Naman! (Or the Curious Case of Philippine Professionals)

Friday, 29 July 2011 05:06

Written by Louie C. Montemar

I pardon my Chief Employee BSA III for not mentioning my pet advocacies, like agrarian reform, in his SONA, if only for saying this line so well: “I wish we could say that we had completely eliminated the wang-wang attitude, but in some parts of our consciousness, it still persists. It still exists in the private sector. According to the BIR, we have around 1.7 million self-employed and professional taxpayers: lawyers, doctors, businessmen who paid a total of 9.8 billion pesos in 2010. This means that each of them paid only an average of 5,783 pesos in income tax—and if this is true, then they each must have earned only 8,500 pesos a month, which is below the minimum wage. I find this hard to believe.”

The last line, underscored in the quote above, was actually delivered more eloquently in Filipino. I say that only a Filipino could appreciate how those six English words could be reduced to one Presidential “NAMAN!”

Only a Filipino word—and there are over a hundred of them out there—could reverberate that well in the Filipino psyche. But I digress. What I would like to briefly explore here are some thoughts about the Filipino professional and his role in Philippine development.

Last February, a news item caught my eye for pointing out that ““brain drain” has worsened with the number of Filipino science and technology (S&T) workers leaving the country to work abroad jumping by 148 percent from 1998 to 2009.”

This data was from Leticia V. Catris, then officer-in-charge and deputy director of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST)-Science Education Institute (SEI). Director Catris referred to a SEI study on the migration of science and technology (S&T) workers and shared that the number of S&T workers who have left the country has risen annually from 9,877 in 1998 to 24,502 in 2009.

Catris also pointed out that based on the 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, the Philippines ranked 96 out of 139 nations in terms of availability of scientists and engineers. Catris then opined: “Though it is laudable that our S&T professionals seem to be sought after, it is a sad fact that we are losing them. We hope that we can find ways to make more of them stay in the country and use their talents here.”

Indeed. We have to find a way. Or we will have to make some. And here are some points to consider in this regard:

First, there are now serious party-list groups that could push forward more meaningful policies that bear on the plight of our “marginalized” professionals, if I may use the term. In partnership with existing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or civil society organizations (CSOs) set up along professional or disciplinal specializations—there are so many of them out there—these party-list groups like AGHAM (scientists and technologists) and ACT (teachers and education workers) can lobby for programs and policies in the interest of the Filipino professional a.k.a. the “Filipino cultural elite” (for most of them are formally educated and trained). Consider for instance the need for a serious review and observance of key policy instruments such as: the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers or Republic Act (RA) 4670 of 1966; RA 5921, on “Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy”; and, RA 2382, “The Medical Act of 1959.”

Second, Filipino professionals and businesspersons’ organizations (again, those NGOs or CSOs), can provide as networks not only for business purposes and further professional development but also as “Integrity Circles”—social mechanisms by which individual professional practitioners can be made concerned and responsible citizens, and not merely more skilled and knowledgeable individuals.

We need citizens who will pay their taxes dutifully—who will shape them and how? Who can keep them grounded, as it were? This can be done through the conduct of regular discussions on national issues and concerns that bear upon specific sectoral concerns or national development issues. One group that does this is the NEPA (National Economic Protectionism Association), which is now comprised of quite young business entrepreneurs and professionals who are exploring alternative development paradigms.

Third, perhaps we need more “social science” for our natural science students, not less. We need to develop social concern among prospective scientists and technologists.
On the campaign trail for the Presidency, our employee, BSAIII, promised that: “We will increase investments to provide quality jobs for Filipinos by lowering the costs of doing business in our country. We will invest in our country’s top resource, our human resource, to make us more competitive and employable. We will solve the labor-mismatch problem by promoting better coordination between employers, academia and government, including through strengthening both public (e.g. Public Employment Service Offices -PESO) and private sector labor market information and exchange institutions, especially at the local levels.”

However, the reality is that without that much jobs available locally, how can we make our graduates stay? Well, here’s one simple observation: some of my professional friends have stayed simply because they believed that this country needs them HERE. Remember that UP summa-cum-laude Valedictorian who comes from a poor family but has opted to ignore all those attractive offers to stay and teach in his alma mater? How do we shape brains and hearts like that?

But then ultimately, the long term solution for job generation requires a strategic plan for Philippine industrialization. Yes, government has its Public Employment Service Office or PESO—“a non-fee charging multi-employment service facility” established through RA 8759 (PESO Act of 1999). It is supposed to ensure the delivery of employment service and provision of information on government’s labor and employment programs, especially at the local level. The Act in fact establishes in all capital towns of provinces, key cities, and other strategic areas a PESO that is “community-based” and maintained largely by local government units (LGUs), NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), and state universities and colleges (SUCs). But what and where are the industries and enterprises that would be nurtured to generate the jobs for these PESOs to market?

Furthermore, without industries, officially targeted and prioritized ones at the very least, how can we have a “brain gain” (as opposed to brain drain) experience? In the case, for instance, of India’s IT sector, government laid down a sustained plan to tap their returning overseas professionals. Filipinos already abroad, especially professionals who have been out for decades, will not just come back and offer their ideas and skills without a plan and some active support from government.

The sci-fi film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button tells the story of a man who ages backwards with interesting consequences. I realized that like Benjamin Button, many of our skilled and well-educated (read: “professional”) kababayan overseas, sort of experience life backwards. Ideally, in the prime of one’s youth, one serves one’s country. In the case of many Filipino professionals, they serve first in other countries and contribute instead to those countries’ growth. It is only as they age that they find, if ever, the chance and real interest to come back.

But then if they really wanted to—if Mr. Button wanted to live life back, as it were—could they? Would they? What curious button could they push in the huge governmental machinery to try to give back, somehow, to the Inang Bayan that they left behind for their professional and their families’ economic interest?

Beyond paying the right taxes, if a concerned professional wanted to help out, how could he, Mr. President, I mean, Employee BSA III? Really, with no clear development direction and no priority industry development plan, how? Naman…

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites