We need an all-out ideological civil war

We need an all-out ideological civil war. Without the blood-letting of course, but just short of it. We need to pit right wing versus left wing. Progressive ideas versus conservative ideas. Not in the realm of politics, but in our daily lives.

Americans have to be told that this is necessary. We face an uncertain future that is getting more and more uncertain every day. We can no longer pretend that the day of reckoning is not at hand, because it is staring us in our faces every morning, as we brush our teeth.

The Democrats are thinking of introducing next year legislation that will amend the recently enacted health care legislation to include a public option. Should they succeed in doing that, there will be an uproarious national debate on the role of government in this country that will make last year's dysfunctional town hall meetings seem like a picnic.

America needs this. If the left, progressives and students mobilize to support the public option and the right, the chambers of commerce, the old conservative folks mobilize in opposition, the resultant gut-wrenching shouting match will determine the country's permanent direction.

I believe in the public option. I believe in progressive ideas. I believe that most of the problems we are seeing today - economic, societal, lack of political will - are a result of years, even decades of conservative neglect. From Reagan, to Bush I to Bush II, the Republicans have neglected the erection of defenses against the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians who have systematically dismantled American manufacturing and other business sectors.

They looked the other way as country after country took advantage of the U.S.'s commitment to laissez-faire economics. Reagan, after his second term ended, had no idea why the Japanese gave him a one million dollar gift during his visit to Japan in 1989. The Japanese loved Reagan. He never once entertained thoughts of protecting American manufacturers of television sets and other electronic products from the cheap Japanese products that were being dumped in the U.S. market. By the time Reagan's second term ended, the radio, television, non-high tech consumer electronic products industries had been buried in Arlington cemetery. All in the name of American military superiority.

Bush II - the younger Bush - looked the other way as China consolidated its position as chief night burglar of U.S. manufacturing jobs. He looked the other way, because China was financing Bush's ill-advised war in Iraq. He looked the other way, because China was financing the massive Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans, many of whom were and still are Bush's friends. He looked the other way, because China financed the expensive flexing of world power muscles that Bush extolled when he proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on the U.S.S. Lincoln.

We became like the Russians, as the Russians became like Americans. Recall that Russia was a third-world economic power even as it assumed the role of the second military superpower, a menacing knife at the throat of the world's number one superpower, the United States of America.

With China and India leading the way, other countries have taken over manufacturing and back office operations for American business. It started with Reagan during the Japanese miracle, continued under Bush I and to a certain extent under Clinton - though Clinton must be credited with the explosion of high-tech jobs in Silicon Valley and other technology centers all over the U.S. - and reached a crescendo during the Bush II years, when China and India systematically relocated a sizable chunk of American business into those two countries' cities.

The Russianization of America is nearly complete. Like most third-world countries, we struggle to find jobs for our people. We promise ourselves that we will develop alternative energy - solar, wind, thermal, nuclear, etc. - yet in the back of our heads we know that China and other countries are so far ahead of us in these fields that we may already be an also-ran in them.

We delight in being the sole military superpower in the world, an empty distinction since we know that a devastating terrorist attack on American soil is not a question of "If" but of "when."

In the end, we really have inherited nothing, just the wind. We are fast becoming third-world economically, even as we cling on to our military might. Just as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

The most important, most valuable resource owned by Americans - their houses - have lost so much value that now people can't wait to get rid of their houses instead of treasuring them. People are fleeing their upside-down houses (houses that owe more money than they are worth) as though those houses had the germs that cause the Black Plague.

Americans expect the worst of their Social Security system, their Medicare and Medicaid, which they consider already bankrupt as we speak. Americans are wrong on this, because the Social Security system is decades away from insolvency, even if the U.S. Congress does nothing. But the dim prospects are real. If America cannot find future public financing for the continuation of Social Security and Medicare, those two entitlement programs will eventually become insolvent.

For the first time perhaps in its history, the American nation fears its future. Are we equal to the challenges? Do we have the talent? Is it true Chinese and other Asians are born smarter than Americans? Why do Asians outperform most American kids academically?

Do we have enough money to support our military? Shouldn't we slash the Pentagon budget in half and bring our troops home where they can protect the country from Al Qaeda and other terrorists who are plotting to one day launch a terrorist attack that will rival 9/11?

American ingenuity, which used to be our source of pride and the promise of a prosperous future, is now being rivaled by other countries. While we still dominate new patents, our lead over the rest of the world is fast shrinking.

Our Ivy League universities are the greatest, but they have become so expensive that our own children are shunning them. Nowadays, our elite universities are educating Chinese, Indian, South Korean, Taiwanese, HongKong and other scholars so that those scholars can go back to their home countries and accelerate the pace of dismantling American-based businesses.

Besides that "minor" inconvenience, the current Great Recession has rendered diplomas earned in those great universities useless as more and more of their graduates find difficulty finding jobs upon graduation.

Americans do not dare to dream of the nice juicy jobs, they are fighting each other for jobs, any old jobs. And the prospects are more of the same over much of this decade. Will it ever improve? What happens to all these kids who are graduating from college and are spending the next chapter of their lives doing odd jobs because there are no permanent, career-making jobs that are available?

Is the solution another "Go west, young man" epochal episode, with west being China and points in Asia, where American jobs have immigrated to? Citizens of third-world countries have to expatriate themselves to find work. Are Americans destined to do the same in the not-too-distant future?

And what do we do about those who are in this country illegally? We can't deport them all, even if we could find them. What would King Solomon do? Is America sufficiently Solomonic to tackle the illegal immigration problem smartly and logically, not through their gut reactions?

America must go through a soul-wrenching national debate that explores a multitude of issues confronting American society. We can start with a debate on the public option. Such a debate will necessarily answer the question: Is America entering a welfare state phase, similar to the phase Europe had to live through as it struggled to take care of Europeans' needs after the Second World War, when Europeans were dependent on the good graces of Uncle Sam?

If America can no longer afford to solve most, let alone all of its problems, then the correct prescription would be a welfare state similar to the European welfare states.

That is what a national debate on the public option will accomplish. I believe - even as I favor the public option - that if the U.S. Congress successfully introduces the public option, it will be only a matter of time before the country adopts a health care system that mimics the Canadian, Australian, British and other European systems. I think those are great prospects. Health insurance for all, administered and financed by the U.S. government. With money collected from the people through higher tax rates.

America will look more like Canada. But is that such a bad thing? In the Time-Life documentary, "Auschwitz," reference is made to a section of the Auschwitz concentration camp as "Canada." That section was known as Canada because it was run like heaven. Corrupt - because German soldiers routinely pilfered Jewish prisoners' private belongings - but nonetheless run like heaven. The German soldiers in Auschwitz believed that Canada was the land of milk and honey, where all things good and beautiful awaited the people who were fortunate to have landed there as immigrants.

More and more Americans are turning their envious eyes to the north. Canadians have their future and their present mapped out for them. The government does all the planning, the people do all the enjoying. Canadians pay a whole lot for the privilege of living in that section of heaven they have carved for themselves, but they gladly pay. They look at their neighbors below them and tsk-tsk their way to the realization that the Americans expend a lot of energy rejecting the one lifesaver that can save them.

I'm all for a welfare state. Let us entrust the government with more of our money so that it can take care of our needs - basic and sophisticated needs. Most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. After they get done with the bills, all they have left is their paltry disposable income that they use to buy clothes, go to movies, party with their friends, etc. Then they work for another month so at the end of the month they have the money to pay their bills.

We Americans save very little of what we earn. Most of the citizens of countries that we dismiss as welfare states - or socialist states, if we believe the Republicans - save more money than we do. They take longer vacations, they enjoy life more, while we Americans work our fingers to the bone for the privilege of paying our creditors.

All the while, we are trusting in Uncle Sam. We think that Uncle Sam will protect us when we get old, or if we become disabled. But how can Uncle Sam do that if we are constantly questioning why we even pay taxes to the Federal government?

As a nation, we Americans must dialogue the question: if the government can promise us the security that Canadians, Australians and Europeans enjoy, are we willing to pay more in taxes? Are we willing to give up some of our freedoms for the greater good? Those are the questions confronting us today.

The sooner we answer that question, the sooner we can go on the road and meet our destiny as a nation.

A speech Obama must deliver

My fellow Americans,

A week ago, I told some of my most passionate supporters in Nevada that I found it hard to believe that the Republicans, who ditched the American economy not too long ago, now are demanding that you give them back the keys.

While I got a few laughs and some positive comments from that remark, I now realize that I may have erred in comparing the American economy to a ditched car. It was never my intention to make light of the earth-shaking events that clobbered the American economy the year I was running for the Presidency.

The American economy in 2008 in many respects looked like the economy did in the years leading up to the Great Depression. Banks, insurance companies, investment houses were all sinking. They had taken in water, the turbulent waters of the mortgage meltdown, the houses whose values were falling like rocks to the bottom of the sea. Americans had lost their jobs - 8 million of them. For the first time in a long time, American optimism had been replaced by a sense of impending doom. A foreboding sense that a huge comet from outer space was on a collision course with our planet earth.

Thus, to compare the American economy to a ditched car was wrong - utterly wrong.

What really happened in 2008 was that an earthquake - the mortgage meltdown - had so violently shaken the American economy that a side of a Rocky Mountain had broken away and had been sliding down a snow packed slope. It was a wayward mountain side the size of Rhode Island that was fast slipping down that slope. At the end of that slope was a drop no less than 100 miles deep. It was a straight drop.

I remember being in the heat of the campaign in 2008 and being briefed by my advisers about the meltdown in the financial markets that was threatening the whole American economy and eventually the world's economy.

I watched with horror as news filtered in that the American economy was headed for a steep fall. I, like millions of Americans, was relieved when I learned that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson took the near-desperate step of sponsoring a bank bailout plan that promised to end the dangerous slide of the American economy.

It would cost close to a trillion dollars, but at least the economy could be saved. There were still danger signs everywhere, but the bailout of Wall Street would at least buy time for our economic planners to permanently halt that slide towards that ravine that was a straight drop 100 miles deep.

Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, aided by the U.S. Congress, was able to come up with a huge tree. Imagine a tree so huge it is almost as big as the state of Rhode Island. This was the $1 trillion tree that stopped the descent of the American economy into the ravine.

When I assumed the presidency in 2008, though the economy was no longer sliding, the weight of that rock the size of Rhode Island was proving to be too much for even that gargantuan tree. It appeared that the tree would eventually break and the rock would continue down that snow-packed slope and into that ravine.

Though the slide had been stopped, the lack of economic activity threatened to crush that huge tree. Nobody in America was buying. Nobody was buying cars, houses, durable goods, investments, shopping mall goods. Economic activity had come to a dead stop. If that condition went on too long, most people in America would lose their jobs, because if nobody was buying anything, there would be no need for American and foreign companies to produce anything.

It was clear that the solution lay in the government itself providing the spark that would create the energy that would make the American economy spring back to life. Every responsible person in America agreed that a stimulus bill costing at least a trillion dollars was needed. Some economists argued that the stimulus bill should be bigger than one trillion. We in America propose, but the U.S. Congress disposes. Congress would pass a stimulus bill that was a shade under a trillion dollars.

With our stimulus bill, the bailout of the American car industry, the cash-for-clunkers, the full-scale immersion into solar, wind and turbine energy industry, my administration, the Monetary Board, the U.S. Congress and the American business community all working together, we were able to jump-start the American economy so that now we are in the midst of an economic expansion that is on a trajectory to an eventual full economic recovery.

We are pulling that huge rock back up the slope, inch by precious inch. But, it is an activity that is historic and epochal in its challenges. Those old enough to remember the Great Depression perhaps can remember that the recovery from it took more than ten years. The final piece of the puzzle came when the U.S. entered the war in Europe and Asia and American industry went into full-employment.

While the American economy did not go into a Great Depression in 2008 and 2009, the enormous challenges before us were clear for everyone to see. We had lost 8 million jobs during the Bush years, we were still losing 750,000 jobs a month when I took over, and many of the jobs already lost and we were continuing to lose we knew would never come back - because they were manufacturing jobs in industries that had fled America for China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries.

My biggest challenge was how to put people back to work. That was the only way the country could slowly pull that rock back up that slope and reconnect it to that Rocky Mountain side from which it had broken off.

Thanks to American ingenuity and the heroes of Main Street - the small employers, the big multinationals that are now hiring again - we are gradually seeing the rebirth of American optimism. The economy has added jobs again, though the jobs that are being added have not been enough. We need to do much, much better in this area. We cannot let a whole generation of Americans - today's college graduates - spend the best years of their young lives unemployed and uncertain of their future.

We need to create jobs by the hundreds of thousands and eventually by the millions. We need to accelerate the pace that that big rock goes up that slope. We must push harder, and pull with more force. I believe that I have been leading in this effort. I've had my focus on the economy from Day One. People in America may not know this, because I did not constantly remind them of it, but since I got my initial briefings on the state of the American economy at the beginning of my term in 2009, I've had my eye on that rock. I knew it was going to be very difficult, one of the most difficult things that any American president would ever be challenged to accomplish.

I believe in my heart that we are on the right track, even though there are times when I am tempted to be discouraged. The pace of our recovery is so slow and I know there are millions of Americans who are having an incredibly tough time making ends meet. And the generation that just graduated from college must be wondering if they will ever find meaningful jobs in their lifetime.

But we must not allow the few among us who want a return to the policies that got us into this mess to prevail in the ongoing national debate. We are making progress, we are pushing that rock back up that slippery slope slowly but surely.

If we turn the U.S. Congress back to the Republicans, who along with the previous administration caused the earthquake that broke the side of that Rocky Mountain to split apart and go on that downhill slide, we are making a big, big mistake. The Republicans threaten to undo what we have already done. They want to return to the policies that caused the economic mess we're in.

They are not just saying NO to everything that my administration is proposing, they are also trying to convince us that their old policies of no regulation, of every man for himself, of low taxes for the rich, of hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the oil industry, of artificially generating economic activity by going to war in countries like Iraq will work. Even though we still have the memory of how the previous administration dragged our country to an economic collapse.

We Americans are a patient people, as long as we are given the facts. Just the facts.

I hope you, my fellow Americans, will not lose faith, that you will see that though the American recovery is probably the most difficult undertaking of our lives, we can get the job done. We are Americans. We never give up.

It will be tantamount to giving up if we give the reins of our economy back to the same people in Congress - the Republicans - who got us into our mess in the first place. If America must replace the Democrats in Congress, please do not replace them with the same people who ruined our economy through bad policy decisions. Can't think of any others who could do a better job than the Democratic legislators? That's because there are none. Despite the presence of Tea Party activists who at best have only muddied thoughts to offer about the American economy.

I appeal to the American people to stay the course. I need the help of a Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress to pull that huge rock back up that slope. We don't need a Congress that is pulling in the opposite direction - back towards the profligate policies of the past.

My fellow Americans, I appeal to your reason. I know it is difficult for you not to blame the party that is in power while you continue to suffer through the worst economic times since the Great Depression. I thoroughly understand your frustration. But it would be a much bigger mistake to hand Congress back to the same legislators who doubled the national debt in the 8 years of the Bush administration, who presided over the loss of 8 million jobs many of which will never come back, who refused to regulate the industries that sorely needed regulation.

It took us many years, nearly ten years to get us into this economic mess. Please do not give up on us after 18 months. We must redouble our efforts, but most of all, we must work together. The Democrats in Congress are wracking their brains, figuring out how best to generate more economic activity in this country. I need their help. Don't give me a Congress that will work against me in the coming years. You elected me to at least four years to get our country back on track. I need a Congress that will work with me and not against me.

A Republican Congress - which is saying NO to everything I propose - will surely say NO in the future.

If you will not do it for me, do it for yourselves. You need an administration and a Congress that are working together and not against each other.

Good night, and God bless America.

On being published

The greatest dividend that you as an author get from having been published is the probing and incisive questions that your readers ask about the ideas advanced by your book. The second greatest is the realization that the subject matter of your book is interesting enough to elicit further questions from people who have not yet read your book.

I delighted in both dividends over the past week as I kept opening my email and discovering questions on a few of the ideas in my book "Out of the Misty Sea We Must."

From my friend Tony Nievera:

Cesar,

1. What is the difference (between) a Commercial Base (and an) Export Processing Zone? and 2) What advantages/benefits will the Philippines offer?

Export processing zones, or Free trade zones, are operated by the host countries. Commercial bases in the Philippines shall be operated by the leasing foreign countries. Thus, if the United States leases a commercial base in the Philippines, U.S. laws will apply inside the commercial base. The multinationals that set up businesses in the commercial base shall be insulated from the stifling bureaucracy, the capricious judicial system, the corrupt culture, the crimes, the threat of kidnappings, etc. that may from time to time pop up in the Philippines.

Because commercial bases will be extensions of the foreign countries' territory, all manufacturing and other business activities conducted inside the commercial bases will be taxed by the foreign countries and considered as those countries' domestic production, reported as part of their GDPs. Such countries will be free to move their own citizens into the bases, providing them jobs that would otherwise go to China, India, Ireland and other countries that now benefit from the mass exodus of manufacturing and other jobs from the industrialized world, including the United States. The unemployed in the U.S. and other countries will find work in the commercial bases, thereby easing the pressure on the U.S. and local governments to provide unemployment insurance to the huge army of unemployed Americans.

For its part, the Philippines will benefit by providing jobs to its citizens. Multinationals in the commercial bases will need to employ Filipinos if they are to become competitive with manufacturers in China, India and other low-labor-cost countries. The areas around the commercial bases will see an accelerated real estate and infrastructure development. The first world business and government culture that sprouts inside the commercial bases will serve as the model for Philippine business and government, as more and more Filipinos are exposed to the efficient management and operations inside the commercial bases.

From Nelson Paguyo:

This I know. American business will set up business in any country where the business atmosphere is pro–investment and fair; and the government and people are welcoming. I am not sure the Philippines is at the present; and perhaps the reason why American businesses [and others] have avoided the Philippines.

My response to Nelson: The commercial bases, as explained earlier, will be slices of America. The bases will be run as though they were a slice of Washington, D.C., under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Philippine laws and governance will not apply inside the bases.

From my friend who signs his name "dmjj52":

it is not the people who (are) the problem, but it is the system of the government that drives away foreign investors. way back in 1994 i was sent to Keesler Air Force Base as an exchange officer. i was instructed to get my ID at the admin office. to my surprise, only ONE guy processed the form, signed it - and presto, i have my foreign military ID.

and this will NEVER happen in the Philippines. at the adjutant general, you will have to spend hours, if you are lucky! it will take a long list of personnel to have your ID issued.

and this is reality. foreign investors are not used to RED TAPES! sa atin kasi, lagayan dito at lagayan doon. try your luck at LTO, or even the Bureau of Customs!

not unless there will be a drastic change in the way our government works, then there will be a CHANGE.

My response to dmjj52: This is a perfect argument for the commercial bases. The red tape, the corruption, etc. that are found in the Philippines will not be found inside the commercial bases. The commercial bases will be operated by foreign countries under those foreign countries' laws, business climate and culture.

From my friend Jun Gomez (commenting on the obvious advantage of unemployed Americans being able to follow the jobs into the commercial bases in the Philippines):

I think that was the original idea in setting up manufacturing plants in China, unfortunately the very cheap labor abundant in China was just too tempting to pass so they hired locals instead!

My answer: The unemployed Americans who move to the commercial bases to work in American manufacturing plants there will be able to follow the jobs that would otherwise be lost forever to China, India and other countries. They will of course be paid well below what they would earn in the U.S., assuming that the jobs even exist in the U.S. Americans would be willing to take the jobs because the cost of living in the Philippines is way below that in the U.S.

It is estimated that a family of four could live on $1000 a month in the Philippines. A couple who both work in a commercial base and receiving $500 a month each would have a comfortable life there, sending their kids to American schools that would surely sprout inside the commercial bases.

From Kenn Stokes:

"Benefit" is certainly (subjective). I left the US to get away from the "Americanized" lifestyle of waste, stupid extravagance, self-centeredness, and outrageous taxes. So I have to wonder about this "benefit" thing. I know others that feel as I do so I'm not exactly the Lone Ranger in my thinking.

As for "benefits" to the economy I have to once again reflect on the lifestyle of credit that keeps the US so vulnerable and compare that to the resilience, even if defined as "impoverished" by the rest of the world, of the filipinos where the trade off is P5 in the hand or a few hundred thousand dollars in debt (you know, the mortgage on a house that manages to keep all members of the house separated, the 2 SUV's in the driveway, enough electrical appliances to choke a horse - but support the utilities contractors fantastically, the 500" television, two tons of toilet paper, kids with so many toys that they have no sense of reality, and monthly cell phone bills and daily latte budgets that would feed entire families in many parts of the world). I don't know, a few peso in the hand or debts with no light at the end of the tunnel.....hmmmmm, who's better off? Where is this "benefit"?

My answer to Kenn Stokes:

It makes sense to question the American values of excess and self-centered lifestyles. Americans have really re-defined the meaning of extravagance. But Filipinos are not at that stage where they are in a position to ask themselves: how much is enough?

Most Filipinos are dirt-poor. There are many slum dwellers in the Philippines who live on the edge of human existence. A new development in the slum areas is the "pag-pag" - dishes made from meats gathered up from rich people's and restaurants' garbage, boiled and served with spices and sold to slum dwellers for P10 (20 U.S. cents). People ransack piles of garbage, looking for items that may be salvageable and could fetch enough money for a family's next meal.

People are really living hand-to-mouth over there. They are far from the stage where most of them are asking, "what is enough?" Or "how many cars, how many houses does one really need?" Instead they are asking, where is my next meal going to come from?

From Eduardo (Danding) Gimenez:

Cesar,

It is a good idea. It’s not the best idea because once again it is about making goods for our masters while we continue to refrain to make things we need for ourselves. Let’s take just one field of endeavor. Transportation. Despite having a population almost 100 million, why is it that virtually every vehicle that plies Philippine roads is made outside the Philippines? Why is the Philippines the only in Asia that has not gone through the 2-wheeler stage?

Many of our neighbors make their own scooters, motorbikes cars, engines, trucks and buses. For decades, we’ve had a large enough population to sustain such manufacturing. In the 1980s, with a population of 17 million, Taiwan was manufacturing millions of 2-wheelers and cars. With a much smaller population Korea makes so many cars that they are completely self sufficient. Indonesia makes millions of 2-wheelers.

Our steel industry in the Philippines should have been much bigger had we gone that route. It would have forced us to create a machine tool industry, a plastic injection molding industry. Instead we are devoid of all necessary industry aimed at a better life for our people. Almost every call I see is a call to create industries and businesses to serve foreign investors. It is a continuation of the call to our best and brightest to serve everyone but the Filipino.

I hope you can see why I say it is not the best. It is a lazy idea. It is a weak idea. It says to ourselves “Let’s continue using our best and brightest to serve Americans”.

Love to all,

Danding

My response to Danding:

China's business model as a so-called awakening giant is making goods for the rest of the world, mainly the Chinese people's former "masters." If a country or a people must be criticized for being the manufacturing arm of the great industrialized countries, that criticism must be leveled at the Chinese.

The commercial bases idea does not expand the number of Philippine manufacturers whose sole function is to make products for their former "masters" - the Americans. It will be American companies, European companies, South Korean companies, Japanese companies and, yes, even Chinese companies manufacturing in Philippine commercial bases to fill orders from their home markets. They will merely do this in extensions of their territories that are situated in what is now the Philippines.

With regards to Philippine industry producing bikes and other motor vehicles for local consumption, that is an entirely separate issue. Over the decades since independence was granted the Philippines in 1946, Philippine manufacturers have had a difficult time competing with foreign manufacturers who ship their products to the Philippines. Foreign manufacturers, such as Suzuki, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc. have discouraged Filipinos from even thinking of venturing into such manufactures.

As a country we have been content with merely building the biggest and most modern malls and shopping centers where foreign-made goods are sold. That is how our economy has developed. I agree that we should do more manufacturing so that more of our locally-produced goods are sold in our mammoth shopping malls.

Maybe, if enough multinationals locate plants and factories in the commercial bases, there will be renewed interest among Filipino entrepreneurs to venture into the manufacture of bikes, cars and other durables, as more and more Filipinos become exposed to the multinationals' business culture and discover that they too are capable of engaging in the same activity at less cost.

Here's a query from a certain Michael:

Cesar:

Would Americans travel thousands of miles away from their families and friends to a hot and humid foreign country for a low paying job just to escape unemployment in the U.S.?

Why would companies import American workers to your "bases" in the Philippines? Companies are, to use your word in another posting, amoral. They are after profit, and not to solve their countries' unemployment problem.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective for them to hire local people?

And it would be good for the people in the Philippines They wouldn't have to leave their country to find work.

Go to Hong Kong and other Asian countries and you will see ten of thousands of Filipinos working as maids. Even the lower middle class families in Hong Kong have madis from the Philippines.

Wouldn't they be better workers in your "bases"?

Michael

My response to Michael: I think when Americans realize that their long-term unemployment is caused by the permanent disappearance of jobs that have gone to China, India and other low-wage countries, they will know that they have no choice on the matter. They must go where the jobs are. Ordinarily, Americans cannot go outside the U.S. to follow their lost jobs. The commercial bases will give a lie to that general rule, for they can indeed follow their jobs which may have relocated to commercial bases in the Philippines. But that's because American commercial bases in the Philippines shall in reality still be American territory.

American multinationals that establish manufacturing operations in the commercial bases shall be motivated by profit. They know that if nothing is done, the U.S. will be forced to raise tariffs against cheap imports from China, India and others and force these multinationals to manufacture again in the U.S. That would result in a global depression, as other countries raise their tariffs in response. Locating manufacturing operations in commercial bases will not require the U.S. to raise its tariff barriers and will in fact strengthen the multinationals as they navigate away from over-reliance on Chinese manufactures.

Finally, from Nel Reformina (an education specialist), commenting on my recommendation to convert most public elementary and high schools to math and science schools and to declare a moratorium on interest payments on sovereign debt:

Hi Cesar,

I have read with great interest your book.

I have always been an advocate for a drastic improvement in our public school system. In fact, I believe that the root cause of all of problems is the wide gap of education between the very small elite and the Filipino masses. Hence, I fully agree with your thoughts on education. A moratorium on the interest payments on the country’s debt is really worth pursuing as a means of financing the massive education improvement programs in the next 10 years. How do we convince our creditors that the interest savings shall be invested in education – and will not just go to the pockets of our corrupt government officials and employees?

For the moratorium to be acceptable it is important that the present administration should pursue a massive anti-corruption campaign, recover most stolen money and send to jail a number of corrupt officials to show case the sincerity of the campaign. Furthermore, in the next 10 years or so, if the pork barrel allocations of congressmen and senators cannot be removed (for political reasons), it should be mandated that at least 50% of the pork barrel be invested in the public schools of each congressman’s respective district.

If the corruption campaign succeeds and at least half of the pork barrel funds are diverted to education, I estimate that we would have enough money to double the present budget for education. We may not even need to ask for interest moratorium –even if our creditors by that time are willing to give in – and need not face the question of commercial bases which most likely will encounter a lot of resistance due to social, political and emotional issues.

By all means, we have to solve our education problem first. It is like a heavy anchor that prevents the ship from sailing to a new journey. All other issues – jury system,parliamentary system, confederation of independent states – are secondary to having a functionally literate nation.

Yes, out of the misty sea we must – sail to a new tomorrow!

Nel

My response to Nel:

We have been trying to reform our tax collection system and have been trying to rein in the abuses of our congressmen and senators for more than fifty years and have not succeeded. Our politicians merely laugh us off. But, we cannot wait any longer. If we do not put a complete halt to our slavish reliance on sovereign debts to solve our government's inadequate financing problems, we will wake up ten to fifteen years from now and discover that nearly all of our income tax collections will go to servicing our debts. At that point, we will all be working for our country's creditors.

As a country we will be forced to run our government with the remittances of our overseas workers and the VAT collections. The government will be so poor in relation to the massive need for financing social services (including and especially public health and education), infrastructure development, salaries of government workers, etc. The country will be either in an implosion or near-implosion stage by that time.

A moratorium on interest payments is essential to righting the ship of the Philippine state. Or at least the threat thereof, with the burden of finding creative alternatives on creditors' shoulders. My book, however, shows the way out of the interest moratorium nuclear option: Philippine sovereign debts can be converted to 99-year leases on Philippine territory for the purpose of setting up commercial bases. Philippine sovereign debts are wiped out, and the countries whose financial houses hold those debts will have an opportunity to stop the loss of manufacturing jobs to China, India and other low-wage countries.

Thank you for all your comments and questions, folks. I believe that we Filipinos are capable of solving our problems ourselves, freed finally from the suffocating head-lock that the IMF, the World Bank, the Paris Club and other organizations currently have on our psyche.

Of Blinders and the Blind Side

It's become hot and heavy these days on the Internet. The elections in the Philippines, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Tea Party movement, the near-bankruptcy of Greece, the free-falling Euro, the very real prospects for a third Great Depression have hot-wired our emotions.

It's exciting times. I believe that unless we short-circuit our complacent brains and hot-wire our jagged edges, we cannot begin to transform our thought processes. And that we must do to be equal to the task. The world is falling apart before our very eyes. It's not just the Philippines and the other perennially perplexed and flummoxed societies that have seemingly insoluble problems. Countries as great as the United States, Germany, France and Britain are counting the days before that dreaded Day of Reckoning.

Some have noticed the upturned volume and the preponderance of negative thinking over the Internet. To this point, some have suggested that there be a moratorium on negativity. It was in response to this call for a moratorium that I drafted the letter below to some friends, only one of whom actually called for the moratorium.

In the letter, I focus on the problem of religiousness as a blinder. My thesis - which of course is not original - is that religion can be a blinder because it prevents government planners from seeing and considering the correct solutions which may in fact be right before their eyes, staring them in the face.

I had mentioned in my communication with my friends on the Internet that Filipinos have a blind side - whether it is the inability to see the corruption going on around them in their families, in their circle of friends. Or the inability to see that the Philippine population explosion is a major cause of the problems there. Or the inability to see the capriciousness in the judicial system. Or the inability to see the incentive-killing effects of nepotism and political dynasties.

My diatribe grew out of my concern that a misplaced trust in people such as economist Bernie Villegas - an Opus Dei founder in the Philippines - would assure that the country's economy will continue to circle the runway, unable to take off.

That is the effect of relying on people with a blind side, or who wear blinders. Most Filipinos, in my judgment, do have blind sides or permanent blinders.

July 4, 2010

Dear Carlos, Gene, Frank and others,

The historical argument is all there. Look at Europe. After the 2nd World War, the countries that completed their transition to secularism from Catholicism - France and Italy - and the countries that completed their transition to secularism from Protestantism - Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, the low countries, Austria, Switzerland, etc. - all made great economic strides. The countries that remained Catholic - Spain, Portugal, Ireland - and the countries that remained traditionally Orthodox - Greece and the near East countries - all lagged in economic development.

In the late 70s and 80s, as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and others became increasingly secular, those countries experienced an economic boom. While few French and Italians are practicing Catholics, the Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Greeks, etc. have remained deeply religious. They however began to realize that their governments had to be secular and separate from the Church. In Spain, for example, divorce and abortion are legal and the Spaniards have learned to compartmentalize.

South America's history parallels that of Europe. As South American societies became secular - leftist in some cases - South America started to emerge from the huge shadow cast by the giant to the north until they experienced an economic miracle that rivaled the Asian miracle of the 70s and 80s.

One of the keys to economic success is secularism. I am not advocating that the Filipino people should discard their religion. What I do hope for is that the government - national, provincial and local - will someday become completely secular. There is hope in this area. President Noynoy Aquino has openly advocated family planning despite protestations from the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines).

We must tame that monster (population explosion) that we have lived with since the end of the 2nd World War, when Filipinos began to breed like rabbits. This, despite the invention of the Pill and the promotion of condom use as a defense against AIDS. Why have we not succeeded in taming that monster? Because it is protected and encouraged by the Catholic Church, which is the real and enduring power in Philippine governance.

Because of overpopulation, there is corruption in all stitches, nooks and crannies of the social fabric. People simply must be able to make ends meet, and corruption is the easiest way to a balanced budget. Because of overpopulation, there is widespread poverty, which leads to violent crimes, prostitution, jueteng, drug smuggling, murders-for-hire, etc.

Because of overpopulation, all the economic gains are eaten up literally by the ever-increasing number of mouths to feed.

Bernie Villegas, an Opus Dei founder in the Philippines, does not talk of overpopulation. He can't. He is far too invested in his extreme religiosity. He thinks that there should be more religiosity in government, not less.

Former President Arroyo, the late Cory Aquino and the de facto President Imelda Marcos either did not separate their faith from their governance or used the Catholic Church in a very cynical way, and the result was complete public subservience to the CBCP.

It was in fact during the administration of Fidel Ramos, a secular Protestant, that the country experienced real and sustained economic progress. So strong was the Philippines' growth spurt that it lasted well into the term of the plunderer Estrada - who just happened to be an irreligious jester.

I understand completely Carlos' impatience over the negativity that pervades Internet discussions about conditions in the Philippines. I think we should not criticize for the sake of criticizing. If I am coming across as that kind of a critic of the Philippines, it must be because I do not communicate my intentions as well as I should.

I must continue to emphasize that I am not an ordinary critic. I feel that I am entitled because I have devoted my retirement years to figuring out solutions to the country's myriad problems. I have even written a book (Out of the Misty Sea We Must...Blueprint for a New Philippines) that is chock-full of recommendations. I am most certainly not one who criticizes Filipinos and the Philippines for sheer enjoyment.

We cannot begin to improve our lot if we are allergic to self-examination and self-criticism. The first step on the road to improvement is a completely honest self-examination. Without that, we are just deceiving ourselves. Better to sit and wait for that miracle, or to pray until our prayers bring dividends.

I submit that people who wear blinders are incapable of honest self-examination. The Opus Dei is a blinder. That is why people like Bernie Villegas cannot be entrusted with the country's economic fate. That's just too bad, because I was once a huge fan of Bernie, who graduated summa from Harvard Business School. I was also offered a chance to win some kind of scholarship to further my studies in Economics either in the U.S. or in England and to explore that opportunity, I was scheduled to meet with Bernie, who at the time was the head of the Economics Department at La Salle. I was already in U.P. at the time, but my classmates and lifelong friends in La Salle threw my name into the mix of potential scholars.

I did not show up for the meeting with Bernie for reasons I can no longer remember. It was certainly not because of the Opus Dei thing because Bernie was not in that movement yet.

Oh, and the blinders. We all have blinders. There are very few who have absolutely no blinders. The few who wear no blinders are atheists and I often find them annoying.

Cesar L

Our Own Mount Rushmore

My original plan was to ask my readers why now, more than 100 years after Rizal's death, he has become such a controversial topic and then move on. I have come to realize, after reading the numerous responses to my blog, that I just can't walk away.

A friend, CV, forwarded to me some reactions from members of the RP-Rizal e-group. Most are arguing against my thesis that Rizal was not a Founding Father of the Philippine nation. CV's sampling of the many reactions follows:

"I posted your article on 'More questions than answers about Rizal' at the RP-Rizal group and it received a few comments. I would like to invite you to join that group and possibly engage some of the folks there on your article.

"Here (are some) of the responses (rebuttals):

" When we celebrate Independence Day, do we think of Rizal? Or do we think
of Bonifacio, or Aguinaldo?

"Rebuttal: We think of Rizal, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo and every unnamed hero who fell and fought for it. We celebrate and think about them because we would not be as free
or islas Felipines would not be as free, as we/it is, can be today if not for
them.

" I belong to the camp that believes Philippine Independence was the
handiwork of Bonifaco and Aguinaldo, not of Rizal. In fact, Rizal opposed the
revolution. His two books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo argued against
the revolution.

"Rebuttal: Any person can belong to any group he wants, but as far as reason dictates, the independence that we celebrate today would not come about without the birth of nationalism. Nationalism did not come about (ie love of one's native land
desiring to be free from the clutches of someone else, this includes the
assimilation, of which Rizal, concluded that the poor and native indios would
not be totally free, since although the Spanish masters would be kick out in the
process, the indio-masters would replace them, and therefore, the poor and sad
indios would be poorer and sadder all the more), of which Rizal was the
acknowledged leading proponent (not only up to this day, but more so during his
times, not only did the Spanish authorities identified him with such concept,
but all members of the Katipunan, too, the principalia, and everyone else during
those times), independence (or if we want to call it -the fight for freedom)
would not be a reality at all. Any person would first love (conceptualize) to be
free first before actually planning, or doing and achieving it. Rizal
spearheaded all of it, and therefore, the handiwork of independence would not be
complete without him.

" Every revolution has its George Washington, and it was not Rizal. It was
Bonifacio. It was Aguinaldo.

"Rizal clearly ranks as one of the greatest national heroes of the Philippines,
and was hands-down the most talented and most prolific multi-talented genius of
the modern era. But he was not the father of the Filipino nation.

"Rebuttal: If Rizal was not, who will be the father of the Filipino nation? And if your argument is correct, why until this very moment, every Filipino, even the new
generation acknowledges the martyrdom, the sacrifices, intelligence, and the
courage of Dr. Jose Rizal? Why would not the person who initiated brilliantly
with his blood and tears the birth of nationalism and therefore independence, be
not accorded the honor?

" Rizal's "on one hand, yet on the other hand" paralysis by analysis
approach to the Philippine revolution made him a liability to the revolution
rather than an asset.

"Rebuttal: Rizal's approach to Philippine revolution was not a total NO. If ever his
retraction was true, sending home his brothers in arms and advising them to stop
with their plans of armed struggle then the Spanish authorities and enemies
would not shoot him after all. The logical thing for them to do was to set him
free, but not, he was still shot. Because Rizal was a peaceful revolutionary, by
that, it means he wanted peaceful change, change in the way the indios and
insulares were being treated by the Peninsular Spaniards, what he wanted was
total self governance guided by them, until full emancipation from prejudices,
a complete assimilation process achieved peacefully; a revolutionary process
without bloodshed. Yes, the revolution that Jesus Christ had long time ago won
over against imperial Rome. This is simple to understand, isn't it?

"Gracias, Sr Cesar."

CV

The issue is not whether Rizal was a great man or that he deserves to be a national hero, in fact, the Philippines' greatest national hero. That is a settled issue.

The issue is, instead, whether he deserves to be regarded as a hero of the Philippine revolution. My carefully considered opinion is that Rizal is not a true hero of the Philippine revolution. How could he be, when he opposed the revolution?

Rizal was a reformist, not a revolutionary. His portrayal of a defeated Ibarra and his prediction of the collapse of the revolution in his twin books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo clearly demonstrate his abhorrence for a Philippine revolution.

How can one be a hero of a revolution that one opposes? It is akin to those Republican governors and senators who opposed Obama's stimulus bill and then when the stimulus money started arriving in their states attempted to take credit for bringing the money to their states.

Rizal, of course, had nothing to do with the blatant sales job. A widely-held theory is that the American occupiers of the Philippines who of course were tasked with writing our history for us selected Rizal as not only our foremost hero but also as the hero of our revolution because Rizal never opposed them. How could he, he had been dead more than two years before Admiral Dewey's fleet sailed into Manila Bay.

We ask ourselves: What historical event is the single most important event in all of Philippine history?

My humble opinion? It was the Philippine revolution. And who were the heroes of the revolution? Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, then later Del Pilar of the Battle of Tirad Pass fame and the close to a million Filipinos who resisted the American occupiers and were gunned down like dogs by an army with far superior fire power.

Rizal's greatness was there for the whole world to see. He was willing to die for his country. But his method was reforms and full representation of Las Islas Filipinas in the Spanish Cortes. His dream was of meaningful reforms, not of revolution.

Those Filipinos who used Rizal's name to promote the revolution did not know any better. But we know. We know that Rizal did not favor a revolution. In fact, he argued persuasively against it.

He was therefore not a true hero of the Revolution, the single most important event in Philippine history. And he was not a true biological father of the Revolution.

The true fathers of the Revolution were Bonifacio and Aguinaldo.

It is important that we get this right. We must have clarity in our history. We cannot as a people have clarity in our lives if our view of ourselves is clouded by erroneous history written by our colonizers.

Let us ask the questions and endeavor to supply the answers and let the chips fall where they may. Water always seeks its own level. Let our rivers of consciousness take us to where we rightfully belong. Only through honest soul searching can a shell-shocked and brow-beaten people such as the Filipinos emerge from the shadows of its false hopes and murky ideas and renew its search for the sunlight of true idealism.

We can start by identifying our heroes more accurately and discover how best to emulate them.

We can start by examining the lives of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo and enthroning them on the same dais that we as a people have reserved only for Rizal. We can erect two additional thrones in this holy pantheon, where I envision the triumvirate of Bonifacio, Aguinaldo and Rizal as the Philippine equivalent of Mount Rushmore.

More Questions than Answers about Rizal

There were whispers. There were mild protestations. There was a cacophony of doubt. Could it be? Was the greatest national hero of the Philippines really not the person we have assumed all along that he was?

What constitutes a national hero? Soldiers who go into battle and exhibit exemplary courage while under fire eventually receive a hero's welcome. People who are imprisoned by the enemy and undergo torture are received home as returning heroes.

What of Rizal? He was a true national hero. Not only did he give up his life for his country, he devoted every hour of every day to the pursuit of his dream of a new and improved Las Islas Filipinas.

Being a genius and being a hero are of course two different things. One can be a genius and not be a hero. John Stuart Mill had an IQ of 192, but he is not considered a hero of England. Gari Kasparov is perhaps the greatest chess player of all time, but he is not considered a Russian hero. Bobby Fisher was a chess genius, but he was an anti-hero.

Rizal's heroism is separate from his genius. Genius is genius, heroism is reserved for those who either devote or sacrifice their lives for the benefit of their country.

Rizal did exactly that.

The bone of contention is not whether Rizal was a hero, but whether Rizal was a hero of the Philippine independence movement from Spain.

"I die, just when I see the dawn breaks," he wrote in his La Ultima Adios (The Last Farewell). Many have assumed that the dawn Rizal visualized was an independent Philippines. The reality was, he felt his death would accelerate the process of reforms in the Philippines, which would continue as a colony of Spain. Rizal dedicated his life and writings to much-needed reforms. He was not thinking of Las Islas Filipinas breaking away from Spain. He did not trust his fellow Filipinos to effectively run a government.

When we celebrate Independence Day, do we think of Rizal? Or do we think of Bonifacio, or Aguinaldo?

I belong to the camp that believes Philippine Independence was the handiwork of Bonifaco and Aguinaldo, not of Rizal. In fact, Rizal opposed the revolution. His two books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo argued against the revolution.

Every revolution has its George Washington, and it was not Rizal. It was Bonifacio. It was Aguinaldo.

Rizal clearly ranks as one of the greatest national heroes of the Philippines, and was hands-down the most talented and most prolific multi-talented genius of the modern era. But he was not the father of the Filipino nation.

(Note: I am using the term "Filipino nation" rather loosely. To my mind, the term Filipino nation is fictive, that there is really no single Filipino nation but rather a collection of many nations that is trying to form a true union.)

Rizal's "on one hand, yet on the other hand" paralysis by analysis approach to the Philippine revolution made him a liability to the revolution rather than an asset.

"When shall we be stronger?" asked Patrick Henry of the President of the Virginia legislature and his fellow legislators in 1775. "Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we shall be totally disarmed and and every British soldier shall be stationed in every house?" Finally, Henry's famous words: "Give me liberty or give me death."

Patrick Henry had clarity of purpose. George Washington had clarity of mission: to drive the rascal red shirts out of the country, drowning in the Atlantic.

The father of nearly every nation on earth is usually a simple man - a man of barely above-average intelligence, but with the heart of a lion and whose genius is in fighting and leading his brethren in the field of battle.

Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and his peaceful non-cooperation, Washington, Robespiere and his "liberty, equality and fraternity" battle cry.

These were and are all above-average men intellectually but not geniuses, yet they are giants in history. Their genius is in their ability to inspire their countrymen to rise up in revolt either through violence or through peaceful non-cooperation.

The fact that none of them were ophthalmologists or writers or poets or polyglots or artists mattered little. It was as though they were put on earth at the right time in history to give voice and meaning to people's struggles and to lead people out of their misery and into eventual triumph.

For one brief moment, Bonifacio was such a man. But for the Americans' duplicity, Aguinaldo would have been such a man.

The historical forces that were crafting the known world at the turn of the 20th century conspired to prevent either Bonifacio or Aguinaldo from holding that ticker-tape parade down Escolta street in Manila. But they were the closest thing to true heroes of the independence movement who actually made the symbolic claim to independence from Spain by parading down the country's premier thoroughfare.

As we reflect on the birth anniversary of Rizal, born June 19, 1861, let us remember him for his heroism, for his multitude of talents, for the huge figure he casts over the history of the Philippines. Let us remember him as the Thomas Paine of the revolutionary movement.

Thomas Paine, through his writings, gave voice to the frustrations of the emerging American nation. His incisive writings, notably Common Sense, fueled thoughts of an American revolution, but it is General Washington who actually went into the field of battle that is the acknowledged father of the American revolution.

Let us give Rizal his due, but not the recognition that others clearly deserve more. Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo were the true fathers of the Philippine revolution against Spain.

To be sure, Rizal had valid reasons for opposing a revolution, his main one being that the Filipinos were not ready as a people for self-rule and consequently, the tyrants of his time would probably be replaced by tyrants of the future. Rizal probably had a vision of Cuba, of China under Mao Tse Tung, of Russia after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

The speciousness in this thinking is that after a few initial decades of tyranny by the revolutionary bosses, the countries freed from slavery by foreign powers eventually get their act together and become a much stronger nation.

Rizal apparently found tolerable the Spanish policy of deliberately keeping most of his fellow Indios uneducated and ignorant, thereby assuring their continued subservience to the Spanish crown.

A new nation was being formed by the revolutionaries, and Rizal was a bystander. Rizal was many things, but he was not a Founding Father of the Philippine nation. Bonifacio and Aguinaldo were.

I couldn't remember the word "scold"

I woke up this morning fumbling around for a word. I couldn't think of the word if my son's future depended on it and nearly gave up, reminded of the fact that those days when I could recall words from my vast storage bin in a flash were long gone. Then, as I stepped from the new Stearns and Foster pillow-bed down to the carpet (my wife and I invested a fortune on our new S & F bed on the theory that after more than 40 years slaving in America I deserved an S & F bed) I suddenly remembered the word.

It is "scold."

I worried over the last couple of days that I might have become' a scold to my friends and people I communicate with on the Internet. I've had this tendency to look at the glass as half-empty rather than half-full. And I suspect that I may have been a stern taskmaster, trying to win people over to my point of view.

While nobody I was aware of among La Salle alumni was worked up over the fact that La Salle is now in fourth place among the four Philippine universities that made the Top 200 list of Asian universities, I decided last week to be that lone voice protesting La Salle's relative dismal showing.

My recently launched book, "Out of the Misty Sea We Must...Blueprint for a New Philippines" has strong words against the establishment in the Philippines. I recently lambasted the Philippine Senate as a useless institution that must be abolished. I've been a harsh critic. I worry that I have become a scold.

It doesn't matter if a scold is right or makes a lot of sense. People simply tune him out because he is a scold.

It's like a priest-retreat master sermonizing a flock of Catholic faithful who are on holiday in Las Vegas. They are in Church because it's Sunday. They're not there to listen to a guy talking about the fires of hell and eternal damnation.

When I opened my email this morning, lo and behold I found an email from one of the more revered professors at La Salle informing me that he is forwarding my latest rant to the highest officials of the school.

Now we're talking. I'm not a scold after all.

The first order of business is to make sure that the people assigned to fill out the forms for the THES - QS survey of Asian universities are well trained. They must be sent to the headquarters of THES (Times Higher Education Supplement) to pick the brains of the executives there. I believe THES is a supplement of the London Times, but I cannot get confirmation of this. The La Salle Brothers, however, are surely aware of all the beans on THES.

Meanwhile, the alumni associations worldwide should be commissioned to conduct an inventory of accomplishments of La Salle alumni. What is the contribution of La Salle alumni to the Philippines, Asia and the world? This inventory process will answer that question.

If the school can come up with a list of outstanding and near-outstanding Lasallians in various fields, this list can be one of the focal points of the centennial celebrations next year. It can also be used as an argument for ranking La Salle ahead of Ateneo, or even U.P. and U.S.T.

Most people in the Philippines are probably aware that La Salle alumni occupy dominant positions in business and commerce there. How extensive that control is probably is not known to them.

Most people are probably unaware that past and present La Salle alumni have excelled in public service.

There are highly accomplished writers and artists among La Salle's graduates. There are famous lawyers and bar top-notchers who grew up in La Salle. There are top entertainers and actors among La Salle alumni.

It's important that La Salle the institution takes an inventory of its graduates. A university's raison d'etre is to educate students to become leaders and nation-builders. After 99 years in business in the Philippines, what are the kinds of men and women that La Salle has graduated? That is the question that must be answered by tihis inventory of La Salle graduates.

Our approach will be two-pronged: we will prove that we have some of the best resources, facilities, staff and faculty in the Philippines and in Asia; we also will prove that the school produces many of the outstanding people in the Philippines and Asia, ergo it must be one of the truly outstanding universities in Asia and may be the top university in the Philippines.

We have one year to get this done. The alumni office on Taft Avenue should be put in charge of this massive project. They can break down the job among the various alumni chapters around the world. Each chapter will be assigned the task of compiling a list of its members and those members' life accomplishments.

We know that many of the truly outstanding people and some of the richest in the Philippines grew up in the La Salle system. Many are probably unaware that Lasallians who chose to live abroad have also made a name for themselves and are considered pillars in their professions.

It is easy to explain the success of La Salle alumni in the Philippines. La Salle is to the Philippines what University of Southern California (USC) is to the U.S. West Coast. USC graduates take care of each other. If given a choice, they will hire other USC graduates. No questions asked.

La Salle alumni are also like that. They hire other La Sallians, no questions asked. That explains why La Salle graduates in the Philippines are doing so well financially and career-wise. This, however, tells only a part of the story. Connections can get you in the door, but what you make of the opportunity is the true test of your talents. La Salle graduates have excelled not only in entry-level positions but all the way to the top and beyond.

Having said this, a truer measure of the success of the Lasallian educational system is how La Salle graduates have done in foreign countries. I believe that when all is said and done, we will think more highly of La Salle because many of our graduates rose to the pinnacle of their professions and were highly successful in business even without the benefit of a protective and nurturing alumni association.

If La Salle the institution conducts this inventory, it can alert the THES people that we have launched such a project and are prepared to argue that the accomplishments of La Salle alumni in the Philippines and abroad must be given more weight than it probably is in developing THES rankings. We have everything to gain, nothing to lose.

For what good is a school that has the best celebrated professors, the most modern equipment, the most published dissertations, etc. yet produce fewer truly outstanding graduates than other universities that produce more? And I'm not even throwing in the concept of holding a school accountable for the scoundrels, thieves and corrupt public officials that some school systems produce.

La Salle must take the lead in seeking a change in the way universities are ranked. It must argue that the quality of graduates should be given more weight than it probably is being accorded.

There must not be a one-size-fits-all approach in the THES rankings. In the Philippines, where the biggest headache is finding jobs for its exploding population, the schools that produce the most businessmen and entrepreneurs who employ the greatest number must get a special bonus that figures in the rankings.

Philosophically, if a university in a country where job-creation is the biggest challenge is producing the most number of job creators, isn't that university more important to that country's society and the region than a university that has the most Ramon Magsaysay awardees and PhD dissertations?

La Salle must be prepared to argue with the THES - QS people. Those people did not start out by being infallible. They are learning as they go along. That is why the rankings of some universities such as La Salle and U.P. are all over the map from year to year. La Salle can take a leadership position by arguing for a change in the way the universities are ranked.

I grew up in La Salle being brainwashed by the Brothers that we can change the world. If we can do that, it would be child's play trying to change the way THES - QS rankings are done.

ERRATUM: In my previous post, I stated that Augusto Syjuco, Jr., father of celebrated Filipino novelist Miguel Syjuco, grew up with me in La Salle. This was wrong. Augusto attended La Salle college but did not graduate. He transferred to University of the East midway thru college and earned his B.S. in Commerce degree from that school. Augusto graduated from Ateneo High School and probably went to Ateneo grade school as well.