Academic Profession: A Sad Reality

A sad reality about the academic profession all over the world.... Here's a reflective note from my former teacher, Walden Bello, a respected academic himself and awarded Outstanding Public Scholar by the International Political Economy Section of the International Studies Association (ISA), regarding a lesson that can be drawn from the Amy Bishop incident:

" Being denied tenure often ends an

 academic's career, and there are so many cases of denials being based on flimsy, questionable, and downright unjust grounds. There are so many capable and brilliant minds that are today part of the walking wounded, destroyed by the tenure process. It's time educational institutions ... review the tenure process so that it does not become a mechanism whereby the mediocre and non-productive defend their sinecures from younger, bright, and productive scholars. "

Sad that up-and-coming talents are often confronted with terrible personal insecurities of already 'tenured' (i.e., with job security) faculty members. Even sadder that there are many academics who need the energy that comes from bullying, senseless power play, and hating others intensely just to keep them going.

Luckily, whenever I encounter insecure and hateful academics, I just remember the most important teachers, professors, and mentors in my life who are very good—both professionally and as human beings—who have made me feel and experience an old-fashioned academic culture of generosity, encouragement, and inspiration. These are the academics with a sense of humility, not pride; philanthropy, not patronage; love, not hate.

Manny V. Pangilinan and Prospective Investors for the Philippine Economy

Reference to PDI news article 
"Pangilinan fumes, threatens to go back to Hong Kong: You're so unruly"

Manny V. Pangilinan
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer

Listen to MVP.... Not necessarily to follow exactly his will or what he says; but to read between the lines. There appears to be a point to believe in that one of the major reasons why the Philippine economy is bad for investments is that its state functionaries listen more to politicians as well as (neoclassical) economists than to businesspeople. To be perfectly frank, even from a capitalist point of view, the Philippine state does not know how to manage and develop capitalism properly so as to create wealth for the nation.

I find MVP's business and politics a really intriguing case for a study of Southeast Asian political economy.... I hope I can find the time, energy, and opportunity to do this research in the coming months.... 

In the Philippines, MVP is considered a business magnate who has diversified interests, holdings, and portfolio and who has become a patron of the country's sports, arts, and education. But there's more....

MVP is one of those very rare seasoned Southeast Asian capitalists who has thrived on and know how to deal with a variety of capitalist regimes in East and Southeast Asia - broadly speaking, be it the 'free market capitalism' of Hong Kong, the 'state capitalism' of China, the 'predatory capitalism' of Indonesia, the 'crony capitalism' of Malaysia, or the 'unruly' capitalism (MVP's word) of the Philippines. MVP has recently expressed disgust about 'unruliness' in the conduct of political-business relations in the Philippines. And this is telling about a fundamental requirement of any capitalist: a high degree of predictability, certainty, calculability, and security for capital accumulation.

With the way things are shaping up these days, including in geopolitical and geoeconomic terms, and with the few years left of PNoy's presidency, it seems that the Philippines cannot expect much investments in the coming years from Chinese capital. Other analysts argue that the Philippine political tussle with China does/will not affect the two countries' economic relations; but I disagree with this opinion because it does not accurately comprehend how 'the political' and 'the economic' are inextricable in Chinese political economy. I think that China has not learned capitalism from the English classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo (which normatively separates 'the political' from 'the economic'), but from the critique of political economy of Karl Marx (which structurally understands 'the political' behind 'the economic').

While the Philippines should still try to reach out to China, maybe it would be more strategic for the government to look to other investors outside the ASEAN like Japan, which also has intensifying territorial disputes with China and which remains the Philippines' biggest investor. Current news in the business pages are saying that more and more Japanese manufacturing activity/production are relocating to the Philippines in recent and coming years. Well, who knows, the 'anti-China' projects in Washington (and, possibly, in Tokyo) might revitalize the postwar anti-USSR Marshall Plan and the mid-1980s Plaza Accord - i.e., two historic capitalist development moments and plans that have dramatically (re)industrialized Germany (and West/North Europe) and Japan (and the economies in East and Southeast Asia). The Philippines could be a showcase for a Marshall Plan 2.0 and/or a Plaza Accord 2.0. 

South Korean capital also might be a good source of foreign investment especially that many of its citizens and businesses are already settled and in operation in the country for some years now. Just a thought, however.... When I asked Ha-Joon Chang about this prospect when he treated me for a drink in Italy two years ago, he told me that tapping South Korean capital is not at all a bad idea; but he warned me against the dismal record of these companies in labour and industrial relations. Indeed, Ha-Joon's reminder to me immediately conjures up the occupational abuses and hazards of the Hanjin Corporation in Subic recently, as well as the excesses of the Japanese Imperial Army-trained General Park Chung-hee during Korea's early industrialization experience. So consider this as a tip on how to do business with the Koreans in ways that protect and promote the welfare and a life of dignity of Filipino workers.

Other countries within the BRICS — particularly, Brasil, India, and South Africa have to be seriously considered as well as prospective investors. For instance, our neighbour Malaysia has laid out business plans with the BRICS, which mostly focus on China and India (i.e., the 'home' nations of about 40% of the country's multiethnic citizens).

And, of course, at this crisis moment, there are big opportunities to develop our own domestic manufacturing sector, local technological capabilities, national innovation system, and agricultural productivity with a view to food security. This must include alternative development strategies and the visions for ecological futures and sustainable communities. Big concepts and ideas, indeed, but we have a lot of brilliant, creative, and dedicated people in the Philippines who (can) make things happen. Hope!

Rediscovering Nationalism

BBC has reported on attempts at mainstreaming, or internationalizing, Philippine cuisine.... 

To me, while there are many factors why Filipino food has not been on a par with our neighbours Thai, Vietnamese, and Indonesian cuisines in terms of international recognition, I believe that some of the important explanations have to do with [i] our generally very adaptive cultural disposition; [ii] the incompleteness of our nation-building process; and [iii] the absence of a national development strategy.

Points [i] and [ii] may be self-explanatory, yet [ii] and [iii] are interrelated. On point [i] I remember Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations feature on Philippine cuisine when he made a comment about Filipinos: "I think you are just too damn nice. I think this is a problem." Watch below that particular episode.

But I would like to emphasize on the importance of point [iii] here. It might have been ideal to make identity flourish 'organically', but at this historical moment of globalization I think food identity for the international market can be created. That is to say, politics can actually create a culture, an identity. Creating a food identity can be part of a nation-building process and outlined in a national development strategy - both of which orchestrated by a truly democratic state (we, the people). It is actually good that in the Philippines, unlike in many European countries, the principle of 'nationalism' has a positive connotation. However, sometimes I have a feeling that our nationalism is most articulated in sports - particularly every time that our national pride Manny Pacquiao fights in the boxing ring - but we have not extended a sense of nationalism to our polity and to our economy.

We should not forget that development - i.e., capitalist development - from Europe and the US to Japan, South Korea, and China (and even Malaysia) were not built on the invisible hand of the market but on conscious state policy, not on 'liberalism' but on 'nationalism'. 

Finally, I very much disagree with these statements in the BBC report: 

Mr Laudico believes the reason why Philippine food is not well-respected is because Filipinos themselves do not respect it. They might like to eat it, but they do not think others will. 

"We have a lack of pride in our own cuisine," he explained. "For hundreds of years, when we've had guests in our homes, we've apologised and said to them: 'I'm very sorry, I can only serve you Philippine food'."

BBC News Feature Sources here:

— "Philippine chefs look to take national cuisine mainstream" by Kate McGeown
— In pictures: Philippine food seeks global appeal

Watch Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations episode on the Philippines here:

On PNoy's de-Gloriazation, China, APEC and ASEAN

References to Rappler's "DFA clarifies Singapore 'support'" and various news reports re PNoy's APEC meetings from Inquirer, Interaksyon, & GMA

Sometimes I wonder if our mainstream media is really that naive, or simply incapable of reporting news on international relations, even just the affairs (particularly, political economy) of our neighboring countries in Southeast Asia....

The other day, I watched in the news featuring PNoy's meeting with Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib as if Malaysia is also supporting the Philippine territorial claims against China.... Our media may be underestimating how powerful and important (economically, at least) China is now in the region (in the world, indeed) and how ASEAN does not want to antagonize its relations with China.... 

Here are the facts: China is now the biggest trading partner of ASEAN and will soon become the biggest investor in all ASEAN countries; and by 2009, Malaysia has become the largest trading partner of China among ASEAN countries. 

The point is: authoritarian-capitalist states of Singapore and Malaysia will never ever antagonize their authoritarian-capitalist counterpart benefactor and idol, China, at this point. And the truth is: not for the Philippines, which is really not that important for these emerging and industrializing economies.

There is a difference on the reception of China between PNoy and Najib when both assumed state leadership in 2010 and 2009, respectively: PNoy visited China; Najib was invited by China. The Philippines does not have a clear development strategy towards Chinese capital; Malaysia is more conscious of integrating Chinese capital into its accumulation regime. This is where having national industrialization as a development strategy (i.e., Malaysia) makes a startling difference in, among others, international economic and political relations.

I don't think that PNoy should have spent that much (PHP 15 million) for the attendance of his economic team in the APEC. PNoy only got a meeting with who - Chile and the three ASEAN countries Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam? Countries which PNoy's team could have met outside the APEC? The team was frustrated when they were not able to meet with China, whose appointment books must have been full as all APEC countries would like to secure a share of Chinese capital.

I would have hoped that even from a capitalist point of view, PNoy's economic team would be able to strategize a Philippine capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Aside from the well-recognized problem of the PNoy administration on the implications of the territorial disputes at the West Philippine Sea for Philippine-China economic relations and even though we are doing better now in 'good governance', I believe that a more fundamental structural problem why the Philippines is having difficulties in attracting Chinese capital has to do with our economic development strategy.

My sense is that, thus far, PNoy's 'de-Gloriazation' efforts have been limited to 'political' reforms - i.e., the restoration of integrity in our democratic institutions - but has not yet extended to 'economic' reforms. Here is my framing of PNoy's economic strategy: it's basically, neoliberalization à la Gloria with good governance. To be candid about it: PNoy's good governance is simply a thin icing on a largely neoliberalism-à-la-Gloria cake. Remember Gloria's formula to gain positive growth rate computation, mainly: OFW-dependence (labour-export strategy) + huge public spending + BPOs (call centers). And yes, lest we forget, add CCT initiated during Gloria's presidency as a central poverty reduction programme. But how about exports of value-added manufacturing goods - a big question mark??? 

I am not saying that these economic strategies of Gloria should be abandoned altogether, but it is to challenge PNoy to have some value-added on his development strategy that directly alters the economic structure. Our service-oriented economy is already a very depressed market that does not offer a great variety of labour specialization and which is not able to sustain, let alone increase living standards of, 90+ million Filipinos. No wonder that we cannot attract Chinese capital or generally increase FDIs and international private capital flows into the Philippine economy.

I have always argued that it's the 'mode of production' that should be the foremost concern of our development strategy. We have to produce things and ideas. Things and ideas with value - that is, technology-intensive and conducive to innovation. At this historical moment of global economic crisis and climate change, there are big windows of opportunity for alternative futures — towards ecological production systems, green technology, sustainable communities, etc. We have to produce wealth first for the nation before our promises of redistribution or redistributive justice earn credibility and legitimacy from the hopeful people of the Philippines.

Cheering and Jeering in the Philippine Elitist Political Structure

The RH Bill is in peril of being killed by Senate leadership filibustering and other legislative delaying tactics. Both Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto, known anti-RH legislators, are obviously engaged in this old trapo (traditional politician) trick. Another inconvenient truth: These were the senator-judges who we cheered on during the Corona impeachment trial and the same politicos we jeered at this time as regards the RH Bill. 

Alas, such is the nature of our elitist political decision-making structure! But this also tells us exactly who we should not anymore vote for and against whom our opposition should be mounted.

Part and parcel of the political reform process towards social change is to stop electing these trapos. As we press on the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to ensure institutional integrity of our electoral decisions, we — the citizens — also have to make informed and wise votes.

To be for RH. To be for reforms. To be for hope.

The Curious Case of Mar Roxas

Reference to Interaksyon headline "Aquino, Roxas Insist: Country over Party"

Mar Roxas' political slogan these days is "Country above self". Ethically, as in the original Greek signification of a 'polis', it must be country (common good) over party (parochial interests). But in contemporary realpolitik, we have idiots or 'idiotes' (selfish, self-interested politicians) in the polity.

The deep sense of loss that Filipinos have felt with the untimely departure of Ramon Magsaysay Awardee Jesse Robredo is highly evocative of the sad reality of the corruption of the vocation and profession of politics as a supposedly noble art of public service. There has been a general expression of thanks and appreciation for the life of Mayor Pogi, Sec. Jesse, for reclaiming ethics in 'politics' and for bringing back the demos (we, the people) in democratic governance.

To continue with the reforms in local governance that Robredo had started off, the President has appointed his party-mate Mar Roxas as Secretary of the important and powerful Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). Mar's presidential ambition might have been delayed for a while, but his appointment at DILG effectively makes him a 'little president' with executive powers, legislative clout from provincial governments down to barangay councils, judicial prerogative to discipline erring local government officials, and the security and coercive apparatuses of the police.

Mar is a seasoned politician. I would encourage a political biographer to consider him as a very interesting subject. Unfortunately, the Philippines does not have much political biographers these days, aside from politically-commissioned PR firms, academics, and writers.  

I think Mar's career is a fascinating subject for students of Philippine politics. He comes from an elite political-business family. He has training in economics, finance, and business. He was a legislator in both the House and Senate. He's a technocrat who has survived and thrived the bureaucracies under the administrations of Erap, Arroyo, and PNoy — heading different departments from Energy (DOE) to Trade & Industry (DTI) to Transportation & Communications (DOTC), and now the DILG. 

Arguably, Mar has worked in all these government agencies enthusiastically and professionally; however, his short stints in those offices also meant that the projects and reforms he had instituted had not been sustained, inhibiting them to take root and flourish. Mar is also a celebrity having been linked with some celebrities and now married to a media personality. With his education, Mar is ideologically a market-oriented 'neoliberal'; but he once succeeded in the 'populist' appeal of 'Mr. Palengke' (Mr. Market) in an attempt to mold ordinary people's consciousness into the legitimacy of market mechanisms and he had also fought for some 'protection' for the interests of the nation's local farmers and domestic industries against the rich countries and the WTO rules. And many more.... A curious case, indeed....

We cannot expect 'Mr. Palengke' (Mar) to be like 'Mr. Tsinelas' (Sec. Jesse). Mar is / has always been / will be Mar. There will never be a Jesse Robredo again, but there are important lessons that Mar or we can draw from Jesse's life experience and achievements. Congratulations and good luck to the newly-appointed DILG Secretary Mar Roxas! The people should watch over him and make sure that he lives up to his political motto: "Country above self."