I could remember back in high school how scores were of utmost importance. The emphasis were grades on English, Mathematics, and Science. I felt so insecure as I suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) meaning mathematics becomes a chore one way or another. The importance of those grades (not necessarily be the top of the class) was emphasized on courses. I remembered how the Hotel and Restaurant Management courses were often looked down upon. Not just HRM but also Bachelor of Science in Business Administration which was becoming a dumping course. The worse part was how often is commerce is often looked down upon.
What courses were often in-demand for abroad?
When we had our college plans--it was often because of courses in-demand abroad. It was during the 2000s and some that I could remember are as follows:
- Engineering courses were the most common. Some of my peers took engineering for that reason. Sometimes, it's not because the parents forced them to take it. It's because they want to go abroad.
- Information technology was once my dream course--never mind that higher mathematics wasn't my forte. Why did I want to take that course even if my parents told me I could be better off taking commerce? It was because "it was the fad" to take an IT course, am I right?
- Nursing is another one why many took it. Some of my friends in the medical technology course shifted to nursing to go abroad. One of my high school batch mates shifted to nursing, finished it, and is now in Alberta, Canada. Before that, he worked in Chong Hua Hospital. However, some of my peers who took nursing haven't put it into practice. Some are even real estate agents and AXA financial managers.
- Physical therapy is also in demand abroad. However, one of my high school batch mates didn't put into practice and ended up working in AXA. Wouldn't it be better also if he just took a commerce-related course instead?
What's causing students to desire to go abroad?
I must confess I had the desire to go abroad. My dream country back in the early 2000s was the United States of America. Others aimed for Canada. I really felt the Philippines was a "hopeless" case. I soon fret over the fact that I didn't get accepted int BSIT after I took Associate in Computer Science. Well, it was justified because I barely passed programming. The former section head of the Mathematics and Computer Science department had every duty to reject my application. Good thing I had BSBA in my mind but I battered myself in secret more than once over why I didn't qualify for BSIT. I even did it more to myself even after many BSIT students shifted to either BSBA or Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting. Some people are good in math but just don't get technology as well as they should. In my case, I suck at both though I did manage to understand business calculus.
The dream to go abroad is often equated with "to escape the miseries of the Philippines". Having a low salary is one. I knew someone who wanted to take nursing because of their financial situation. Some parents even urge nursing to the point it's an abused course. BSIT has become another course that's become so absurdly taken for that reason. That's why I wanted to take BSIT--to go abroad and live life in the US of A. Other miseries would involve the lack of employment. The Philippines may be a democratic country but it does lack one thing--more economic freedom. Job opportunities tend to be scarce in other areas
What's the real cause of a lack of job opportunities?
The real cause of job opportunities has to do with economic freedom. The 1935 Constitution was highly protectionist. Carlos P. Garcia made the "Filipino First" policy which I'm afraid eventually allowed more failures than successes. The 1973 Constitution under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was also protectionist leading to the well-documented cronyism as explained in textbooks. The 1987 Constitution did start to ease certain restrictions but it wasn't enough. 60-40 was still enforced to a certain extent--something that I feel is just ridiculous. It's all about saying that Foreign Direct Investors can only own up to 40% of shares in the Philippines while 60% must belong to Filipino businessmen. Former president Fidel V. Ramos up to outgoing President Rodrigo R. Duterte worked on easing certain sectors which prevented the Philippines from becoming another Venezuela or North Korea.
The big problem of 60-40 needs to be viewed this way. Who in the right mind will rent a space if they could only own 40% of their profit shares in their area? Would you seriously want to give 60% of your net income to the lessor? 60-40 is not about land ownership. A lessor doesn't necessarily own a share from his tenants.What the mall owner owns is the commercial space. Unless the lessor purchases shares from the tenants--he or she isn't a shareholder. For example, I rent a space in Robinson's to run a steakhouse. Robinsons has no share in the profits from me but they receive the mandatory rental payment from me. I owe Robinson's my monthly rentals but never 60% of my profits. Net profits come after all expenses such as operating expenses, rentals, and income taxes are paid. The lessor only gets rent. A lessor can only become a company shareholder through a purchase of a certain amount of stocks.
In short, the 60-40 shares arrangement discourages foreign investors to invest if they have to give up 60% of their net profits to Filipino businessmen. It's one thing if the Philippines refuses to sell land to foreigners. I heard China doesn't sell land to foreigners. Neither does Vietnam. However, foreigners are free to invest up to 100% share ownership which is different from land ownership. Tenants shouldn't expect the malls to sell the commercial space to them. However, tenants should expect to pay a monthly rent in the spaces they rent. FDIs are expected to pay rentals to Filipino landowners along with the government fees such as registration, taxes, and welfare payments. If FDIs fail to follow any rules such as the Fair Competition Act--they can expect to pack their bags and leave. Tenants who don't pay rent have to leave. FDIs that don't follow local laws have to leave.
The solution to produce jobs is pretty much inviting FDIs. The late Lee Kuan Yew had to face the challenge of the economists of his day. In his book From Third World to First--he also discussed in Chapter 4 "To Survive Without a Hinterland" the common knowledge among the economics graduates of his day. Lee had to face with economists who believed that FDI was bad. However, FDI was proven good as proven by the fact that when Lee invited FDIs--he produced more jobs for Singopreans. Deng Xiaoping also followed the same role model for the People's Republic of China. Before that, Taiwan or the Republic of China defeated China by doing so. Taiwan in itself was first to open to FDI before China. Lee proved the economists of his day wrong when he produced more jobs by welcoming FDI.
The Philippines can do the same thing. Right now, more sectors are getting liberated to 100% foreign shares ownership. Take note of the word shares because it's not the same as land ownership. If there were more FDIs in the Philippines--there will be less desire to move to the greener pastures. In turn, an improvement of national economy would mean minimum wage can be increased. The average salary of Singapore is SGD 5,783 per month. The average salary in the Philippines is PHP 44,600.00 per month. A computation from SGD to PHP will tell you the average salary in Singapore is PHP 220,861.00--a lot higher than the Philippines. No wonder Singapore is one of the dream destinations.
The big aim to truly go from third world to first also involves economic liberalization. Though, it's not the whole thing since Lee also focused on greening Singapore and fighting corruption. However, we need money to do green the Philippines and fight corruption. The Philippines has become a rising tiger but it still needs to grow. Fortunately, laws to pass more economic liberalization are there such as the liberalization of the public utility sectors. The fight for more economic liberalization would force the local players to either innovate or perish. In turn, other local businesses might end up generating better employment when they can get more suppliers and service providers to help them expand their businesses to greater heights.
The agenda is to really amend the Foreign Investments Act. Get rid of unnecessary restrictions immediately. Sure, I'm not in favor of foreign landowners. However, I'll still in favor of FDIs owning up to 100% in terms of shares. This isn't the new imperialism. This is all about inviting new ideas and FDIs as tenants while the Philippines is the commercial space. This will generate more jobs, better economy (which will inevitably raise minimum wages), and may cause lesser people from seeking to move abroad.
References
Books
"From Third World to First--The Singapore Story: 1965-2000) by Lee Kuan Yew
Harpers Collins Publishers
Websites
"R.A. 7042 – “Foreign Investments Act of 1991.”
"SINK OR SWIM: CHANGING THE 60-40 RULE ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AS KEY TO SURVIVING GLOBALIZATION" by Glenndale Cornelio
"How Much You Should Be Making in 2022 | Ultimate Singapore Salary Guide" (January 3, 2022)
Comments
Post a Comment