By Pauline Santos
Former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo used to brag in the news about a 6% growth in the economy that she felt was due to the efforts of her administration. Yet today, why do one million Filipinos leave the country every year? They are driven away from their families and homes because their view is that the Philippines has nothing to offer them anymore in terms of economic opportunities.
According to a 2010 survey, 49% of Filipino families (not individuals) considered themselves poor, and 36% of families considered themselves food-poor (Social Weather Stations, 2011). We don’t have to look at these statistics to realize the truth. We can see poverty all around the Philippines – from the street children to the slum dwellers. The experience of OFW's (overseas Filipino worker) teach us about poverty. If you were an OFW, you knew that you are only one of the many who are shouldering the responsibility of economic support for many Filipinos back home. Take one domestic helper. She is not only supporting her husband, children, mother and father, but she also sends tuition money for her nieces and nephews and sometimes even grandchildren. And because of the absence of a Philippine healthcare system, if someone in her family falls ill, she also has to shoulder the cost of the hospital bill.
Poverty has forced millions of Filipinos to leave the country and their families to seek jobs abroad. And those who are left behind struggle to survive with very little or almost no resources. Among these are the slum dwellers, street children, jeepney drivers, tricycle drivers, farmers and street vendors. The irony, of course, is that just last year, in 2010, eight million overseas Filipino workers sent $1.6 billion in remittances to the Philippines. So why, despite the sacrifices made by millions of Filipino people every year, does poverty still grip the nation?
According to a 2010 survey, 49% of Filipino families (not individuals) considered themselves poor, and 36% of families considered themselves food-poor (Social Weather Stations, 2011). We don’t have to look at these statistics to realize the truth. We can see poverty all around the Philippines – from the street children to the slum dwellers. The experience of OFW's (overseas Filipino worker) teach us about poverty. If you were an OFW, you knew that you are only one of the many who are shouldering the responsibility of economic support for many Filipinos back home. Take one domestic helper. She is not only supporting her husband, children, mother and father, but she also sends tuition money for her nieces and nephews and sometimes even grandchildren. And because of the absence of a Philippine healthcare system, if someone in her family falls ill, she also has to shoulder the cost of the hospital bill.
Poverty has forced millions of Filipinos to leave the country and their families to seek jobs abroad. And those who are left behind struggle to survive with very little or almost no resources. Among these are the slum dwellers, street children, jeepney drivers, tricycle drivers, farmers and street vendors. The irony, of course, is that just last year, in 2010, eight million overseas Filipino workers sent $1.6 billion in remittances to the Philippines. So why, despite the sacrifices made by millions of Filipino people every year, does poverty still grip the nation?
The answer lies in the unraveling of underdevelopment and its connection to the past – to Spain and to America, and to the way their brand of development was “forced.” It required guns and showing of contempt for the people in order to force submission. In exchange for “running water,” power was usurped, and people had to give up all their rights in their own country. Without any choice but to submit to foreign powers, forced “development” becomes an unatural and uncomfortable condition, and the most one can do is to try to “fit in” or to “imitate,” and to be accustomed to being poor and bitter.
In forced development, only some, not all, can truly experience a comfortable measure of success, because development is unjust, inhumane; material and not deep; superficial and not widespread. In the Philippines now, there are some who “have” and many who “have not.” That is the “set-up.” Now you have an unequal system where poverty can be acceptable, because a select few are benefitting anyway. And if this select few are in power, the temptation becomes even greater to oppress people who are poor. Today, Filipinos in government oppress their own people to gain access to the vast resources of the country, just as Spain and America did -- as well as the prestige and many privileges that go along with “power.” So the Philippine government’s motivation for change is almost nil, because the need to feel "important” and "respected” always prevails; because those who are in power are Filipinos too, who are deprived of power, resources and self-respect in the world stage today. So their self-esteem becomes tied to their political titles, Forbes Park homes, Mercedes-Benzes, and elite Catholic-style education. What would they be without these accoutrements? Just ordinary? Just plain Filipinos? The fear of ridicule is so great, that they cannot empathize with the people who are suffering and poor.
In forced development, only some, not all, can truly experience a comfortable measure of success, because development is unjust, inhumane; material and not deep; superficial and not widespread. In the Philippines now, there are some who “have” and many who “have not.” That is the “set-up.” Now you have an unequal system where poverty can be acceptable, because a select few are benefitting anyway. And if this select few are in power, the temptation becomes even greater to oppress people who are poor. Today, Filipinos in government oppress their own people to gain access to the vast resources of the country, just as Spain and America did -- as well as the prestige and many privileges that go along with “power.” So the Philippine government’s motivation for change is almost nil, because the need to feel "important” and "respected” always prevails; because those who are in power are Filipinos too, who are deprived of power, resources and self-respect in the world stage today. So their self-esteem becomes tied to their political titles, Forbes Park homes, Mercedes-Benzes, and elite Catholic-style education. What would they be without these accoutrements? Just ordinary? Just plain Filipinos? The fear of ridicule is so great, that they cannot empathize with the people who are suffering and poor.
In politics today, nations are labeled developed or underdeveloped, First World, Second World or Third World, without regard to the role of violence and oppression. Former President Arroyo was enthused when she exclaimed that the Philippines was well on its way to becoming First World. Oh my. Why the extreme need to label your self “First World?” Because that is what we were taught. That you cannot be “good” unless you act and think like a westerner. So there is no Filipino brand that we can promote or be proud of. It has been destroyed through ridicule and contempt, and exchanged for supposedly something more “complex” and “advanced.”
The Philippines was not poor when Spain first discovered it. The people were living in small communities called barangays, which were mostly egalitarian in nature. In contrast, the legacy of Spain’s monarchy left many undesired elements in Filipino society today, especially in government. The idea of “absolute power” and “subjects” remains today when we look at the way government officials treat their jobs and the people they are supposed to serve.
Corruption is oppression. It is a way of behaving as if you have no accountability, as if you have absolute power, and that the people have no right to ask for what they deserve and to have their needs met. Spain also introduced the concept of private ownership of land, different from the Filipino tradition of communal use. In the Spanish system of ruling, the king or queen is to be served by the people because he/she is entitled to the throne by Divine Right. So here we can see how the concept of “sharing” was removed. This rejection of “sharing,” and leadership by one person at the top, was further legitimized with the introduction of capitalism and “democratic” government during the American occupation of the Philippines.
Corruption is oppression. It is a way of behaving as if you have no accountability, as if you have absolute power, and that the people have no right to ask for what they deserve and to have their needs met. Spain also introduced the concept of private ownership of land, different from the Filipino tradition of communal use. In the Spanish system of ruling, the king or queen is to be served by the people because he/she is entitled to the throne by Divine Right. So here we can see how the concept of “sharing” was removed. This rejection of “sharing,” and leadership by one person at the top, was further legitimized with the introduction of capitalism and “democratic” government during the American occupation of the Philippines.
By imposing a “forced” type of development, a large group of people becomes vulnerable and disadvantaged -- consequently, the invention of the lower class and the second class. The Europeans ridiculed Filipino customs and traditions by building schools, universities, hospitals, churches and bridges amidst the rows of native huts and rice paddies. Furthermore, the American belief in the White Man’s Burden gave them the compulsion to occupy the Philippines and transplant an Americanized public school system and an Americanized government system, believing that Filipino values were inferior and unnecessary when it came to education and ruling.
Former colonizers and imperialists have set up a global system of inequality that is difficult to topple. They formed colonies and commonwealths all over the world, transplanting their idea of development that in reality has no meaning to the people they colonized and to their culture. Filipino culture is very unlike that of Spanish or American culture. So the best that Filipinos can do is to settle for second best. Filipinos themselves, for the most part, have bought in to the concept of “better than.” Without blaming them, they somehow truly believed that the Europeans were better. And they believe that there is no choice, and no alternative to the superficiality of forced development.
Perhaps we can accept that in many ways life has improved because of Western development. Material comforts can be seen as beneficial. But in reality, we are experiencing great discomfort trying to “fit in” to a model that, for one, was grossly wrong in so many ways, and for another, did not grow “naturally.” The result of forced development, unfortunately, is this great need by some to feel “developed” or “advanced” as a way to regain their self-respect.
Former colonizers and imperialists have set up a global system of inequality that is difficult to topple. They formed colonies and commonwealths all over the world, transplanting their idea of development that in reality has no meaning to the people they colonized and to their culture. Filipino culture is very unlike that of Spanish or American culture. So the best that Filipinos can do is to settle for second best. Filipinos themselves, for the most part, have bought in to the concept of “better than.” Without blaming them, they somehow truly believed that the Europeans were better. And they believe that there is no choice, and no alternative to the superficiality of forced development.
Perhaps we can accept that in many ways life has improved because of Western development. Material comforts can be seen as beneficial. But in reality, we are experiencing great discomfort trying to “fit in” to a model that, for one, was grossly wrong in so many ways, and for another, did not grow “naturally.” The result of forced development, unfortunately, is this great need by some to feel “developed” or “advanced” as a way to regain their self-respect.
When “development” is transplanted by force, the results can be devastating, as we witness the continual deterioration of the Philippine economy. Today, we see the exploitation of Filipino workers at home and in the rest of the world. Filipinos are forced in servitude in most places around the globe, risking their lives in the Middle East, Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. They work as maids, nannies, homecare aides, nurses, engineers, farmers, seamen and construction workers, while the much needed reforms in government are blatantly ignored. Why such hatred for their own people? Why are we so desperate to sell cheap labor and cheap agricultural products in the hopes of attracting foreign investors? This behavior is unquestionably rooted in the feudal system, where the masa (masses) were in perpetual servitude to an aristocracy, and rooted in American consumerism and materialism where a modern form of prestige is to be found in being “American” or in the American Dream, when only those who “have” get respect.
The problem with history is that it repeats itself, if the injury that was caused is left unnoticed, not understood and left to fester. Some of the effects are obvious, but some are subtle, buried in the unconscious. But first, let us look at how the concept of “might is right” was ingrained in the culture, for it lives on. The Philippines today feels more like the 16th or 17th century, where a queen or king rules a kingdom. During the colonial times, the king or queen had “absolute power” over all the land and its people, who were called “subjects.” The subjects did not possess any rights or privileges. The king exercised absolute power because the people believed in the Divine Right of monarchs. Therefore, the king’s mandate was “obey.” Anyone who questioned the king or queen would be executed. Today, the killings and abductions of journalists, activists and any Filipino who opposes the government is a reminder of our colonial experience, when Filipinos were subjugated by a monarch. Despite the accusations made by the victims’ families against the actions of the military, there have been no proper trials and investigations and convictions made. According to a report, “In 2007 Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary executions, spent 10 days in the Philippines investigating these killings. He spoke to witnesses and victims, as well as senior members of the military and the government, finding that witnesses have been systematically intimidated and harassed. He says the military is implicated directly or indirectly in a significant number of deaths. Victims over the past six years have included trade unionists, farmers' rights activists, people from indigenous communities, lawyers, journalists, human rights campaigners and people of religion.” (Wikipedia, 2011).
History can attest to the numerous times Filipinos expressed their love of freedom. The Philippine revolution, led by Andres Bonifacio, was fought valiantly but crushed by the force of Spanish arms. And in 1896, the Spanish soldiers blind-folded Dr. Jose Rizal, the national hero, and shot him in Bagumbayan Field. Then in 1898, the Americans said that they came to liberate the Philippines. Instead they crushed the resurgent Philippine Revolution and occupied the Philippines for the next 40 years. The Filipinos in government today learned a lesson from the occupiers in how to crush the opposition who are against oppression.
History can attest to the numerous times Filipinos expressed their love of freedom. The Philippine revolution, led by Andres Bonifacio, was fought valiantly but crushed by the force of Spanish arms. And in 1896, the Spanish soldiers blind-folded Dr. Jose Rizal, the national hero, and shot him in Bagumbayan Field. Then in 1898, the Americans said that they came to liberate the Philippines. Instead they crushed the resurgent Philippine Revolution and occupied the Philippines for the next 40 years. The Filipinos in government today learned a lesson from the occupiers in how to crush the opposition who are against oppression.
As was discussed earlier, the concept of an egalitarian and communal society was replaced by private ownership and a class system. This has not changed. Spain introduced the concept of private property by giving out titles to land to a chosen few, which then became “the aristocracy.” Today, we know these big landowners as hacienderos. These big land owners sit in Congress and Presidency today to protect the privileges they received from the colonizers and imperialists.
At present, a mere 10% of the population owns the majority of land in the Philippines -- a reminder of the inequality in colonial society. This form of disenfranchisement, rooted in colonialism, must be dismantled through genuine land reform, because a third of the work population depends on agriculture (Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics, Table 5, 2011). Filipinos today, who are blocking the redistribution of land, are not just interested in profit, but on the “privilege” and “prestige” that land bestows upon their group. As such, the big land owners go on to fulfill their aspirations of belonging to the upper crust while consigning poverty and hunger to the majority of Filipinos, exploiting farmers who have very little access to land and its resources, much less power.
At present, a mere 10% of the population owns the majority of land in the Philippines -- a reminder of the inequality in colonial society. This form of disenfranchisement, rooted in colonialism, must be dismantled through genuine land reform, because a third of the work population depends on agriculture (Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics, Table 5, 2011). Filipinos today, who are blocking the redistribution of land, are not just interested in profit, but on the “privilege” and “prestige” that land bestows upon their group. As such, the big land owners go on to fulfill their aspirations of belonging to the upper crust while consigning poverty and hunger to the majority of Filipinos, exploiting farmers who have very little access to land and its resources, much less power.
For what could be better than to think you are better than someone else?
(To be continued in Part 2: Real Development by Choice; Part 3: Identity Loss)
