It’s not just job generation per se, it’s also quality of jobs, it’s jobs that really give you the sufficient income to keep body and soul together. For us – in this country it’s not just the lack of jobs, in this country you can have a job and still be poor. Obviously at a 53 percent poverty self-rating, we don’t have a 53 percent unemployment rate. Which just goes to show you that there are many people who are employed but consider themselves as poor. So that’s how we differ with more developed countries. In developed countries if you have any job, even a minimum-wage job, you don’t consider yourself poor, because it’s enough to take care of yourself and your family, unlike in our country.
A recent study by the World Bank put forward the observation that our extreme dependence on overseas remittances is not sustainable in the long term. What then can you say about the labor export policy being implemented by the government?
Let’s go back 30 years: in the 1970s, when we had our first OFWs (overseas Filipino woorkers) leave the country – I know this because I used to teach Labor Law – if you take a look at the original administrative orders, the original quasi-legislative papers, memoranda that were issued by the Office of the President, their perception really was that this OFW phenomenon would be a short-term phenomenon. The thinking was that this was brought about by the – at that time was the oil shortage, the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) – their feeling was that it would only be short-term. In fact the idea was, eventually all these guys are going to return and everything would be normal. Because if you ask any Filipino, he’d rather stay home, right? Except the really rich ones who are more cosmopolitan.
But it persisted. Instead of being a short-term problem, it became a long-term problem. And in fact, this is a bit radical – this is no longer the Genuine Opposition’s position, this is my own analysis – one of the reasons why we don’t become competitive is that no matter what we do, no matter how badly we run this economy, we will always have that buffer, the OFW remittance that keeps the economy afloat. That’s the only reason this GMA economy is still afloat, it’s because of the OFW remittance.
So it’s both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in the sense that of course we don’t want our people, we don’t want our economy to be destroyed, but it’s also a curse because it makes us lazy: it doesn’t force us to be competitive.
So it’s a very complex problem, what to do is to set up the legal and financial framework. Legal framework means we want to protect our OFWs, we want to strengthen the powers of the embassies and consuls to provide legal protection for our laborers. As an additional point, maybe give them insurance, other types of benefits outside of our country. And then the other component is the micro-financial component, because what we want is for our laborers, when they come back, if they save enough money, the government can give them some funding to set up small and medium enterprises so they don’t have to leave. I mean, that really should be the long-term thinking. The OFW phenomenon, it’s not a one-time phenomenon. We think they leave and don’t come back. But they go back and forth… Contracts, and then they come back and they spend all their money, and then leave again. It’s like that, it’s multiple exit and entry. And we have to really set up the legal and financial system so that if they return and they have money already, some savings, let’s give them micro-financing.
So they don’t have to keep coming back, because there’s a big social cost involved. You have to understand also that while economically it’s advantageous to us, the social cost – in terms of families being destroyed, even increase in AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) amongst OFWs, health risks, of course those who get jailed or killed abroad – all of these are social cost incurred because of the OFW phenomenon.
You know, I studied abroad, and I never met any – even those who have fairly decent jobs – (who would rather stay abroad). If you ask them, “If you could have the exact same job that pays the exact same amount of money in the Philippines, would you rather stay here in the United States?” and the answer is, “No, we’d rather stay in the Philippines.” But precisely because they have no options, that’s why they leave our country.
I was at a recent miting de avance, and one of the performers there – before giving his number – said something to the effect that the Philippines is presently “in danger” of having to go through another 1986-type scenario. Do you agree with that observation?
Well, if we’re talking about the 1986 scenario, if I recall in 1986 we won back our democracy because of People Power, so I don’t see anything so wrong with that. It’s not that I advocate revolution, but rather, if he was speaking in behalf of the administration –
No, he was speaking against the administration.
Okay, if he was speaking against the administration, that’s something to look forward to – that we’ll actually reclaim our democracy.
But I don’t want it to get to that point. The Genuine Opposition, our stand has been clear and in fact Joker Arroyo, at the start of the election period, said, “Well, the reason I didn’t join you is because you support revolution, you support unconstitutional means,” so immediately we answered back and said, “That’s untrue, precisely we are participating in this election because we support constitutional processes in order to obtain reform.” We do not want to have to go through that level, where we would have a revolution, in order to have reforms. We feel that there are sufficient constitutional processes under the rule of law that we can get the reforms through. (Bulatlat.com)
