanese, would rather do harakiri than defend themselves which is absent amongst us.
Defending ourselves thru court of law is more a badge of honor.
May 24, 2009 at 5:30 am
Ask GMA and her husband, together with their children to leap also
to death. Follow the Korean example…
May 24, 2009 at 3:25 am
bong’s blog is only good for a certain people but he needs some guidance. He is young and manageable. The 80 million poor are manageable too.
Investing in Philippine Politics- a probinsyana view
There was a mayor in a town called sugbu. Sugbu has 30 thousand voters. The mayor was a good person but he was too good to be true. He did not have plenty of liquid assets but tangible assets that can be converted into cash. He calculated that he can sell his carabaos and the land plus his word of “wisdom tooth” PR kono in public speaking. He was convinced he could win thru competition by buying votes. He calculated to win the 60% of the 30 thousand voters by paying 1000 pesos each. 60% of 30 thousand x 1000 pesos= 18,000,000 of initial investment. When his asset was converted to cash, he was only generating 8 million. He has to borrow the rest of the money to win. THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT , both offered him 10 million. Not sure which side he took but he had his financing ready. He won by majority and the people of sugbu were very happy the next day not because they have a new mayor but from the 1000 pesos. :)
On his first day in office, he noticed a discrepancy of his investing strategy. He calculated that his salary is only 30,000 a month at 4 year term equivalent to 1. 4 something million only. His residual income will only be enough to finance his own family. He realized , he cannot pay the 10 million debt. The good mayor was thinking harder using his skills of knowledge like the “diffusion of innovation”. :) Luckily, provincial budgets were prepared for its city and town. As a smart innovator, he pump up the project cost and size, find his own contractor to benefit thru commission and Yehey…. he have found a niche of confidence to pay his debt.
May 24, 2009 at 3:31 am
leytenian:
i wouldn’t call that person good. the impact of his actions will increase the cost of doing business in the town. and will backfire because by jacking up the prices he will have less money for finishing other projects. so if he has a pot of say P 100M – the 10M he pocketed could have gone to fund more public services.
but since the people, accepted his 1000, they don’t have much room to complain – equally corrupt.
May 24, 2009 at 3:33 am
Banning Corrupt Practices:
The multiplier effect has a direct consequence to many. Who should implement change from AS-IS of no warranty. What is the role of our policymakers to make that change NOW. Why wait for a new President. This country is moving slow like that big worm that stick to a guyabano tree . It doesn’t move. It has to transform into a butterfly to fly high.
The current administration should BAN this practices and promote a nationwide awareness so that Mang Juan will no longer expect the 1000 pesos.
With all that money wasted , it could have been used to build more schools and reform healthcare. Money in circulation could have became an honest money thru sweat and hardwork.
Try calculating the number of mayors alone and how much money is wasted.
Try also the congomen and the governors. These are the true innovators of this country.
So, is the innovators and the early adaptors ready for change? NO
kawawa talaga ang pinoy.
May 24, 2009 at 3:39 am
it depends on how you define innovators and early adaptors.
how do people in government crack down on corruption when they themselves are the perpetrators?
May 24, 2009 at 4:36 am
hay naku bong, kulang ka pa sa seminar.
Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority.
Who’s administration or authority is today? Read this Link:
May 24, 2009 at 4:43 am
ay mali pala yung link,
a bigger view of Political Financing to WIN during Election.
here it is:
“Other types of private sector corruption common in the Philippines are illegal donations to political parties and bribery in order to influence policy-making. According to the SWS Business Survey on Corruption 2007, 25% of companies said that a typical company within their sector would make a donation to the 2007 election campaigns of an estimated amount of PHP 245,000. It is a commonplace feature of companies in the Philippines to support politicians directly or to donate to their parties. Some companies also report that politicians expect them to make campaign donations. In general, companies in the Philippines want some kind of influence in exchange for their donation, such as influencing laws and policy-making, or some other undue advantage. The concentration of wealth within a small group of elite families, seen in combination with political donations, gives these families an undue advantage, and this has led to concerns as to their undue influence on both Philippine politics and business life. ” Read more about political donations.
May 24, 2009 at 4:51 am
the AS-IS political financing comes from companies.
the Obama campaign showed another AS-IS – lots of individuals contributing small amounts – in contrast in the PI, candidates buy the voters –
that’s ocean’s wide apart.
the TO-BE then is for voters to support their candidates by helping finance the political campaign.
fil-ams already contribute to the campaign coffers of the Democrats and the Republicans.
these same fil-ams are ready to sink in funds, but, only with the candidate whose core values resonate with their values.
get the drfit?
May 24, 2009 at 5:34 am
yup you are right na lang..
May 24, 2009 at 4:09 am
Good substance and well-structured blog, Sanamagan.
Like you say, change is many things to people. Hhmmm, how come you seem to change your avatar every other day? Is that your idea of walk-the-talk, dude? :)
But seriously, is Change a Process or a Product?
May 24, 2009 at 4:57 am
Phil:
as defined – change is “the process of becoming different” therefore it is a process.
the idea that change is needed can be considered a “product”. the alternative product being “change is not needed”.
as to avatars – why be static, be dynamic :)
May 24, 2009 at 5:26 am
Oh bong, the issue in the Philippines will not affect me directly in terms of my activities of daily living. I am awake. No need to get emotional and personal. Just share your view and I will do the same. If you think i’m not awake, then don’t worry- it’s my problem not yours. hay naku bong… nandiyan ka na naman… gitusok tusok ang imong ulo… LOL :)
May 24, 2009 at 5:34 am
kaw jud leytenian, of course, that wouldn’t apply to a you.
but, a trisikad/jeepney driver who has to make do with substandard roads most likely has not understood that the votes they sold for 1000, will be recovered by diverting funds which could have gone to improving the roads they pass through every day.
clearly there is a breakdown in ethics – but how can ethics be enforced when the very person who is supposed to lead ethics reform is the perpetrator himself? where does that lead the voter. he can petition for a recall. but will he? will people join him? chances are, nothing was done – and therefore the status quo persists.
May 24, 2009 at 5:54 am
bong,. we need to demand and put more pressure to the people in authority. lisod kaayo kung ang mga pobre ang atong targeton. dili na sila kasabot sa complexity. kung naay “law or batas” na ipatong didto sa bato ug sa talisay tree for example:
“The president of this country is Banning buying of votes. Any candidates who are caught of buying votes must be disqualified from office. A 5000 pesos reward to witnesses is available.” grabe jud…
the drivers? they know already bong. have you been home? they are just not motivated because they have no role models. their focus is to feed their children. they don’t have the time to blog like us. it’s an apathetic society.
The rule of law must be implemented and Gloria must initiate the change because she has the authority. She is right there sitting beside “our Constitution”. It’s matter of teamwork instead of kanya kanya…
Gloria can be a good president only when she divorces her husband :) LOL
May 24, 2009 at 8:24 am
Karl Garcia says:
May 24, 2009 at 7:56 am
from what i gather from years of reading blogs and websites
1) the oligarchs who control the politicians
2) allowing mushrooming of squatters for the numbers game in the election
3) having a minority president due to non adaption of the election runoffs
4) porkbarrel, the IRA, or antything that has to do with funding
5) not having an inventory of laws, proposing laws that is already there, fixing laws that aint broke and the reinventing of the wheel.
6) non implementation of the said law
off course benigno has his share :
1) The pwede na attitude
2) his so called lack of resolve(new year’s resolution)
what the heck I will just copy paste:
:D Filipinos lack RESOLVE.
Resolve emanates from a clear understanding of what is and what needs to be done.
Insight. Filipinos cannot grasp fundamental principles that underpin the ability to achieve most of their aspirations – freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
Foresight. Filipinos don’t anticipate. They react. They don’t lay the groundwork for the future. They’d rather hack their way through the jungle of what is to be.
Vision. Filipinos are not dreamers. They cannot see a place for the Philippines in the world order beyond its role as a resource pool for warm bodies.
:D Filipinos lack CONFIDENCE.
Confidence flows from recognising that one possesses the means to achieve.
Innovation. Filipinos will do the same thing again and again while continuously expecting different results. A perfect recipe for the no-results society we see today.
Enterprise. Filipinos cannot harvest the commercial value of the few great ideas they come up with. They have picked their low-hanging resources clean and are hopeless at capitalising on their remaining – but dwindling – natural assets.
Commitment. Filipinos are great at starting things but utterly lack follow-through. This trait is so well-recognised that it has been encapsulated in a well-known Tagalog phrase – ningas cogon.
:D Filipinos lack CONSISTENCY.
Consistency is exhibited when discipline and rigour is practiced.
Language. Filipinos are becoming less and less proficient at the only language that unites them – English. Tagalog has proven to be a victim of its own history and an intellectual dead-end.
Structure. The only kind of robust structure that characterises Filipino society is its rigid social class hierarchy and the omnipresent tyranny of Catholic dogma. Chaos is the Filipino’s comfort zone.
Quality. Pwede na yan (“that’ll do”) is the mantra of Filipino design undertaking. A lack of investment in systems thinking results in chronically inconsistent and unreliable results in most Filipino operations.
===============================
Reply
*
Karl Garcia says:
May 24, 2009 at 8:17 am
the laundry list above are the reasons that are said to be the obstacles or hurdles to change.
Wait benign0 has more:These are what we think are our approach to problem solving.
(1) Flippant and rah-rah approaches to developing actions. Unstructured lists of non-systemic “action steps” that show no evidence of logical rigour in their development and aim merely to cure symptoms without addressing underlying problems.
(2) Ningas-cogon. This is the offspring of unstructured solutions development. When the last of the rah-rah’s echo in the distance, the slogan-bearing banners and bumper stickers peel off, and the feel-good primal euphoria of the latest Edsa “revolution” gets checked by the Angel of Reality whenever there is a change in administration or a slump in the global market for semiconductors, garments, and, yes, bananas or a spate of domestic terrorist activity, or whatever classic excuse for failure is made by our eminent historians and sociologists, that is when this very Pinoy, characteristic sets in.
(3) Sugar coating the situation. Part of the reason why so many flippant solutions are proposed is because of a lack of desire and will to, or a sensitivity with clearly highlighting deep systemic flaws in Philippine society and culture.
……and he has an idea:
A Solution Framework that aims to address the cultural dysfunction of the Philippine Nation hinges on three solution classes. These classes represent the key roadblocks to change at the cultural grassroots level of Philippine society (in contrast with the more often-highlighted political roadblocks which to a large extent have merely cured the symptoms of our cultural malaise).
(1) Right philosophy — subscription to a philosophy (or set of philosophies) that will put said society in a collective state of mind that is conducive to sustainable prosperity.
(2) Efficient communication — a shared strength in a chosen language (proficiency of which is not monopolised by an elite class) that provides the society access to as big a body of knowledge as possible
(3) Wealth creation ethic — the capability to sustainably create and accumulate wealth domestically
Maintaining focus on these three while building up more detailed solutions (i.e. proceeding down to lower and more detailed classes of solutions) will ensure that effective visibility across the proper precedence relationships (between root causes, secondary causes, tertiary causes, and so on…) is maintained and the property of MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) within class levels of solution propositions is sustained as the framework increases in detail and proceeds to touch on more operational levels.
=====================
nagkamali ako mali ang nagpag postan ko ng comment kinapy paste ko na lang
May 24, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Karl:
I agree with Benign0’s thesis, the Philippines needs cultural change, a change in cultural norms, or a change in cultural realities, new memes by having: 1) the right philosophy; 2) efficient communication; and 3) Wealth creation ethic.
In making the case for cultural change, Bruce Eldine Morton, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, University of Hawaii School of Medicine, has this to say
May 24, 2009 at 8:45 am
Superb discussion.
The poor have a short-term perspective and take the vote-cash to put food on the table. They also have to face the power, often ruthless, of the well-entrenched, when they, themselves, are powerless. So they just do what they have to do. You cannot expect them to be either the architects or “processors” of change.
All leaders are flawed, so you can’t get a perfect one. And for the Philippines, it is important to show the world community stability, not turmoil. You have to go with the horse you voted into office, not toss them for every whim of disappointment. At least Bert is loyal to the Philippine commitment (the person YOU elected), which is admirable.
The entrenched have built a beautiful electoral process. How do you disrupt it? Obama used the internet to disrupt the corporate control over US elections. That won’t work here. Yet it is critically important to get a sound horse in office – a Gordon, not an Estrada (an executive with a good heart, not a drunk with a gambling problem).
You need to identify your horse early and start building the groundswell of support he needs via opinion-leaders, Star headlines, news blasts. Myself, I would go with Gordon, but I’m not Filipino. Having selected your horse, you have to figure out how to show the poor how they get food on the table TOMORROW if they back the right horse.
There are ways to do that, but it is for a different forum.
You also have to have a contingency plan in place for when Ms. Arroyo cancels the elections because the voting process is so screwed up by trying to automate it within too short a time frame. The Senate (all presidentiables) should be thinking about that now.
As for blog topics, Federalism would be interesting. I think Federalism (three states) is a reasonable way to break down today’s problem of dominant national power directly linked to corrupt local powers.
Joe
May 24, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“Yet it is critically important to get a sound horse in office – a Gordon, not an Estrada (an executive with a good heart, not a drunk with a gambling problem).”-Joe America
Joe,
First, thanks.
With regards to this one, well, Estrada’s bad habits are a given; as to presidents of the republic we can only compare results after the facts; and, if comparison is to be made, between Estrada’s ‘drinking and gambling’ and Marcos’ excesses while prsidents, Estrada seems a better choice. Gordon’s ‘good heart’ will have to stand the test of time and of ‘temptations’. For now we cannot tell.
As to the coming 2010 presidential election, certainly agree with you, we have to compare and look for the best and the worst in each candidate for president then vote according to each our own perceptions.
May 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Estrada versus Roco was a no-brainer.
Well, no-brains voted for Estrada.
May 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
Change management is intricately tied with Culture. Even from a corporate perspective there is an emphasis of aligning culture with the strategic vision of an organisation
:D A company’s culture can contribute – or hinder – successful strategy execution
:D Beliefs & practices of a strategy may – or may not – be compatible with firm’s culture
:D Close match between culture & strategy adds significantly to effectiveness of strategy execution
…principles that can be applied at a national level.
More in this slide presentation: Why Culture Matters.
May 24, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Benign0:
Exactly.
The implication is,
culture narrows down the options for viable strategies
the culture has a different set of criteria – (i.e. personality-based vs issues-based)
Also, Clarence Henderson has astute observations in (I am copy pasting the entire article) Filipino Business Norms.
______________________________
______________________________
Given the availability of investment destination, unless the Philippines has a very compelling competitive advantage (very cheap labor, i.e. why pay a US-based call center operator for $2000/month if you can have it elsewhere for only $300/operator/month).Non-Filipino businessmen would rather go elsewhere where the the culture is more aligned with Western values – and Indian culture has risen to the challenge and is becoming more aligned with the mainstream business precepts, thus, India has grabbed the lion’s share of BPO and IT outsourcing.
Prior to the dot-com bubble Philippine IT practitioners already had nascent outsourcing projects. Malaysia and India saw the trend in the Philippines and set about crafting and implementing strategies that will make its labor force more competitive and attune to the demands of Western customers.
The Philippines on the other hand was busy politicking.
Meanwhile, Indian companies hired Filipino IT practitioners, struck agreements with Microsoft, Oracle, Computer Associates, etc. And the government provided education loans (something unheard of in the PI during that time, and up to the present?).
India made the adjustments and has now dominated the market, and even subcontracts to the Philippines.
In this case, India’s adjustments in both culture and strategy, bore very positive results.
May 24, 2009 at 10:19 am
… daaaaang
… how will flips change when the wind of change blowing through is beyond their reach…
May 25, 2009 at 12:09 am
Bong on Cultural Change, you may need to research further ….
Culture is not the primary reason that this country cannot grow. Cultural growth is directly link to human rights and the rule of law. In the Philippines, when Justice cannot speak and the rule of law is weak , it will limit human rights. Human rights are intended for everyone, in every culture rather than limit human rights to suit a given culture. To deny human rights on the grounds of cultural distinction is discriminatory.
Of course culture matters but who’s job description are these 10 values which distinguish cultures that foster economic growth.
1. An orientation on the future as against the present or past;
2. A positive attitude toward work as against work as a burden;
3. A propensity to save and invest as against income equality;
4. Mass availability of education, as against education for the elite;
5. Fairness in advancement as against cronyism and connections;
6. Trust in a broad range of extended communities as against trust primarily in the family;
7. A strong ethical code and a relative absence of corruption, without resorting to sanctions;
8. Justice and fair play as against who you know and how much you pay off;
9. Dispersed authority and broad empowerment as against hierarchy and command and control systems; and
10. Religion as essentially a private matter allowing for plurality and dissent as against orthodoxy and conformity.
Bong… It’s MANAGEMENT. The people managing this country drags the whole country into an apathetic society. kawawa na talaga ang pinoy.
May 25, 2009 at 12:17 am
leytenian:
you heard this thing called MANAGEMENT CULTURE?
now, try comparing Pinoy Management culture vs Japanese management culture vs American Management culture
May 25, 2009 at 11:12 am
Bong,
The scheme of free education is useless.
What are provided free are just in the elementary as well as high school.
In college, the state colleges or universities do not provide real free education but subsidies only. Besides, not everyone gets to enter the SUCs if they are not ‘deserving but poor students’.
So the scheme might have been an awful waste of money, in the end.
May 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Primer:
Free education at elem and high school and subsidies for colleges and universities is similar to the US model.
May 25, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Impressive effort poured on this one, BongV.
I was kind of fearing it would deteriorate into another pissing contest…
In any case, the bigger quarrel will start when you begin defining the direction to take, assuming we even get to that stage. It’s a slow, slow process. That is a given especially for a people who take contrary views as offense to one’s person instead as a natural occurrence that happens between people of differing orientations. It happens in many fora, this one included. It is like we are diminished for every inch we give to the other side. Even those we expect to take the moral high ground– for the ideas they espouse require so if only to set the tone– get as quickly provoked and descend to the morass they detest, unable to detect that they themselves are a microcosm of what is wrong.
July 29, 2009 at 10:39 am
Well let’s jump into another topic.
What can you say with this phrase “Responsive Laws as a must in an ever-dynamic changing society” in the philippines?..
Does our government really working to cope up with these change we have?!
May 23, 2009 at 4:51 am
Bencard:
Thanks for pointing out the oversight on my part.
May 23, 2009 at 6:43 pm
what makes you think she was clean, just because you didn’t read anything in the papers prior to the election does not mean she was clean. cmon bert.
May 23, 2009 at 9:14 pm
you guys are funny! you keep on bashing and bashing your head, thinking you’re the bright ones. and blaming the other fellows for your perversities. cmon, have a life and smile, you are yourself as emotional, hehehe.
May 23, 2009 at 11:04 pm
bert:
i don’t see how analysis is considered bashing. that’s ludicrous.
May 24, 2009 at 12:05 am
sorry, BongV, it’s not the analysis. i said it first, you make good blogs, didn’t i, and this one is good even if i won’t buy.
it’s the negative things being said about the Filipino people looking only at the dark side and not by somalians but by kababayans bashing themselves in the process.
May 24, 2009 at 3:37 am
what bashing are you talking about – i come to a conclusion about a behavior.
it so happens that the people who exhibit said behavior are also our kabayans.
but do you personally behave as such, i don’t think so, therefore – the focus is not directed at you.
May 24, 2009 at 4:49 am
leytenian:
i know you wanna work within the context of the current administration. it’s not gonna happen.
wake up.
May 24, 2009 at 6:05 am
you can only demand from authority so much, you take one out, the pobre, by force of numbers, vote another one in – something’s gotta give.
May 24, 2009 at 8:04 am
The Cubans who left, think Cuba is a rathole because of Castro.
May 24, 2009 at 8:28 am
thanks for the reply Bong, that is what i think too.
May 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm
if you don’t have your biases prejudice against your kababayans then my comments not directed at you.
May 24, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Carl:
had some couple of Cuban friends in Miami Beach while I was in the Hollywood/Pembroke Pines/Hallandale Beach/Ft Lauderdale area of South Florida. there’s even a neighborhood in Miami South Beach called Little Havana.
we’d usually have some Cuban coffee and food – and when the conversation turned to Cuba – the Cubans love Cuba, but their island has been left in time (like North Korea), due to Castro’s “revolution”.
The thing with this “Cuban revolution” is, the Castros wouldn’t go away. :lol:
Namatay na lang si Reagan at Marcos, hawak pa rin ng mga Castro ang Cuba – and here were are speculating whether GMA wants to stay in office long – but are we considering as a model – a country which has only 2 leaders since the Cuban revolution – nearly 40 years ago?
Cuba had a reputation for excellent health and social services, admittedly but as an international traveller, John Ripton, points out
May 24, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Another Thank You Bong, for that.