The Emergence of the "Marikina Way": December 2008

Friday, December 26, 2008

Some Sites that Seem to Mention Bayani Fernando

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

BAYANI FERNANDO EXPOSED!!

Engr. Bayani “BF” Fernando

A professional Mechanical Engineer. He is the founder of the BF GROUP OF COMPANIES, dealing with construction, steel, manufacturing and real estate. He has built the country’s tallest building, shopping malls, industrial and residential subdivisions and facilities. He is a former Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
He was a three-term City Mayor of Marikina, who transformed the former municipality into one of the best-managed cities and a paradigm of responsive and effective governance. During his incumbency, Marikina City was accorded 55 citations and distinctions.
As Chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Metropolitan Manila has been dramatically changing into a livable metropolis. With his exceptional administrative skills and leadership qualities that have now become the yardstick of performance, he continues to prove himself as an agent of positive change. This earned him the moniker “Mr. Governance”.
For his outstanding work, he was conferred the Doctor of Humanities, Honoris Causa, Ateneo de Cagayan, The Outstanding Filipino(TOFIL) Award for Government Service, the H.R Reyes Academic Medallion of Honor, Central Colleges of the Philippines and Doctor of the Public Administration, Honoris Causa by the polytechnic University of the Philippines.
Mr. Political Will. “ Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re” a Latin phrase which means “ Gentle in manner, Resolute in action”. He speaks and deals with people from all walks of life with amiable bearing of a real gentleman but decides and acts with a firm political will, uncompromising with his principles. From his passion of building structures, he now prides himself as a builder of character.
The Chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

THE REFORMER… PERFORMER.. AND PROBLEM SOLVER…
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY BAYANI “BF” FERNANDO

“Bilang isang namumuno hindi ako maaring makiiyak sa mahihirap sapagkat kung bulag din ang aking mata. Paano ko sila maakay upang makaahon sa kahirapan.”
“As a leader, I cannot cry with the poor for if my eyes are blinded with tears, how will I lead them out of poverty?” BF 2003

The Early Child Care and Development Experiences in Marikina City

University of the Philippines
National College of Public Administration and Governance
Public Administration 323 (Seminar on the Administration of Social Development), 1st Semester 2008, Dr. J. Prospero E. de Vera III

THE ECCD EXPERIENCES OF MARIKINA CITY
By Prof. Sofronio “Toti” Dulay, DPA student

Conceptual Base

Child welfare is within the context of social development. Vague and confused as a concept, social development can be defined as “the enhancement of well being and the progressive enrichment of the quality of people’s lives”[1] Social development is a component of overall development concept. In the Philippine experience, social development has been a major concern – often times handled by the Office of the President or made into a full – blown department with names changing from administration to administration.
Social development or even child welfare has to contend with the other concerns of the state, like defense for instance. “Social policy making must be seen as a political process. It has already been stressed that social policy cannot be analyzed on its own, without referring to other activities of the state.”[2] Also, it must be realized that social development is always a work in progress because it “involves a process of change which is fostered through a deliberate human action.”[3] Social development is dynamic – which partially explain for instance why in the Philippines, the Council for the Welfare of Children has been passed on through times like ping pong balls from the Office of the President to the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Vague as it is – couple with dynamism – social development must be defined using different perspectives. The United Nations Center for Regional Development defined social development as a “sectoral development and the provision of social services involving the improvement of the quality of life of the people through education, employment, health, housing, social welfare, agrarian reform, community development or disaster welfare.”[4] Take note that this 1983 definition from UN does not carry children’s welfare in it. In the same UN article however, a slightly different perspective of social development is defined as “supportive of and providing services for those in special needs and involving the development of, and provision of services to women, children and disadvantaged group”[5] This definition seems to put children’s welfare as an after thought concern – not in the mainstream.
There are also perspectives that say social development is nothing but providing welfare dole outs to the constituencies, which seems to be the prevailing thinking of most LGUs in the Philippines.

Benchmarking the Concept on International Conventions

It is in these multi perspective concepts that this paper seeks to approach the early child care and development (ECCD) experiences in Marikina. The best way to handle a concept is to have a benchmark. In this case, the best benchmark for ECCD is the globally prevailing document – the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC).In the unofficial summary of the main provisions of the CRC, its “preamble recalls the basic principles of the United Nations and specific provisions of certain relevant human rights treaties and proclamations. It reaffirms the fact that children, because of their vulnerability, need special care and protection, and it places special emphasis on the primary caring and protective responsibility of the family. It also reaffirms the need for legal and other protection of the child before and after birth, the importance of respect for the cultural values of the child’s community, and the vital role of international cooperation in securing children’s right”[6]
The CRC defined a child as a person under 18, unless the national laws recognize a country – specific age of majority. It encourages positive actions for non – discrimination on children and the government should always pursue the best interest of the child. It said that the state must implement the rights of the child. It must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to provide guidance for the child. The child has the right to life, name and nationality; and identity. The child has the right to live with his or her parents. Parents and children have the right for reunification. The state shall safeguard the children’s right to have their own opinion, freedom of though, conscience, religion and association. The privacy of children must be provided and the state shall ensure the accessibility of children to information. It is the responsibility of parents to raise the child but the state shall provide assistance to the parents. The child must be protected from abuse and neglect and the states should protect children without families. The convention recognizes adoption. Special care should be given to refugee children, children of minorities and disabled children. The child has the right to the highest standard of health, medical care attendance and social security. They have the right to adequate standard of living and education. The child has the right to be protected from child labor, drug abuse, sexual exploitation, sale, trafficking, abduction and other forms of exploitation. The child has the right to be protected from torture and deprivation of liberty. The state shall take measures that children below 15 years of age has no direct part in hostilities. Rehabilitation and proper handling of victimized children as well as those in conflict with the law should be ensured. The state is obligated to inform the public of the CRC and they have to submit reports, which must also be available to the public.
With this backdrop and taking into account that the Philippines is a signatory to the CRC, it is now clear that children’s welfare is a big responsibility for the LGUs.
Another important document that articulated for the welfare of children is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). “The Millennium Development Goals are the world’s time –bound and quantitative targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions – income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion – while promoting gender equality, equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”[7] There are basically eight MDGs, namely, eradication of extreme hunger and poverty, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability; and, develop global partnership for development. The MDGs have 8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators. I had the opportunity to report this topic in a doctoral class and we counted how many of these goals, targets and indicators pertains to children. The conclusion of the class is that out of 8 MDGs, only 1, the goal number seven (ensure environmental sustainability) has no direct provision about children’s welfare. But then, it is commonsensical that a good environment is beneficial to children – making the MDGs as another pro child welfare international document.

The Philippines Approach to Child Welfare

After passing through some basic social development concepts and international statures, it is now time to look into Philippine national documents and see what they have to offer for children’s welfare.
The CRC and MDGs, the international statures that articulate for children’s welfare, have a great influence on Philippine national programs and legislatures that concerns children. “The Philippines now stands in a critical point in time, faced with the challenged of realizing its commitments to the CRC, the MDGs, and the WFFC goals and the vision of Child 21.The current development and context in the country present complex and difficult issues.”[8]
The report submitted by the Philippine government, third and fourth periodic reports of States parties due in 2007, to be exact, talked about the country’s continuing review and enactment of legislations in compliance with CRC. The report identified the following legislative gaps: minimum age of criminal responsibility, minimum age of sexual consent, prohibition of torture, lack of comprehensive juvenile system, discrimination against children born out of wedlock, use of children in pornography, and corporal punishment. To work on these gaps, the country enacted the following laws: RA 9344: Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act – raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 9 to 15; RA 9208:Anti – Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 – instituted policies to eliminate trafficking, specially women and children; RA 9231: Elimination of the Worst Form of Child Labour Act of 2003; RA 9255 : An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surnames of their Father; RA 9262 : Anti – Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004; and, RA 9288 : New Born Screening Act of 2004.
The report said that despite all these laws, the current efforts are still inadequate. It plans to work on the remaining gaps such as: minimum age of sexual consent, child pornography, corporal punishment and other form of violence, discrimination against children born out of wedlock.
The report also said that in 2000, we formulated the Philippine National Strategic Framework for Plan Development for Children for the period 2000-2025, or Child 21, to build sensitive and child friendly society in the 21st century.
It also mentioned the role of the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), the main institutional mechanism in coordinating the implementation and monitoring of NPAC/Child 21 as well as in coordinating formulation of all policies for children and monitoring CRC implementation. Take note CWC, later on this paper will figure prominently on the ECCD concerns in Marikina City.
The committee report also noted that the mandate and resources of Philippine Commission on Human Rights (PCHR) in the promotion and monitoring of children’s right is limited, and it recommends strengthening them.
As regards to the budgetary allocation for children, the report mentioned that 30% of national budget goes to debt service – interest payment with insufficient allocation for social development and children’s program. To address this, the Philippines proposed in 2005: “Debt – to –MDG Financing”, a debt reduction scheme in exchange of MDG Financing.
The country also pursued international cooperation in its quest to provide wider service to children by working with GOP-UNICEF, ILO, JICA, USAID, BEAM, QTVET, ADB, WB, Save the Children-US, Save the Children-Sweden, WVF, Consuelo Foundation, CCF, ATD Fourth World, and IJM.
The report also said that the government also pursues Cooperation with civil society in pursuing children’s welfare thru the CWC sectoral committees, inter-agency bodies on child protection other than CWC, NGO Coalition for CRC Monitoring and Philippine Inter – Faith Network for Children.
The government initiated the CRC principles/provisions of advocacy thru the CWC and UNICEF IEC campaigns, Child Info – based Knowledge Network Centers in 24 LGUs, Bright Child Campaign of CWC, CWC and Task Force on the Popularization of the CRC in 24 municipalities in central Philippines.
We also disseminated the contents of the 2nd periodic report and concluding observations when the CWC printed the report itself for dissemination, convened committee and networks to brief them of the report, and thru TV and radio interviews as well as meetings and conferences.
Finally, as part of our compliance with CRC, the country initiated the preparations for the 3rd and 4th periodic report by CWC sending letters to agencies and NGO’s to submit their inputs; convened 3 consultations; and the Technical Management Committee of CWC Board reviewing the consultation’s write up, writing comments and integrating them with the second report. The report was submitted to CWC Board for Review, preparation of the final draft and submission.

The Child Welfare Program of Marikina City

Having shown some basic concepts in social development, the international conventions related to child welfare and the Philippine national programs on children, it is now time to go to an specific LGUs like Marikina, hoping that what we will see in this city as regards to program on children’s welfare could give us insight on what is happening in other LGUs in the country.
For the interest of brevity, we will dispense with the discussion o the basic demographic data about Marikina because they are readily available by googling them in the internet.
How do you run a city like Marikina – clean, organized, international acclaimed, prosperous, peaceful and world class, with its former Mayor one of the leading presidential contenders of the country in the 2010 elections and its present Mayor one of the Top 7 finalists in the World Mayor Award? “Our City Hall is run like a private corporation. We treat our clients as our customers whom we want not only to satisfy but to delight.”[9] – Marikina Mayor Marides Fernando.
The Marikina local government is divided into seven clusters, namely, administrative support, public order and safety, finance management and project development, infrastructure development and transportation, citizens’ affairs, economic development; and, health and environmental management.
The children’s welfare is found under the cluster of citizen’s affair, specifically, in the Social Welfare and Development Office. Aside from this office, the following are also found in the citizens’ affair cluster: Department of Education – Marikina, Public Information Office, Community Relations Office, Marikina Settlements Office, City Women Council, MCF Manpower House, Teens Health Quarter, Local Civil Registry, MCF Privilege Card and the Office of Senior Citizens Affair.
The city Social Welfare and Development Office is one - story structure called Social Action Center, detached from the main building where the Office of the Mayor is housed. In that Social Action Center, several officers are also found like: Volunteers Office, SOCO, PNP and Traffic Management.
The city Social Welfare Development Office has been devolved from DSWD to the city government of Marikina. The office was run by an OIC who is a licensed social worker. Together with the OIC, there was a Consultant directly reporting to the Mayor. The consultant is a TV producer of a child show and was a neighbor of the Mayor in her ancestral house in Pasig. The OIC eventually left the post for personal reasons and joined an entry level job at the Marikina Fiscal’s Office, the Consultant took over as the OIC then hired a 24 – year – old licensed social worker as his assistant.
The city Social Welfare Development Office is picture of a workplace that is changing often, desks are changing depending on the circumstances of the office politics, full of clients daily and perhaps, in an attempt to manage the flow of clients, a sign is posted in the door reminding the customers to whom to report regarding their needs. The post says “services offered”: referral; social case study report; medical, financial and funeral assistance; certificate of indigency, PWD, PYAP/TN; and solo parent. Then, names of concerned staff handling these services are listed .Take note that in the list, there is no specific concern for children’s welfare. The OIC and her assistant have their separate rooms, the rest of the 13 staff are together. On the adjacent room is the Children in Conflict with the Law Shelter with around 25 inmates. Based however on Marikina Citizens’ Factbook, the office has the following services: assistance in crisis situations, referrals, seminars and counseling and child – friendly intervention which handling of juvenile cases. Take note again the lack of mention of child welfare concerns and day care centers despite the fact that the city also manages around six day care centers all over the city of 16 barangays. Barangay councils for the protection of children are not active.

One Fateful Meeting at the CWC Office

The class of Prof. Popoy de Vera had a session in the Office of CWC. During the lecture of Ma. Elena S. Caraballo, Deputy Executive Director, CWC Concerns, she discussed about different LGUs who are ECCD accredited, which are only very few. She mentioned, among others that Marikina is not accredited, and being the Consultant of the Mayor of Marikina City. I was assigned by our Professor to look into it and make it as my paper; hence, this paper was written specifically due to that fateful meeting.
I arranged a meeting between Mrs. Caraballo, Mayor Fernando, City Social Welfare Development Office OIC, Tess Valentino of DSWD NCR and other members of ECCD Network in Metro Manila.
The Mayor and CWC Executive Director agreed that Marikina City government will work for the ECCD Accreditation and CWC will provide around 5 Million pesos counterpart funding for a city ECCD program. The Marikina City SWDO OIC was appointed ECCD Officer. Deadline was set, series of activities were planned.
Separate technical meetings were done to plan for data gathering, planning sessions and submission of needed requirements.
After the meeting, I intentionally did not join them anymore in their succeeding meetings because I don’t want to appear that I am interfering with the job of the Marikina City SWDO OIC, as a matter of professional courtesy, both of us being Consultants of the Mayor. Besides, since the data needed are already set, deadlines are set, forms to fill up are available; I feel that it is just a matter of doing it and I am not needed anymore.
One evening, I received a text message from Mrs. Caraballo informing me that one of the members of the multi sectoral ECCD Committee of NCR told her that the scheduled planning session for ECCD Accreditation in Marikina will not push thru and she is afraid that Marikina will never be able to catch the deadline anymore. She informed me that she is preparing a letter to the City Mayor informing her of the development.

Findings and Recommendations

1. With the frequent changes in the Marikina City SWDO, the organizational capacity to respond to a new task like ECCD Accreditation is still weak. The OIC is new and her assistant is also new. Recommendation: team building sessions and thorough job orientation.
2. It was noted that out of 13 staff, some of them are not college graduates and joined the service as a political accommodations rather than based on qualifications. Only one of them is a license social worker, the assistant of the OIC. Recommendation: professionalize the staff, assign the less qualified somewhere else and hire more social workers into the unit.
3. Staff is overloaded; there are staff members who have to work after 5 pm and during weekends. Recommendation: realignment of duties and work loads.
4. It was noted that CRC, MDGs and children’s welfare is not well advocated in the city hall and even among the Marikina City SWDO staff. Being a devolved function, SWDO is being viewed as an office that dispenses funeral and medical assistance basically. Recommendation: advocacy and information campaign about CRC, CWC, MDG and other children’s concern that the office are suppose to handle.
5. The Marikina City SWDO lacks a staff that is well - versed in planning, data gathering, and doing reports. It was learned that there are several attempts as early as 2004 to work on the ECCD Accreditation but the office simply can not do it up to now. One challenge also is the volume and nature of data being asked (See Exhibit A). Recommendation: hire another assistant, probably another social worker, whose job is to handle planning, reporting, rules compliance, accreditations, project proposal writing, data gathering and safekeeping.
6. There is a perception that a job in the Marikina City SWDO is dirty and unfashionable and the staff members of the office are not that presentable. This perception can easily lead to being unable to get data and simple favors from other offices that look at themselves as more superior. Recommendation: professionalism; a high profile children’s welfare champion from the Marikina City Hall must be groomed. The present OIC, being a Consultant and a personal friend of the Mayor is a good material for this task. She just has to get familiar with theoretical base, other issues and concerns on children’s welfare and must be passionate enough in advocating them.
7. Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children (BCPC) are not well organized. Recommendation: assign two councilors, one per district, to help the Marikina Marikina City SWDO to organize and sustain the BCPC.
8. The Marikina City SWDO had been very busy. Some staff does overtime without pay. Some work on weekends…and yet; they seem to be not so focused on children’s welfare activities. At present, only the OIC is handling the ECCD concerns, and to think that she has other activities, being a close confidante of the Mayor and therefore could be doing other activities on the side, she might end up neglecting her duties on ECCD. Recommendation: assign the ECCD work to the new assistant that will be hired.

END

Acknowledgement:

I wish to acknowledge social worker and assistant to the OIC Carolyn Sta. Maria for granting two interviews about the operations of the Marikina City SWD Office; OIC and fellow Consultant Nadeia Sarte for giving me access to her office and providing crucial data on ECCD; the members of the ECCD Network Tess Valentino, Elsie Romualdez and Lucia Bronio for their assistance in the several meetings we conducted; CWC Deputy Executive Director Ma. Elena S. Caraballo for graciously granting our invitation to meet with the Marikina City Mayor; the Marikina City Mayor Marides Fernando for her decisiveness and accommodation to meet the ECCD Network Members; for Sec. Bayani Fernando for his "Marikina Way" doctrine that things can still be improved - ala continuous improvement stuff, and finally, to my professor and fraternity brother at the UP Vanguard Fraternity Professor Popoy de Vera for giving me the opportunity to have this concern of my hometown as my paper on his subject.

Bibliography:

1. “Trends and Patterns in Social Development Efforts of the Philippine Government”, A Reader in Philippine Social Development by Bautista (ed), Q.C.: UPCPA,

2. Understanding Social Policy. NY: Basil Blackwell Inc., Chapter 1- “What is Social Policy”

3. Social Development: the Development Perspectives in Social Welfare. London: Sage Publishing.

4. “Different Perspective on Social Development. ”Local Social Development Planning, vol.1.Japan: UNCRD,

5. The Convention on the Rights of the Child. As adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989

6. The UN Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html

7. Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child Consideration of Reports Submitted by the State Parties under Article 44 of the Convention. September 19, 2007.

8. Marikina Citizens’ Factbook, A Guide to Key Government Services, Second Edition, 2007

[1] “Trends and Patterns in Social Development Efforts of the Philippine Government”, A Reader in Philippine Social Development by Bautista (ed), Q.C.:UPCPA, p.3
[2] Understanding Social Policy .NY: Basil Blackwell Inc., Chapter 1- “What is Social Policy”, p.9
[3] Social Development: the Development Perspectives in Social Welfare. London: Sage Publishing.p.38
[4] “Different Perspectives on Social Development” Local Social Development Planning, vol.1.Japan:UNCRD,p.9
[5] Ibid
[6] The Convention on the Rights of the Child. As adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989
[7] The UN Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html
[8] Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child Consideration of Reports Submitted by the State Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention. September 19, 2007.
[9] Marikina Citizens’ Factbook, A Guide to Key Government Services, Second Edition,2007

Saturday, December 20, 2008

BAYANI FERNANDO and LEE KUAN YEW ARE CORRECT

PA 327: Comparative Development Administration, Second Semester 2008-2009
Dean Alex Brillantes Jr., PhD

Submitted by: Sofronio “Toti” Dulay, DPA Student

REACTION PAPER TO CHAPTERS 1, 2, 4 & 6 OF “DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM” BY AMARTYA SEN

The paper shows the relationship of development and freedom. Basically the book is saying that development and freedom has a direct relationship. Development is a “process of expanding freedoms that people enjoy.”[1] In a way, the book is arguing against the propensity of some authors to talk of development in terms of quantifiable GNP, income and the likes. To the author, development requires the removal or at least, lessening of what he termed as “unfreedom” such as poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunities, social deprivation, and neglect of public facilities or repressive states.
The way I see it, and perhaps as a way to add to the thesis of the author, there must be a way to find the correlation of freedom and development in several typologies of the stages of the development of any state. Are freedom and development directly proportional, meaning, the higher is the stage of development, the higher is the freedom? Or inversely proportional: the higher is the development, the lower is the freedom? When are they directly proportional and when are they inversely proportional?
Another interesting I would like the author to expound is the concept of the means and the end as applied to freedom and development. Is the freedom the end or the means of development ? In what way? In what situation?
Actually, the author did say that “freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means”. In a way, freedom and development are the end and the means of each other, a cyclical relationship (my opinion, not of the author). Said other way, the more freedom a society has, the more development it can have, and vice versa. The only aberration to this addendum of mine is what the author termed as Lee Thesis (from Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore), that too much freedom is not good for economic development. But the author is quick to say that the Lee Thesis is based on too little empirical evidence.
The author proceeded with a 12 – chapter development of his book.
The first chapter talks about the perspective of freedom. The author said that “the useful ness of wealth lies in the things that it allows us to do – the substantive freedoms it helps us to achieve.”[2] He said that it is important to see development in the perspective in the substantive freedom of people. It will make us understand deeper the process of promoting it. But because components of freedom are heterogeneous, comparing and ranking development experiences based on precise criterion is not suggested by the author.
This hesitation of the author to try to be precise is a typical “defense mechanism” of the so called “intellectuals” that borders, at worst on intellectual dishonesty. The tactics being is to appear “sophisticated” as one can be by avoiding categorical assertions and in the process hiding in the comfort of confusion. The game plan is to avoid being cornered with an idiotic notion.
It could have been better if the author will present a framework of ranking and comparing the “development as freedom” experiences of nations based on precise typology and in the process contribute into making public administration as a science. When the framers of MDG put together concepts into quantitative goals and targets, they try hard to be precise and were not afraid to be different or wrong – because they are honest about what they know and what they want.
Chapter 2 talks about the end and means of development by saying “enhancement of human freedom is both the main object and the primary means of development”[3] The society and the state has the role of strengthening and safeguarding human capabilities. Said other way, the state should remove or lessen hunger, diseases, violence and ignorance from hampering the capability of its citizens to pursue what they want.

One problem with this kind of valuation for development is that this is so hard to quantify because the valuation is qualitative. The problem with qualitative valuation is it is so subjective that it is so hard to compare across different countries. It is even possible that pushing countries into a development ranking based on freedom might end up doing it like in a beauty contest – with common set of judge and an attempt to subject them to a common set of criteria, with a reminder that the decision of the board of judges is final.
Chapter 4 is a detailed attempt to link poverty as a capability deprivation. The author noted that economists concentrate too much on efficiency and less on equity. Differences in mortality show the inequities among races, classes and gender. Income does not automatically convert into a certain desired lifestyle and capabilities.
A Pinoy earning dollar in the US does not mean that he is better off than a Pinoy earning peso in the Philippines. In the US, a Pinoy will always feel as a second class citizen. He has no freedom “not to work” in the US because it is “no work – no eat” there. A Pinoy spending his income in the US has also to contend with high cost of living – negating his high income earned in dollar in the US relatively to a peso earned in the Philippines.
Chapter 6 talks about the importance of democracy as an essential component of the process of development. The permissive roles of political freedom and civil rights demonstrated usefulness in preventing economic disasters. Organized opposition is important. “More informed and less marginalized public discussion of environmental issues may not only be good for the environment; it could also be important to the health and functioning of the democratic system itself.” [4]
Too much democracy, like the forum shopping or court injunctions, oftentimes delays or hampers governmental functions. Eventually, it might hinder other freedoms like freedom from poverty because it may delay economic activities. A call for the elimination or toning down of these “excesses” of democracy is in order. It is at this instance where Bayani Fernando and Lee Kuan Yew has a point.
[1] Development as Freedom. Amartya Sen. Anchor Books. New york. p. 3
[2] Ibid. p.14
[3] Ibid. p.53
[4] Ibid.p.157

BAYANI FERNANDO GETS IT DONE

PA 327: Comparative Development Administration, Second Semester 2008-2009
Dean Alex Brillantes Jr., PhD

Submitted by: Sofronio “Toti” Dulay, DPA Student

Diagnostic Essay – Due 17 November 2008

Read the article of Farazmand (on development administration) and Grindle (on good enough governance) and present your own analysis of the state of development (underdevelopment) and governance in the Philippines today. You may of course locate your discussion within the context of global developments today.

The Philippines Today and Some Prescription to Make It a Better Country

A lot of Filipinos are wondering….what happened to the Philippines? We used to be next to Japan in the early 50’s, now we are far behind. There are a lot of positive things about our country and our people. We have a superior culture, westernized: English speaking, Roman Catholics, with western surnames and practices all the western cultural rituals – Christmas, Halloween, New Year, Valentine, etc. We are good looking (mixture of western, Malays and Chinese bloods), well educated and cultured…yet, we seem to be not getting anywhere as a nation.

Before we continue to self inflict further, let me point out that if the countries all over the world are people, Philippines is a middle class guy, so, we should not feel bad about what we are now that much. In fact, we should take this fact as a way to make us feel good and must have self confidence as a people to pursue progress and development as a nation. Always remember that a middle class guy, with proper planning determination, can do better than a rich guy….

Conceptual Basis

Let me start analyzing where we went wrong by talking about basic concepts, like development and underdevelopment. “Activities of modern nation states in promoting their development fall under the four categories previously listed: producing an economic surplus, promoting social and cultural integration, governance and education. For purposes of explanation, they are discussed separately. However, their usefulness to the state for national development comes only through their interaction. All four are so intertwined and interdependent that to select one as preeminent, as economists, business and government have done with producing an economic surplus is to distort understanding of the process.”[1] This definition views national development as a process. Take note that the definition mentions four main clusters. We can say that the lack or a weakness on any of these clusters can be viewed as the opposite – underdevelopment. The definition is advocating for a balance approach, meaning, a development process in all four fronts.

Governance on the other hand is complex. In fact, different organizations have different definition of governance, as shown in the article of Grindle. “Though governance is now virtually a synonym for public administration, much of the literature putatively about “governance” does not even bother to define the term, apparently on the assumption that it is understood naturally and intuitively” [2] But I think it would be clearer if we pick up one definition from among the several definitions presented by Grindle. UNDP defined governance as the “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences”[3] It also defines good governance as “participatory, transparent…accountable….effective and equitable….promotes the rule of law…. ensures that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources”[4] Said other way, good governance is adding democratic and management ideals to the process of governance.

One thing interesting about the article of Grindle is the concept of “good enough governance”, which if you take it in a laymen’s term is governance that is not the ideal but is doable enough given the circumstances, so, therefore, is good enough. This seems to be aligning with Herbert Simon’s concept of “satisficing versus optimizing” in decision making. “A particular important difference between the rational and the bounded rational decision making is this: the rational manager continues to review solution until he or she finds the optimal choice, while in contrast, managers in practice often “satisfice.” To satisfies means that managers in practice tend to be concerned with just discovering and selecting satisfactory alternatives, and only in exceptional cases with finding optimal alternatives. This is not to say that managers don’t try to be rational; it is simply recognizing the fact that in practice, their practice to be rational will be limited or “bounded” by the sort of decision – making barriers.”[5]. Simply put, decide based on the available data, according to your best effort.

Good enough governance, conceptually, is close to satisficing. Do not wait for the ideal circumstances because it may not come and time is of the essence. Rather, concentrate on what activities and programs that can be done given the prevailing circumstances. “The good governance agenda, largely defined by the international development community but often fervently embraced by domestic reformers, is unrealistically long and growing longer over time. Among the governance reforms that “must be done” to encourage development and reduce poverty, there is little guidance about what’s essential and what’s not, what should come first and what should follow, what can be achieved in the short term and what can only be achieved over the longer term, what is feasible and what is not. If more attention is given to sorting out these kinds of issues, the end point of the good governance imperative might be recast as “good enough governance,” that is, a condition of minimally acceptable government performance and civil society engagement that does not significantly hinder economic and political development and that permits poverty reduction initiatives to go forward.”[6]

The Philippine Situation

The Philippines, if we will based on Table 2: Characteristics of Regimes and their Capacities, belongs to the personal rule type of political system characterized by rule through personalities and personal connections. We have political parties, but these parties are the empty shells of presidential candidates who used them in their presidential run. Institutional “stability is highly dependent on personal control of power. Rules of the game emphasize power of elites and personal connections to elites; there is conflict over who controls the state. Organizational capacity of the state is low. Organizations respond to the personal and shifting priorities of powerful elites. Degree of the state legitimacy is low. There is often significant contention over who has the right to wield power; power is used for personal wealth creation. Types of policies in place are unstable; a major objective is to enrich those in power; few basic public services are provided.”[7]
Although, the Philippines can also be considered minimally institutionalized states, in other words, it seems to flip flop between personal rule type to minimally institutionalized states type of political system.
Based on the concept of good enough governance, the Philippines, by virtue of its existing types of political systems are not capable to do “higher” governance characteristics like ensuring equality/fairness in justice and access to services, open government decision making/ implementation process, responsiveness to input from organized groups/citizen participation, and; full accountability for its decisions and their consequences. At its current political system, our government can only fulfill “lower “ level governance like enduring of personal safety, basic conflict resolution system, widespread agreement on basic rules of the game for political succession, government being able to carry administrative tasks, and ;being able to ensure basic services to most of the population.

Recommendation

It is noted that in the typology of political systems that characterizes the regimes and their capacities, political party plays a very dominant role. It is worthy at this point to determine what the political system of the country was when it was number two to Japan: two party systems and partly financed by the state. That system was closest to the present political system of the strongest and richest nation of the world today, the USA. The system was destroyed by Marcos and our political leaderships up to now, are not able to restore it. As I am writing now, our political leaders, and even academicians, are not aware or concerned of the fact that it’s the best system and it should be restored. Because they don’t recognize this fact, they don’t feel the urgency to restore it. If they don’t feel the urgency, nobody feels the urgency and nobody cares. Even this finding of mine could be subject to ridicule and lots of second opinions by people who are academically and verbally eloquent but conceptually “dull”. In Tagalog, they can be described as “edukadong pulpol” or “duminanting bobo”, meaning they can debate eloquently against this finding (or against any topics for that matter) 100 times, cite so many readings, hackneyed and anecdotal opinions with full of forms, but they are actually and basically “dull” for not to being able to get the fact that is staring at them: we were two - party system (the system of the strongest and richest nation on earth and therefore, benchmarking – wise, in basic management term, it is sound) when we were number two to Japan and that system need to be restored. It is as simple as this. The very reason why up to now the system that gave us glory is not yet restored after so many years is the proliferation of the “edukadong pulpol” or “duminanting bobo” in the media, academe, the church, and the national leadership. Kung baga sa basketball, ang tawag sa kanila ay “bano”: magaling pomorma pero di maka shoot. Kung baga sa billiard, sila yung mga player na ang galing pomorma pero mahihina sa planketa. Debaters and talkers are endemic in this country so we cannot seem to appreciate the phenomenon of a doer like Bayani Fernando, as if doing, in an ironic twist, is a sign of dullness. As in a Russian proverb: “it’s the child who works who gets the spanking”. These “edukadong pulpol” or “”duminanting bobo” are so many that make one think that they are indeed endemically enslaving the Philippine society to mediocrity. Today there are different versions of bills in the Congress that talks about electoral reforms and they are not moving for so many years now. They serve as monkey’s wrench to each other. They gridlock each other. All of them are saying so many things that they are bound to have differences in one way or another, and therefore, it will take them forever to reconcile these differences, especially the fact that they do not have a sense of urgency….they can not move on. The solution is to have a bill that will provide government allowance to the watchers of the two leading political parties/ coalitions in the immediately preceding national elections, and the two party system and partial government support to political parties would had been de facto restored without fanfare. Avoid so many other provisions because it will just invite disagreements. The tactics seems to be: teach the monkey one trick at a time for the Philippine society to escape from the slavery of these “duminanting bobo” or “edukadong pulpol”, lots of them are indeed highly educated and well placed. Some of them are in U.P. I know a few of them.

END

[1] http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/intro1-4.htm
[2] The Public Administration Theory Primer. H.George Frederickson and Kevin B. Smith. P.209
[3] Good Enough Governance Revisited. Grindle, Merilee, February 2005. p.14
[4] ibid
[5] Management: Leading People and Organization in the 21st Century. Desslert, Gary. 1998. p.121
[6] Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries. Grindle, Merilee, p.526
[7] Good Enough Governance Revisited. Grindle, Merilee, February 2005. p.16

BAYANI FERNANDO and LEE KUAN YEW

PA 327: Comparative Development Administration, Second Semester 2008-2009
Dean Alex Brillantes Jr., PhD

Submitted by: Sofronio “Toti” Dulay, DPA Student

Take - off from Chapter 6 of Sen and reading the articles of LKY, discuss why an authoritarian system is or is not appropriate for the development and development administration.
Development is a way to extend freedom and freedom, in a way, also helps development, this is in essence what Sen is telling us in his book. But what is really development? I always love to state a normal and universal definition devoid of techno talks of a particular group…this is one way to achieve a universal understanding and leveling – off. “Activities of modern nation states in promoting their development fall under the four categories previously listed: producing an economic surplus, promoting social and cultural integration, governance and education. For purposes of explanation, they are discussed separately. However, their usefulness to the state for national development comes only through their interaction. All four are so intertwined and interdependent that to select one as preeminent, as economists, business and government have done with producing an economic surplus is to distort understanding of the process.”[1] Development administration therefore is administering or running the affairs of a country to produce an economic surplus, and promote social and cultural integration, governance and education. Some academicians will attempt to make a more complex definition of this concept, just to appear sophisticated and hide safely their “standing in the society” beyond the comfort of confusions. The more confusion, the more they thrive. What a very unethical way to live…living at the expenses or confusions of others.
Sen, in Chapter 6, correlates democratic system and development positively, meaning, the more the democratic system is working in a country, the greater will the chances of development. He became specific enough by emphasizing the “demonstrated usefulness (of democratic system) in preventing economic disasters is itself quite important.”[2] He went saying for instance that famines do not happen in democratic countries but in totalitarian states. He cited the importance of organized opposition since democratic institutions are not “mechanical device” that runs by itself. Societal values are important to be articulated and inputted into the picture of democratization and development and this articulation can happen through political freedoms and civil rights. There is a need to safeguard the circumstances and conditions that provide the democratic process.
Then came Lee Kuan Yew at the opposite pole of Sen. “All peoples of all countries need good government. A country must first have economic development, and then democracy may follow. With a few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries. Democracy has not led to development because the government did not establish the stability and discipline necessary for development.”[3]
The article even showed several examples to show that too much western – type democracy will not work in most circumstances. It even quoted Helmut Schmidt saying “perhaps the west must admit to itself that people living in other continents and other cultural groups with firmly rooted traditions can be thoroughly happy even without the democratic structures which Euro-Americans consider indispensable.”[4]
Actually, Lee Kuan Yew also believes in the democracy as Sen, but they disagree on the sense of timing. Sen believes that economic development and democracy goes hand in hand; Lee Kuan Yew believes that a country must first have economic development, and then democracy may follow. He is wise enough not to go against a universally accepted and encouraged concept like democracy.
But please allow me say a little about an evolving “concept” we called “Marikina Way” as a way to add ethnicity to this high profile discussion. As the Consultant of Mayor Marides Fernando of Marikina City, one of my earliest projects is to conduct a leadership seminar for the leaders of the Kabayani Party, the local party of the Fernando’s of Marikina. With the help of the Ateneo School of Governance, the seminar was held among the top leaders of the party in an expensive hotel in Ortigas. In the seminar, MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando, sitting as one of ordinary participants, expresses this idea: “do not blame government structures because they are almost the same since they are universal concepts anyway, what will matter eventually is management and decision making.” To him, blaming structure is just a convenient scapegoat for bad governance because somebody will always say that we are corrupt or the Philippines is poor because our party system, for instance, was a mistake. To Bayani Fernando, democratic structure is ideal, but whatever quagmire you are in – democracy or no democracy, you have to give your best efforts in serving the public. A leader should be the advocate and the champion of the public good. This kind of philosophy is shown in his management style. The public good requires that poor people must have a place to walk and play, so, he recovered the sidewalks from rich store owners and Kotong cops - protected illegal vendors who selfishly stole the sidewalks for their personal benefits at the expense of the public good. In general, it is bad taste to steal, so Bayani Fernando corrected this bad taste staring us in our face – risking his personal political capital to the puzzlement of traditional politicians, paid pundits, political tacticians and paid writers masquerading as pseudo - media. Filipinos are forced to urinate anywhere because we lack public toilets and business establishments “selfishly” control their restrooms, so, the public good, based on BF’s management calculation and decision making process as the most doable at the given circumstances, are the Pink Urinals. We do not have to wait for the Philippines to become super rich or Filipinos to become super – good taste, or do paralysis by analysis by reviewing the whole gamut of governmental structures and democratic principles or history of public administration - to do what is good to the public because by then, our country will be stinking all over and lots of Filipinos dying of gall bladders explosion. Incidentally, Nobel Prize Awardee and public administration icon Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality and satisficing is near to Bayani Fernando’s style, so, he can not be accused of lacking in conceptual framework, the way we doctoral students will love to look even in the face of a working solution just to show that somewhat we are superior in concepts – a shade of intellectual dishonesty or naivety. In a nutshell, it is the Marikina Way – a cross breed of Sen and LKY: “democracy - blind”, or with or without democracy, public good must be advocated (tarpaulin campaign) and championed (MMDA projects). I am not campaigning for Bayani Fernando but if you know him the way I know him, you can not help but wish that he is the next President of the Philippines. The guy is a phenomenon. He lets Sen, LKY and the likes debate to the hilt, wasting their saliva in the process...BF will just do it for the public good.

END
[1] http://www.gwu.edu/~edpol/manuscript/intro1-4.htm
[2] Development as Freedom. Amartya Sen. Anchor Books. New york. p. 158

[3] Lee Kuan Yew. The Man and His Ideas. Han Fook Kwang et al. Singapore Press Holdings. Time Edition.p.380.
[4] Ibid.381

BAYANI FERNANDO

BAYANI FERNANDO is pro - poor. In his tarpaulin advocacy campaign, his pro - poor inclination is shown by the messages of his advocacy: "pantay pantay kung may disiplina" is saying that the urban poor, the provincianos and the young professionals and children of business tycoons are all equal if we have a working law and a culture of discipline for everyone. Walang palakasan...pare pareho lahat. In a way, Bayani Fernando raised the level of urban poor to the level of the children of the tycoons.

When he gave 11,000 squatters their own homes....he gave hope and dignity to the poor.
Now tell me who among the presidentiables gave homes to the poor? Can we do the roll call?
Hey presidentiables, how many homes did you give to the poor? Noli de Castro? Manny Villar?
Mar Roxas? Loren Legarda? Ping Lacson? Oh, ano? Ilan ang binigay nyo? You mean to say sa tagal nyo sa politika eh di nyo kayang tapatan ang record ni Bayani Fernando? Eh ito..pag sama samahin kaya natin yung mga binigay nyong bahay ..kayong lahat..kaya nyo bang lagpasan yung 11,oo homes na binigay ni Bayani Fernando? See? Sabi ko na nga talo kayo sa performance eh.

Bayani Fernando cleared the street of the encroaching store owners and illegal vendors supportive of kotong cops in order to give the masses a place to walk on and for the poor children to have a place to stay.

I can go on and on telling you of past and present actuations of BAYANI FERNANDO AS PRO POOR... this debunked the myth propagated by some of his rivals that says BF is otherwise.

The Emergence of the "Marikina Way"

Friday, December 26, 2008

Some Sites that Seem to Mention Bayani Fernando

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

BAYANI FERNANDO EXPOSED!!

The Early Child Care and Development Experiences in Marikina City

Saturday, December 20, 2008

BAYANI FERNANDO and LEE KUAN YEW ARE CORRECT

BAYANI FERNANDO GETS IT DONE

BAYANI FERNANDO and LEE KUAN YEW

BAYANI FERNANDO

2010 Philippine Presidential Race Survey

Who do you think will be the next Mayor of Marikina in 2010?

Lakan Dula

Labels

Blog Archive

Who is the Best President of the Philippines

One Way to Implement Marikina Ideology...courtesy of Mayor Marides Fernando

Who do you think will be the next Vice Mayor of Marikina in 2010

The Oldest Church in Marikina Valley

Related Links

The Shoe Museum

About Me

A wish of the Man behind the "Marikina Way"