Mas Mahirap Maging Korap Kung Walang Mahirap
By Karl Garcia
“Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” is one of the most repeated lines in Philippine public life. It sounds right. It feels moral. It gives us a villain and a solution in a single sentence.
But it gets the sequence wrong.
The harder truth is this: mas mahirap maging korap kung walang mahirap.
Corruption does not recede because people suddenly become virtuous. It recedes when society becomes harder to exploit.
Morality does not operate in a vacuum. It competes with hunger, insecurity, and fear. When survival is the daily concern, ethics becomes negotiable—not because people are bad, but because systems push them there.
This is not a defense of corruption. It is an explanation of why moral preaching fails as policy.
In poor societies, power concentrates easily and oversight remains weak. A population under stress cannot consistently demand accountability. Institutions lack capacity to enforce rules. Elites face little resistance, and incentives skew toward short-term extraction.
Asking for integrity under these conditions is like demanding discipline from a system designed to reward shortcuts.
This is why Filipinos have a brutally honest performance review for governance:
“Puro ka kuwento. Wala namang kuwenta.”
All talk. No value.
It sounds like an ad hominem. It isn’t. It is what citizens say when institutions refuse to measure themselves.
We love stories—of reformers, of sacrifice, of national destiny. We are fluent in rhetoric because rhetoric costs nothing. Measurement costs power. Narrative allows discretion; metrics impose accountability.
“We cannot manage what we cannot measure,” Kaplan and Norton warned. What we do not measure, we moralize.
Our neighbors illustrate the point. Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are not morally superior societies. Their corruption scores are comparable to ours. Yet they are materially ahead—higher incomes, stronger manufacturing bases, larger middle classes.
Their advantage is not virtue. It is sequencing.
They built productive capacity first. Jobs, industries, and incomes came before sermons. As citizens became less desperate, accountability became enforceable. Institutions matured through use. Corruption did not disappear—it became riskier, more constrained, and more visible. In short, harder to get away with.
The Philippines insists on reversing the sequence. We demand moral perfection before material progress. We legislate virtue before building capacity. We design accountability systems for institutions that cannot yet sustain them.
The result is predictable. Reform stalls.
We pass laws faster than agencies can absorb them. We add procedures in the name of transparency, increasing friction until informal workarounds become the only way anything moves. Builders are pushed into compromise not because they lack ethics, but because the system punishes those who insist on doing things straight.
Then we condemn the behavior we structurally incentivized.
This is the central failure of narrative governance. We treat laws as endpoints, not experiments. Plans as achievements, not hypotheses. The State of the Nation Address becomes theater, not a report card. We count activity—laws passed, budgets released, projects announced—but not outcomes achieved.
No ex-post evaluation. No binding KPIs. No public dashboards for justice, infrastructure, education, or health. When results fall short, plans are replaced, not refined.
And so citizens fall back on the only metric available:
“Wala namang kuwenta.”
The problem is not that Filipinos are uniquely immoral. The problem is that poverty creates conditions where morality is fragile.
A hungry worker tolerates abuse to keep a job. A small business pays under the table to survive delays. A local official extracts rent because oversight is weak and alternatives are few. None of this is noble—but all of it is predictable.
This is why anti-corruption, by itself, cannot be the national development strategy. Treated as the primary battle, it crowds out harder but more important work: building industries, fixing logistics, lowering energy costs, improving productivity, and creating stable employment.
We obsess over redistribution while neglecting production. We argue endlessly over who gets what, while failing to grow what there is to distribute.
Real accountability emerges when citizens are no longer desperate. A middle class with skills, savings, and options can afford to be principled. Institutions with capacity can afford to enforce rules. Elites behave better when abuse threatens reputation, legacy, and power.
This is not cynicism. It is how societies evolve.
The task is not to abandon morality—but to stop treating it as the starting point.
Build a society where fewer people are poor. Build systems that work often enough to be trusted. Measure outcomes, not intentions. Fix production before sermonizing.
Because when poverty recedes, corruption loses its oxygen.
And then—finally—it becomes harder to be corrupt than to be honest.
That is the moral Philippines worth building.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
you can’t talk about poverty in the Philippines without mentioning overpopulation
Thanks Benny. Duly noted. I usually do a follow up on matters noticed by readers, old and new alike.
Not just overpopulation, but the effects of overpopulation plus inability of politicians to craft law and policy to take advantage of a massive working age population.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/578796/average-age-of-the-population-in-philippines/
By 2035 (less than a decade from now), the average Filipino will be 30 years old. Given my now middle-age status (urgh), useful working years declines steadily then rapidly from then. Regional peers took advantage of a young, growing population to power their industrial rise. In the Philippines, it’s let’s ignore those people and give them ayuda when they get too upset. A human’s useful working years is not an infinite resource; it’s use it or lose it.
On my recent trip from mid-December to mid-January it’s just same-old same-old with some families I keep up with (and their neighbors). It’s not uncommon in the “bukid” to have seen teen “kids” from 10 years ago who are now in their mid-20s and have never had a steady salary. Some did try but did not know how. Nearly all gave up after a while and just tambay at home, play basketball, gala around the surrounding barangays and towns, and wait for an OFW relative to send remittance home. On their spare time they chase the opposite sex and inevitably have kids whom they don’t have the ability to take care of. I am good friends with an ate who has for over 20 years supported directly or indirectly her entire clan, cutting off her own possibility of getting married and having her own family; not an uncommon story in the Philippines.
In urban areas, Metro Manila, but also Cebu, Davao (though I haven’t been there for a while), it is the same situation with the poor who live in informal settlements just outside of the view of others. People know where these informal settlements are, but no one really acknowledges the festering problem; see no evil, hear no evil. Smaller cities have similar problems with idle populations waiting for a remittance, waiting for ayuda from the mayor or governor or partylist.
I’ve long believed having so many people idle and pretending the problem doesn’t exist is on a moral level a humanitarian crisis, and on a purely developmental level a waste of human capital.
These people all vote (if they are of voting age). Can’t change the country for the better if these people are not afforded better opportunities.
Thanks again Joey.
I think that the vocational track of K-12 (especially the now defunct K-12+ with German dual training that was wasted, not familiar with what other countries Germany has similar programs but they definitely have a program to import nurses not only with “feeling main character” Philippines) or the office worker track which both theoretically churn out manual laborers or secretarial staff (even if companies still prefer “commerce graduates” from diploma mills) aren’t bad.
Probably companies operating in the Philippines, foreign or Filipino, should be given incentives for giving OJT and employing K-12 graduates. Schools should be improved which is already Senator Bam Aquino’s focus topic, not following that too much but K-12 has many good aspects that shouldn’t be wasted but tapped.
Why was one of the projects of K-12+ (metalworking) in the San Pedro, Laguna Relocation Center National High School? Because San Pedro, Laguna is a hub for a lot of industry and even data centers. Now that the NSCR (North South Commuter Railway) is being built, clusters of industry should be built around voluntary relocation areas for the urban poor near future stations. Maybe tie getting social housing to training for a job, among other policies.
It will of course be hard to get 20+ year olds who have never worked into the workforce. Experiences in Western countries with multigenerational “social welfare royalty” (Sozialadel is the exact and very sarcastic German term) show that it is NOT easy at all, but not trying is worse. In fact German experience with people who have not worked for years shows the chance of them getting back into the workforce sinks after 2-3 years and is extremely hard after five years.
Not trying at all would be the usual “laissez faire” that you have already called Philippines policies. Or is it more “laissez aller” aka neglect?
I can’t speak to the terrible state of OJT in the US (we call it internship), but the US did have robust vocational programs and college internships from the New Deal Era through to the late 1990s. How American OJT worked during that time was that American enterprises recognized as part of the need to maintain industry competitiveness warranted the need to seek out young workers, train them, retain them for as long as their working lives as possible. Things changed with globalization and the rise of the MBA class of corporate managers. Well, that’s why my role exists. As a consultant I come in and fix stuff that internal resources no longer have the skills to do as most things are outsourced.
What I can say is that American OJT programs were mostly private (corporate) or local/state initiatives. Sometimes there was extra funding from the US federal government in areas of national security, such as fields supporting national defense (engineering, the material sciences, defense manufacturing). American multinationals nowadays would rather outsource and not develop internal talent. Most US states can no longer fund their own programs due to political shifts that emphasized protecting the wealthy rather than investing the state citizen.
Whether the old American model or the German apprenticeship model, I’d think either would work as long as the program is applied consistently. From my own observation many times Philippine effort is “on surface,” going through the motions to be able to say something was completed. For example I encountered during another visit SHS students who were in some kind of OJT program (no one could really tell me which) who were used for mandatory (part of their grades) free manual labor moving hollow blocks around. That doesn’t seem like a very useful thing to have young people do.
One important consideration is that increasing general and secondary education prepares a future workforce for what American economists call “unskilled labor,” which is a misnomer as bricklaying, construction, welding, manufacturing work, etc. is far from “unskilled.” Much of the American experience of industrialization was preceded by increases in *quality* universal education to prepare a workforce with basic skills necessary for work participation. I can’t speak for Germany or France, but the British experience was similar until the British decided to become the City of London (note: not London) and stopped caring about everywhere else on the British Isles, including the once booming industrial centers around Manchester.
Clusters of subsidized housing and industrial clusters should definitely be built together, with the same idea of clustering for resource extraction areas, port areas, and so on with transport infrastructure built connecting each cluster whether that be rail or road. That goes along with what I’ve been writing about for a while, and I’m not an expert on this subject… it’s just common sense.
Jump starting industry does not necessarily need a K-12 trained workforce *immediately,* as a country starting out in industry would be manufacturing stuff that does not require as much skill. Think textile-related things. Basic education is a must though for higher forms of manufacturing like shipbuilding, vehicles, advanced technology and the like. As with everything a “ramp up” or lead-in time is required. There is a delay between the time (maybe 10 year increments) needed to educate and train the future workforce and advancing to the next industrial step. More delay in starting means more delay in getting closer to the finish line.
I fear the existing aged 20-40 chronically unemployed Filipino to already be a near-wasted national resource. They may be able to accomplish very simple tasks, but there is also the issue of not having built-in a habit for consistency of work which needs to be instilled at a younger age. Alright, no need to moan about I suppose, “simpler” jobs can be brought to them, and companies can tolerate inconsistencies a bit more if the salary is lower. I hope the next batch of Filipinos would not be wasted though.
P.S. I regularly need to buy UPS (uninterruptible power supplies) and prefer the APC (American Power Conversion) brand which had been bought by French company Schneider Electric. For a long time Schneider maintained APC’s manufacturing plant in Cavite, which had always produced high quality UPS for computer, server, and network equipment. I noticed in the last 10 years that quality has dropped off quite a bit, and by chance passed by the APC factory a few years back to find the facility quite dilapidated. When I needed to speak to APC techs in the past the Filipino side were very knowledgeable, which is not the case anymore, so quality of training of younger workers may have declined. No wonder “Made in Philippines” APC products are not great quality anymore, despite passing “QC.” Last year I decided that I would reject every APC UPS that was made in the Philippines, and prefer “Made in California, USA” and “Made in Vietnam” APC units.
I have incorporated the population issue in my next article.
But in the past, I had my space governance posts thaf included relocation and I sldo have development posts, that I do not mind repeating or have other versions of. Thank you.
I think overpopulation is no longer a problem, since birth rates have already declined to reasonable levels due to urbanization and economic growth.
In 1950, our births per woman was 7.51. When Martial Law was declared in 1972, that was 5.94. When the EDSA Revolution occurred in 1986, that was 4.56. When the new millennium came in 2000, that was 3.75. When PNoy took office in 2010, that was 3.32. When COVID came in 2020, that was 2.08. 2021 and 2022 saw the birth rate fall below two, which is the “replacement level,” in 2021 (1.95), 2022 (1.93) and 2023 (1.92). So far, post-COVID, we’re at 2.43 in 2024 and 2.45 in 2025.
(https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/phl/philippines/fertility-rate)
In fact, the problem the Philippines faces now (alongside China of the “One Child Policy” and Thailand, with their successful population control policies) is the prospect of a prematurely aging population.
The problem now is not that we have too much people, but if we end up having too many senior citizens to support (and too little working age Filipinos to provide support) despite having an economy that is still not rich enough to afford an extensive welfare state.
In short, the problem we face now is not too many people, but getting old as a nation before getting rich.
There is also the issue that a good chunk of our economy relies on exporting “excess labor” (OFWs) and relying on the money that they send (remittances). Putting aside the question of whether this economic model is proper or not—we rely a lot on sending nurses abroad, but what happens when our country ages and has more seniors which require more nurses to care for at home?
Right now, more and more young Filipinos are choosing to have furbabies, choosing not to marry. More and more Filipinos are also living in cities. We are also steadily getting richer (not as fast and substantially as our neighbors but our economy is growing). This will all lead to a further decline in our birth rate.
The problem right now is not overpopulation, not too many births. It’s too little births—leading to scary future of a mediocre, not-so-rich Philippines of few Filipino workers having to support far too many graying lolas and lolos. An inverted pyramid.
Government, on the contrary, should be focused on promoting births (in a manner respectful of the rights of women). Not too much, but just right. A “two child” policy. Keep the birth rate at the replacement level of two. Not higher nor lower.
This is admittedly, easier said than done. Everywhere, from South Korea, Japan and China, to Europe—raising birth rates has proven to be much, much, much, much, much harder than lowering them. Let’s not lower our birth rates further.
This is a helpful resource in visualizing birth rates and their effect on demographics globally and in each nation:
https://vizhub.healthdata.org/population-forecast/
Appreciate it much Francis
francis, you are correct about our declining birthrate, maybe thanks to the passage or the rh and responsible parenthood bill that was made into law after 14yrs of protracted debates. women now have access to safe contraception despite what the catholic church said. in fabella hospital alone, there were only 14 pregnant women in the maternity ward as of dec 31, 2025, when normally there would have been 40 -50 pregnant women!
still our population may yet climb because of population momentum, with older people deciding to marry and having families later in life, same with younger people reaching adulthood and starting families. population wise, we are summat okay and still able to supply the world with much needed number of manual labor. where would the world be without filipinos workers!
thanks Francis, indeed one can see that especially in the middle class families are way smaller nowadays, though your statistics don’t actually contradict what Joey Nguyen mentioned about big families in the DE classes. They are more likely to consist of 4-6 children even nowadays, while middle class families USED to be that big when I was young in the 1970s or 1980s. Getting married and having kids way later is a pattern I also see among urban professionals.
As you mentioned Germany and Japan, both have been forced to open gates to migration to keep their demographics somewhat in shape, Germany way earlier than Japan who used to look down even upon Koreans and now are open to Filipino migration. Maybe the Philippines must simply make use more of the DE classes by giving them better opportunities. I suspect most will perform with the same hunger as many migrants do in rich countries, helping push the country to success.
For sure there is a bigger middle class now than before, but ABC classes comprise just around 10 million plus people in a land of 118 million, the goal should be to make the majority of Filipinos B and C class. There will always be poor even in rich countries, but there always will be an issue as long as over one third remain poor, now it is still over 80% there. So as Karl mentioned in another article, Commonwealth 2.0 – in the sense of common wealth.
The statistics Francis and I shared are complementary — two sides of the same coin and present interlocking problems and solutions. On my point I am appalled that the youthful working years of millions of Filipinos are not utilized more effectively, which is a requirement for industrial development. I’m not convinced the Philippines can bypass all other stages of industrialization and go directly to a post-industrial high-value services based economy as this has never been done before and taking a chance on “being the first to do it” when there are so many examples of proven tracks in other countries seems foolish. Besides, poor people still vote, and their material condition of bare survival is largely why bad leaders keep getting elected.
Ironically it is in fact *harder* to gain Filipino citizenship than it is to obtain Japanese citizenship, and Japanese citizenship is notoriously hard to achieve for an ethnic Japanese, much less a non-Japanese. Zainichi Koreans were only granted paths of Japanese citizenship in the late 1980s and even today many are technically stateless with no path to Japanese citizenship.
Anyway immigration such as in the US (or to a lesser extent, Canada) is one way to maintain a working age population by which to support a tax base. In de jure or de facto ethnostates, population policy is much harder as the endemic population goes through baby booms and periods of declining birth rates. China is a worst case scenario of bad population policy (One Child Policy), but in general periods of growth usually coincide with a baby boom maturing into working age. I do wonder if there were any previous periods of Philippine history where government policy took advantage of a baby boom to drive sustained development. I can’t think of any in recent decades from the Marcos Sr. era to present day. The post-EDSA baby boom has mostly been wasted as those Filipinos are rapidly ascending into their 30s and 40s in the next decade, many with never having access to dignified and/or stable employment at no fault of their own.
In enjoyed this essay of yours, Karl…nicely written, good points.
Are you familiar with the story of Estonia and its economic transformation from a corrupt and failing economic satellite of the Soviet Union to a first world country?
I looked it up earlirer, thanks
Looks like you were underwhelmed. hehehe
They now have problems – rich country problems, like high cost of living, labor shortage, high taxes to support defense (Russia is a border country), high incidents of loneliness and other mental health issues, etc.
Nice research, thanks for the tidbits on Estonia
Thanks for your research about Estonia.
I am finding Estonia’s story quite exciting, and I am not a tech savvy person. The solution had a lot to do with modern computer technology.
In the struggle to improve the economy of the Philippines, we were recently were discussing the influence of a strong leader in the solution mix, AND whether we should work on individual wealth first and stop focusing so much on the corruption problem.
Here is a short report on what Estonia did:
>>Corruption first, or build the economy first?
In Estonia, the answer is that they didn’t see “battling corruption” and “building the economy” as two separate tasks. Under the leadership of Mart Laar and his “Young Guns,” they viewed corruption as a side effect of a bad economy. They didn’t prioritize one over the other; they attacked the systemic roots of both simultaneously with a strategy that essentially “deleted” the opportunities for graft.
“The Rule of No-Contact”
The key takeaway from the Laar era (began in 1992) is that they prioritized Systemic Integrity over Criminal Prosecution.
Instead of spending years trying to catch 1,000 corrupt officials (which is expensive and slow), they changed the laws so those 1,000 officials no longer had the power to demand a bribe. They “starved” the corrupt by taking away their ability to say “No” to a citizen. If the law says a permit is automatic if you meet X and Y criteria, the official cannot ask for a bribe to say “Yes.” The Result: A “Clean” Economy
By 1995, Estonia had transformed from a bankrupt Soviet province into the “Baltic Tiger.” Because they had cleaned the system while building the economy, they became the top destination for foreign investment in Eastern Europe. Investors weren’t afraid their money would be stolen by local “godfathers” because the “non-contact” system made the rules predictable.<<
Funny there was an Estonian vlogger recently deported and another Russian deported as well
Estonia Political Economy: USSR Past → Corruption → Good Governance
When Estonia regained independence in 1991, it faced a deeply Soviet-shaped economy and political culture:
Economic Conditions
Central planning and state-owned industries
Low productivity and outdated infrastructure
Heavy reliance on Russian energy and markets
No real private sector tradition or institutions
Political Conditions
Weak state capacity (because Soviet governance was hierarchical and extractive)
Low trust in public institutions
Old elites and networks still had influence
So the initial challenge wasn’t just building an economy — it was building a state.
Estonia chose one of the most radical transitions in Eastern Europe:
Key reforms
Rapid privatization
Currency stabilization (introduction of the kroon)
Flat tax system
Liberal trade and investment policy
Early digitalization strategy
The crucial move was creating credible institutions fast.
Despite economic success, Estonia’s early transition was messy:
Why corruption rose
Rapid privatization created “winners” with political connections
Weak oversight institutions
“Old networks” still controlled access to resources
Informal practices persisted
Result
A period where corruption was visible and politically damaging
Public distrust grew
Many reforms were threatened by elite capture
Estonia’s major breakthrough wasn’t just economic growth — it was institutional design.
The three pillars
A) Digital governance (e-Estonia)
Estonia digitized the state in a way no other country did:
E-citizenship
Digital IDs
Online voting
e-taxation
Transparent public procurement
Interconnected databases
Digitalization reduced opportunities for corruption because it:
cut bureaucracy
removed face-to-face discretion
created audit trails
made state actions visible
B) Rule of law and independent institutions
Estonia strengthened:
courts
anti-corruption agencies
audit institutions
C) Civic trust and political accountability
Transparency and clear rules helped rebuild trust.
Key factors
Small size
Easier to reform quickly and monitor outcomes
Homogeneous society
Less ethnic fragmentation than other post-Soviet states
Strong reform coalition
Political elites believed in modernization
International anchoring
EU and NATO membership created external discipline
Digital state design
Reduced rent-seeking opportunities
Consistent policy direction
Long-term reform continuity
Education and human capital
Strong focus on skills and innovation
Today, Estonia is one of the most transparent and efficient states in Europe:
Economic outcomes
High GDP per capita (relative to the region)
Strong tech sector (Skype, TransferWise, etc.)
High FDI and innovation output
Governance outcomes
High ranking on Transparency and Rule of Law indices
Efficient public services
Low bureaucratic friction
The Estonian Model: Lessons for Developing States
Estonia shows that:
✅ Corruption is not inevitable after authoritarian rule
✅ Digital governance is a powerful anti-corruption tool
✅ Institutional design matters more than ideology
✅ Fast, consistent reforms can create a new political culture
Why E-Governance Failed in the Philippines
1. Weak Implementation Capacity
Many government agencies know what to do, but they lack the skills, systems, and leadership to execute.
Agencies often have IT staff, but not digital transformation teams.
There is no consistent standard for digital projects.
Projects are fragmented, not unified.
Result: Many systems exist only on paper or as pilot projects.
2. Political Turnover and Short-Termism
Every new administration brings new priorities.
Projects get started, then abandoned after a change in leadership.
Long-term digital initiatives require continuity, which the Philippines lacks.
Result: Many projects die mid-stream or get rebranded.
3. Procurement Problems & Corruption Risks
E-governance is expensive and high-value, making it vulnerable to:
Overpriced contracts
Weak procurement processes
Cronyism and patronage
Project kickbacks
When a project becomes a “cash cow,” it loses its purpose.
Result: Systems are built for profit, not public service.
4. Poor Data Governance
The Philippines lacks a strong culture of data management and standards.
Data is stored in silos across agencies.
There is no unified national data architecture.
Privacy laws exist, but enforcement is weak.
Result: Interoperability fails and digital services can’t scale.
5. Digital Infrastructure Gaps
Even if systems are built, many Filipinos cannot access them properly.
Internet is slow and expensive
Rural areas have poor connectivity
Power and equipment reliability are inconsistent
Result: E-services become accessible only to urban, affluent citizens.
6. Low Trust in Government
Digital services require trust, but trust is low due to:
Corruption scandals
Poor public service quality
Lack of transparency
Result: Citizens avoid using online systems, preferring in-person transactions.
7. Legacy Systems & Bureaucratic Resistance
Many agencies still rely on old paper-based systems.
Bureaucrats resist change because it reduces their discretionary power.
Digitization threatens “informal fees” and “favor systems.”
Result: Digital transformation is blocked from within.
8. Weak Interagency Coordination
E-governance requires agencies to work together, but:
Each agency has its own IT system
There is no centralized authority enforcing standards
Projects compete rather than cooperate
Result: Duplication and waste.
9. Limited Digital Literacy
Many citizens and government employees do not have:
Basic computer skills
Ability to use online forms
Awareness of digital services
Result: Digital services remain underused.
The Real Root Cause
The failure is not mainly technical. It’s institutional:
E-governance requires strong governance.
But the Philippines struggles with:
weak enforcement
political patronage
weak accountability
fragmented institutions
So the technology becomes a tool for bureaucracy, not a tool for citizens.
How E-Governance Could Succeed
If the Philippines wants real success, it needs:
✅ National digital strategy with continuity
✅ Unified data standards & interoperability
✅ Strong procurement reform and anti-corruption enforcement
✅ Rural internet expansion and digital literacy programs
✅ Public-private partnerships based on performance
✅ Citizen-centered design (not agency-centered)
“Estonia Political Economy: USSR Past → Corruption → Good Governance” – Karl G.
Thanks, Karl….I’m glad you looked into the Estonia experience. The Society of Honor has recently explored issues like Integration, Strong Leader vs. public buy-in, focus on Economy and wealth vs. focus on Corruption, Filipinos in the Diaspora coming back to teach, etc.
So what do you think? Can we integrate any lessons from Estonia into the Philippine experience? What does our critical thinking process come up with?
I shared what I learned about Estonia with an email acquaintance of mine, a Filipino in his late 70s in Australia. He likes to “prophesize” that the Philippines will turn around by the year 2060 – a convenient choice of year since neither of us will be around to confirm it.
I used to disagree with him saying that the trend is regression, not progression so I could not see how one could foresee a 2060 target date.
He is also big on the Kabataan. We had a few discussions on the Sangguniang Kabataan in the Philippines and he lamented the lack of support of the youth, the supposed “hope of the fatherland.”
I thought that he would be excited about the Estonia story since it combines both youth AND concrete measures to reverse the course of a corrupt and bankrupt nation in a relatively short time using computer technology.
He showed zero interest. Hahaha I guess he did not want to be awakened from his dreaming slumber.
Your report on Estonia gave us this info:
How E-Governance Could Succeed
If the Philippines wants real success, it needs:
1. National digital strategy with continuity
2. Unified data standards & interoperability
3. Strong procurement reform and anti-corruption enforcement
4. Rural internet expansion and digital literacy programs
5. Public-private partnerships based on performance
6. Citizen-centered design (not agency-centered)
Apparently, Estonia achieved this. Should we examine how they did it and apply some critical thought to their experience and possibly adapt it to the Philippine scenario?
Food for thought.
Ack we started E governance when you just left or perhsps when youbwere still here. Same pattern we switch on and off, we reset. We still have luddite like government employees who hates computers.
The Philippines did start government computerization much earlier than the 1980s — in the 1970s with the NCC. �
But fragmented governance structures, lack of policy continuity, procurement issues, institutional politics, and resistance to automation meant systems were often disjointed, duplicated, or under-utilized — leading to the perception (and reality) of “failure” in many areas.
*But fragmented governance structures, lack of policy continuity, procurement issues, institutional politics, and resistance to automation meant systems were often disjointed, duplicated, or under-utilized — leading to the perception (and reality) of “failure” in many areas.* – Karl
Sounds like a failure in leadership. Do you agree?
That would touch on the issue of “strong leader” vs. buy in by a broad base. I think Joey had ideas on that.
I recall Francis and his analogy about the poor bum who makes it his goal to get into the Univ. of the Phils. Is UP capable of producing successful leaders?
Perhaps some of us here at TSOH can give the matter some critical thought.
I too recall that quite recent comment of Francis.
Francis I think mentioned something about not wanting to be 60 in 2060 and seeing the Philippines still behind.
The first time he came here I think 5 years or so ago, he said he was a student, so he might be 26 now.
People like him are an important target audience of this blog as most are older than forty already.
We can help the younger ones (under 40) in the Philippines understand what we experienced and know.
They will be the ones to implement it over time with knowledge from many sources including us.
Correct.
I hope my writings for the past three months will reach the young.
Yes it may be boring and AI assisted but at least they can see, judge and critique for themselves if it makes sense.
But I write freely using AI because there are no academic peer review to worry about.
What is important is, the blog owner has given leeway, but this may be AI output but in AI aside from Garbage in garbage out, stupid questions may or may not get stupid answers.