Again, sense of country
Again, sense of country
Updated 09:44pm (Mla time) Oct 05, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 6, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
Brian Entwistle wrote this feedback:
"I really liked your article, 'Alarm bell.' As a foreigner (Aussie), I have often questioned the role that fleeing to the land of milk honey takes in the mind-set of the Philippines. I have debated the topic with my friends who are Ausaid-sponsored students from the Philippine public service. For me, it seems that it serves the government's best interest as an agent for the status quo to keep things the way they are in the Philippines, knowing that people will eventually look to foreign shores for their livelihood. Of course once they do go, they will be sending greenbacks back to the Philippines for their families.
"I've been going to the Philippines since 1988, and am constantly reminded by my friends of how hard life is in the Philippines. Some want me to find them spouses here... I hope [your article] provokes people to look in the mirror and consider their priorities."
Well, I myself have debated the point with detractors, foremost of them Filipinos abroad, particularly in the US. Some have been quite bitter, saying my remonstration with the current Filipino Diaspora is typical of people who have not discovered the virtue of democratic choice, something they now enjoy where they are, again notably in the US. I remember that my articles about Barry Gutierrez and several others who decided to come home after studying in prestigious schools in America (I praised them naturally) were received in this way by some readers, to my great astonishment. For some reason, those who had decided not to come home thought they were being disparaged.
Indeed, I recall that a group of college students from the Ateneo who came to interview me for a school project raised the issue too. Other Asian or Southeast Asian countries, they said, echoing a typical reply to my position, had nationals leaving their shores, and didn't seem the worse for it. Why should we be so?
Well, as I've said on several occasions, there's a difference between their exodus and ours. It lies in the quality as much as in the quantity. The quantity is patent. The sheer volume of Filipinos leaving this country is breathtaking. This year alone, some 2,000 doctors are expected to leave this country, as Minguita Padilla, who has chosen to stay put, reveals. I know it firsthand. A couple of friends of mine have opted to try their luck abroad. Both are bankers, a fact that makes me wonder what profession is likely to be spared the virus. (Well, maybe law enforcement.) One went to Canada, and the other, well, he was about to leave for the US when, on the eve of his departure, he got an offer from another local bank. He decided to stay to see, figuring he could always leave if it wasn't worth it.
I said it before: In other countries, the choice of leaving the country is a personal one. Here, it is a collective one. It is the difference between a disease and an epidemic, the exception and the rule. The epidemic is not bound to abate with the threat of an impending economic collapse.
The quality is more subtle, but is no less obdurate. In other countries, leaving home for a job abroad is the last resort, here it is the first. It is not a compulsion, it is a dream. It is not an act of desperation, it is an act of ambition. Other nationals, including the Chinese, study and work abroad. But the difference is that most of them come home: They cannot see themselves pursuing happiness elsewhere.
The sheer volume of Filipinos trekking to the ports and airports, some looking tearfully at a home they will never see again but most others sighing with relief and barely throwing a glance back, would not be a problem if it did not go with something more virulent, which is our lack of a sense of country. As I also said before, the problem is not really the overseas Filipino workers, it is our elite. This is a country whose leaders do not have a passion for it. This is a country whose elite studied in American schools, whose children study in American schools, who own townhouses in American suburbs. This is a country whose elite does not mind despoiling it because at the end of the day they can always leave it.
True enough, as Enwistle says, the Filipino Diaspora helps the elite keep the status quo. But far more than that, it frees the elite from being threatened by the collapse of the country. People have wondered why government officials do not seem to be alarmed by the brewing crisis, which, if some financial experts are to be believed, will make us lucky to end up like Argentina. Well, they can always leave the country.
That is my beef with dual citizenship. True enough also, other countries have dual citizenship and seem none the worse for it. Well, they are none the worse for it because their citizens carry with them their roots and their identity, which are never lost when they take on a second citizenship. But we are poorly rooted--give our government officials themselves a quiz in Philippine history and the majority will fail--and are only too willing to give up an inchoate identity at the slightest opportunity. The concept of Filipino citizenship is rubbery enough as it is. You give people dual citizenship, notably Filipino and American, and there will be precious little left of the Filipino to justify the word "dual."
In any case, the people seeking dual citizenship want only the dual benefits, they do not want the dual obligations. They only want the right to invest in the two countries they are citizens of, they do not want the obligation to pay taxes, or be drafted into war, in both.
Truly, the Filipino-bashing attributed to Art Bell may be a hoax but it is so only in attribution, it is not so in reverberation. It's an alarm bell that demands to be rung.
Updated 09:44pm (Mla time) Oct 05, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 6, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
Brian Entwistle wrote this feedback:
"I really liked your article, 'Alarm bell.' As a foreigner (Aussie), I have often questioned the role that fleeing to the land of milk honey takes in the mind-set of the Philippines. I have debated the topic with my friends who are Ausaid-sponsored students from the Philippine public service. For me, it seems that it serves the government's best interest as an agent for the status quo to keep things the way they are in the Philippines, knowing that people will eventually look to foreign shores for their livelihood. Of course once they do go, they will be sending greenbacks back to the Philippines for their families.
"I've been going to the Philippines since 1988, and am constantly reminded by my friends of how hard life is in the Philippines. Some want me to find them spouses here... I hope [your article] provokes people to look in the mirror and consider their priorities."
Well, I myself have debated the point with detractors, foremost of them Filipinos abroad, particularly in the US. Some have been quite bitter, saying my remonstration with the current Filipino Diaspora is typical of people who have not discovered the virtue of democratic choice, something they now enjoy where they are, again notably in the US. I remember that my articles about Barry Gutierrez and several others who decided to come home after studying in prestigious schools in America (I praised them naturally) were received in this way by some readers, to my great astonishment. For some reason, those who had decided not to come home thought they were being disparaged.
Indeed, I recall that a group of college students from the Ateneo who came to interview me for a school project raised the issue too. Other Asian or Southeast Asian countries, they said, echoing a typical reply to my position, had nationals leaving their shores, and didn't seem the worse for it. Why should we be so?
Well, as I've said on several occasions, there's a difference between their exodus and ours. It lies in the quality as much as in the quantity. The quantity is patent. The sheer volume of Filipinos leaving this country is breathtaking. This year alone, some 2,000 doctors are expected to leave this country, as Minguita Padilla, who has chosen to stay put, reveals. I know it firsthand. A couple of friends of mine have opted to try their luck abroad. Both are bankers, a fact that makes me wonder what profession is likely to be spared the virus. (Well, maybe law enforcement.) One went to Canada, and the other, well, he was about to leave for the US when, on the eve of his departure, he got an offer from another local bank. He decided to stay to see, figuring he could always leave if it wasn't worth it.
I said it before: In other countries, the choice of leaving the country is a personal one. Here, it is a collective one. It is the difference between a disease and an epidemic, the exception and the rule. The epidemic is not bound to abate with the threat of an impending economic collapse.
The quality is more subtle, but is no less obdurate. In other countries, leaving home for a job abroad is the last resort, here it is the first. It is not a compulsion, it is a dream. It is not an act of desperation, it is an act of ambition. Other nationals, including the Chinese, study and work abroad. But the difference is that most of them come home: They cannot see themselves pursuing happiness elsewhere.
The sheer volume of Filipinos trekking to the ports and airports, some looking tearfully at a home they will never see again but most others sighing with relief and barely throwing a glance back, would not be a problem if it did not go with something more virulent, which is our lack of a sense of country. As I also said before, the problem is not really the overseas Filipino workers, it is our elite. This is a country whose leaders do not have a passion for it. This is a country whose elite studied in American schools, whose children study in American schools, who own townhouses in American suburbs. This is a country whose elite does not mind despoiling it because at the end of the day they can always leave it.
True enough, as Enwistle says, the Filipino Diaspora helps the elite keep the status quo. But far more than that, it frees the elite from being threatened by the collapse of the country. People have wondered why government officials do not seem to be alarmed by the brewing crisis, which, if some financial experts are to be believed, will make us lucky to end up like Argentina. Well, they can always leave the country.
That is my beef with dual citizenship. True enough also, other countries have dual citizenship and seem none the worse for it. Well, they are none the worse for it because their citizens carry with them their roots and their identity, which are never lost when they take on a second citizenship. But we are poorly rooted--give our government officials themselves a quiz in Philippine history and the majority will fail--and are only too willing to give up an inchoate identity at the slightest opportunity. The concept of Filipino citizenship is rubbery enough as it is. You give people dual citizenship, notably Filipino and American, and there will be precious little left of the Filipino to justify the word "dual."
In any case, the people seeking dual citizenship want only the dual benefits, they do not want the dual obligations. They only want the right to invest in the two countries they are citizens of, they do not want the obligation to pay taxes, or be drafted into war, in both.
Truly, the Filipino-bashing attributed to Art Bell may be a hoax but it is so only in attribution, it is not so in reverberation. It's an alarm bell that demands to be rung.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home