What the Philippine dev’t plan lacks
Giovanni Tapang, national chair of the Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (Agham), stated in his letter (“PH no place for S&T workers,” Inquirer, 7/28/11) that the “emphasis on the BPO industry only shows the current administration’s mindset as to science and technology. Instead of locally producing tools and machinery for agriculture and other equally important aspects of our economy, the administration toes the line of foreign big business and international lending institutions, as its predecessors did—that is, set aside its dream of building strong domestic industries to serve foreign monopolies with cheap English-speaking workforce.” Then he made a “call on all well-meaning scientists, engineers and other S&T professionals to join Agham in its advocacies and call on the current administration to put in place an industrial environment where we can practice our technical knowledge and skills to help propel our country from the agrarian stage to the industrial stage.”
His letter confirmed my observation that most, if not all, of the industrialized countries’ development followed a sequential path, by phase—from agriculture to industry, and then to service, but the Philippines has deviated from this path by giving emphasis to the service sector, which now has the highest percentage share of the total GDP and labor force, even as its agriculture and industry are not yet well developed, thereby making the country generally poor—a situation that makes the country more vulnerable to corruption. (“PH’s development path varies from those of its neighbors,” Inquirer, 1/13/11)
With P-Noy’s “Daang Matuwid,” life may be getting better for more and more Filipinos, but the country can never reach that level of development that Agham is advocating. In fact, Prof. Randy David, Ateneo’s 2011 Ozanam Awardee in the field of journalism for the depth of his reflections and constructive discourse on social and political issues, stated in his July 28 column that P-Noy’s Sona “projects the presidency not only as a seat of political authority but also as a fountain of moral leadership.” David also pointed out that a year has passed since P-Noy assumed the presidency, but still the Filipino people have yet to be informed of the following: political leadership’s evaluation of the situation, its goals and priorities, overall strategy and what it hopes to achieve at least in the coming year based on the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan which, however, does not show (1) how it differs from the previous development plans, (2) enough daringness in its thrusts and (3) progressiveness that will do justice to the reformist or almost revolutionary sentiments that support the President’s mandate.
—EDMUNDO ENDEREZ,
