for everyone |
Vow of poverty or voluntary simplicity? - During these hard times I have tried asking some old folks to compare life during the so-called “Japanese Occupation” with life as we know it these days. Invariably the answer I would get is that life under the dreaded Japanese Kempetai may have been difficult and scary but people were never hungry. Food was scarce but there was always enough to eat. There were no thieves or robbers either, or they were simply beheaded. Nowadays, there’s plenty of food but people just don’t have the money to buy food. Many go to bed hungry, and not because they are figure-conscious either. Nowadays, you risk being stabbed by holduppers, bag snatchers or shot by carnappers and bank robbers who seem to get bolder and more desperate every minute. As if life were not difficult enough as it is, the current regime has to insult our intelligence by spending millions of tax money on its inane “damang-dama” TV commercials insisting that life today is just fine and dandy, nay, even better than it has ever been. When will our clever government propagandists ever learn that “you can fool some of the people some time, but...”
Immediately after WWII, as London lay in ruins, ravaged by Hitler’s ruthless bombing raids, John Maynard Keynes, a respected British economist, was heard to have remarked:
“We are a poor country. And we must learn to live accordingly.”
On the other hand, soon after the EDSA revolution, a minor government functionary, criticized for his rather profligate lifestyle, was quoted as uttering the now infamous line:
“We are a rich country, pretending to be poor.”
We don’t need any World Bank official to remind us that the Philippines is a “heavily indebted” country, saddled by a huge, insurmountable foreign debt that keeps on growing and compounding, pre-empting and appropriating almost 60% of our annual budget. We are classified by the G8 creditors either as a “highly impoverished” or “moderately impoverished” third-world country, bunched up with some miserable nations in Africa, Central America, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc. On our own, we could not afford to build any more new roads or bridges, hospitals and government buildings which would require massive capital expenditure, unless we again borrow more money; thereby sinking us deeper and deeper in debt. And don’t ever think for a moment that we can just simply turn our backs and refuse to pay such foreign debts. These super-rich creditor countries did not become rich by being stupid. Their lawyers made sure that they got us by the balls, if you’ll pardon the expression.
Now, with the latest so-called oil crisis, we have further realized that we are also at the mercy of OPEC which effectively dictates the prices of all other commodities in the marketplace. They only have to decide to raise the price per barrel of oil and automatically our money loses 10- 12% of its value. Neither do we have any control whatsoever over currency exchange rates which are easily manipulated by so-called currency exchange players, notably a Hungarian speculator-investor who acts and whose name sounds like some Greek god. He can fool around with any third-world currency, including ours of course, any time he gets out of bed and decides he wants to make a few million dollars that morning, as his aerobics exercise.
The bottom line (a favorite catchphrase of most CEOs) is that, for all intents and purposes, we don’t own this country any more than we did during the Spanish or American regimes. We have managed to hock every known asset and resource in the country so that the only way the government can continue to operate is to follow the bidding of these creditor countries and legislate tax measures that will ensure that they get paid back. Otherwise, believe it or not, they can simply and literally shut us down. Ask Argentina… or, the IMF.
For us, the bottom line, to borrow the expression, is a phenomenon we might as well call the Philippine diaspora. We are now engaged in a massive manufacturing and export processing industry, i.e., manufacturing OFWs and exporting them all over the world. Our OFWs, euphemistically if deceptively referred to as our modern-day heroes, have left home, country, spouses and children in exchange for their badly-needed dollar remittances.
Okay, so what’s your point? Why paint such a grim picture? But, that is precisely the whole point. I’m not painting the picture. I am merely viewing the picture. It is staring us in the face. And, unless we face up to it, unless we accept the reality of the situation, we will continue to delude ourselves by insisting that “we are a rich country, pretending to be poor.”
So, let’s stop kidding ourselves. Let’s start by adopting that sensible Keynesian premise.
“We are an impoverished country. And, we must learn to live accordingly.”
I believe that the most logical place to start is to start with ourselves. Let’s stop blaming our government leaders and the next fellow. It simply does not work. I realize as well as the next fellow that VAT hurts, that the government should be spending less, or should be less corrupt. It’s useless. If you think this is an apologia for Ate Glo, you are wrong. It’s called OPM, “other people’s money;” otherwise known as easy money, freely to be spent. Ask Milton Friedman. Instead, let’s try the old-fashioned “walking the talk” or doing by example. If we are lucky, who knows, maybe we might eventually convince or shame our leaders as well as the next fellow to follow suit.
Let’s start by accepting that these are hard times. Hard times require self-sacrifice, belt-tightening, spending less, consuming less and saving more. We can write a whole thesis on the Japanese consumption and savings habits but the bottom line is that the household savings rate of the Japanese is largely responsible for that country’s phenomenal economic recovery, in the postwar years and in the 1990s. In that sense, it is respectfully submitted that the doctrine of consumerism as purportedly promoting economic growth is illusory.
As a regular mall rat myself, how often have I observed many families of OFWs freely and carelessly spending (with a vengeance) in the malls every time they receive their so-called “allotment,” blissfully oblivious of the fact that the money came literally from the blood, sweat and tears of their dollar-earner slaving away abroad. Tsk, tsk, I say to myself, these poor people simply will not be denied.
During the height of the oil crisis, did we observe any noticeable change in our driving habits or attitudes? Did we adopt any massive, aggressive, systematic carpooling measures, for instance, effectively to counter the exploitative posturings of the greedy oil companies? Did we see a great mass of the population suddenly beating the sidewalks and refusing en masse to drive their new cars which they acquired on credit, albeit the downpayment was interest-free? I don’t believe so. Instead, we engaged in that typical Filipino exercise: we simply tried to grin and bear it. But we went on and about our old, extravagant ways. We would simply not be denied.
Of course, it’s not as if we have not faced hardships before. If anything, the Filipino is virtually inured to hardship. Since time immemorial, we have been an oppressed people. It is clear that there is no such thing as a benevolent colonizer, be they Spanish, American, Japanese, Portuguese, etc. “Api tayo sa mundo.” Maybe that’s why God loves us so much (and vice versa). When Gen. MacArthur returned to the Philippines, as he had promised, he did so with a vengeance. American bomber planes called B-29s bombed and bombarded every nook and cranny where the Japanese enemy was known to be hiding, in a wartime strategy they graphically referred to as “carpet-bombing.” In my own lifetime, I cannot imagine any more difficult period than immediately after that war (WWII). Hence, enshrined in our Civil Code, which was enacted a few years after that war, is a wise little provision which unfortunately has apparently been all but forgotten. At any rate, Art. 25 of the Civil Code solemnly states that:
“Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of the government or private charitable institutions.”
Incidentally, there is a similar legal standard mandated in a more recent legislation grandiosely known and referred to as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” (Rep. Act No. 6713), otherwise known as “The Saguisag Law,” which inter alia declares that:
Simple Living. – Public officials and employees shall lead lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.”
However, as experience has sadly shown, simple living as a lifestyle cannot be legislated, in the same manner that a dictator cannot compel the people to love him. It requires a complete and voluntary change of attitude, almost approximating a religious or moral reformation.
Some years ago, Melinda Q. de Jesus, a respected columnist of the old Manila Bulletin (no INQUIRER yet then), whom I will be quoting, wrote about an alternative lifestyle advocated by a group called the “Social Development Index.” I’m not sure if they’re still around. It was called “voluntary simplicity.” I thought back then, as I still do, that it made a lot of sense. Of course, as the term implies, it’s not an easy thing to do. I cannot do justice to the program by merely mentioning it here. You would have to study it yourself, or better yet, to try it out. At any rate, it speaks of an attempt to work out alternatives in various aspects, such as, food, children’s education, family life, celebrations, clothing and other basic needs.
The actual expression of this commitment involves a personal breakthrough, a change in attitude and mental patterns, a conscious and deliberate shedding of the clutter, the distractions, the pretenses that weigh down the learning, the relating, the work and the creativity. Soon enough one discovers that the ‘things’ one thought of as so necessary have little to do with the sense of fulfillment and joyful rewards we all seek. On the other hand, “voluntary simplicity does not take you to a commune or a pastoral hut. It is not turning away from progress, nor isolation or withdrawal from the world.” Hear, hear, Sr. Alice.
Simplicity as a way of life is unlike involuntary poverty. It is consciously chosen. It liberates, elevates and fosters personal autonomy and creative enrichment. Richard Gregg, a student in Harvard who live in India under Ghandi’s tutelage, wrote in 1936, “it means an ordering of our energy, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure greater abundance of life in other directions.”
Such a lifestyle is not without its political implications. One obvious equation: by consuming less, a person cuts down his dependence on exploitative production that dehumanizes large numbers of people all over the world. For the most part, however, the focus is on the private domain, the personal sphere where one can begin to initiate slow but meaningful change.
“We believe that the life in Nazareth can be lived again; to have simple dreams; and that these dreams are not for ourselves alone but for the persons we work for and work with; to choose a simple house with simple furnishings; to be happy to live in a simple neighborhood; building relationships with the people who live near us; not to be ashamed to be materially poor; but satisfied with the material goods which our earnings can afford to meet our basic necessities; to choose work which allows us to be of better service to others, especially the poor, rather than one which will offer money, gains, position, prestige, or power; to choose simple but nutritious food, remembering that many people do not have enough to eat and are often hungry; to play and recreate in simple, inexpensive ways, enjoying the riches of nature; the laughter of children at play; to remain faithful to family meetings where there is sharing of experience in school, at work, with friends; and that these events in our lives are seen in the light of the Gospel; to take new paths in our careers and not to follow what the world seems to recognize as successful – thereby opening ourselves to being seen as fools or failure; believing instead that success is not and cannot be found in the values of an acquisitive society; to establish and treasure deep personal relationships with people who come our way; and find deep joy in the riches of friendship, self-giving and service; not to take our lives too seriously; but to have time for fun and laughter, and mistakes.”
Does it sound a little like the Beatitudes or the kind of vow a religious might take -AMDG? Nevermind that it sure does. Indeed, one might consider adopting voluntary simplicity in lieu of the old vow of poverty. Just as a religious might choose voluntary “purity of heart” in lieu of compulsory celibacy. But that’s a subject for another blog. JAMES L.
Kuya, thanks for your insightful and sensible observations and suggestions. On a related matter, those who follow calorie restriction (eating nutritious but sparing or simple meals) will generally have longer and more healthful lives. Remember many of the SVD fathers who lived long, healthy and simple lives. Just a side matter or just curious, when you said you asked some old folks, were you having seances?
|
tomranada said
 Kuya, thanks for your insightful and sensible observations and suggestions. On a related matter, those who follow calorie restriction (eating nutritious but sparing or simple meals) will generally have longer and more healthful lives. Remember many of the SVD fathers who lived long, healthy and simple lives. Just a side matter or just curious, when you said you asked some old folks, were you having seances? 
As usual, Kuya, you are so delightfully perceptive. My mistake, really. I should have said "my contemporaries." To be very honest, one old woman I interviewed was already in her 90s! I can assure you her mental faculties were even better than yours, he, he.
|
Vow of poverty or voluntary simplicity? I'm reminded of Jules Feiffer. He said something that somehow helps me anchor my heart to reality. With additional words I inserted, he said: I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn't poor, I was needy. In fact, I went on to become destitute and impoverished. They told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy or destitute or impoverished; I was deprived. Only to learn later on that I was indigent, impecunious, penurious, broke. Then they told me even "underprivileged" was overused. I was disadvantaged. I was marginalized. I still don't have a dime, but I have now a great vocabulary.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if they will add "Jumping to Confusion" as a new Olympic sports. Malaki ang chance nating mga Pinoy na manalo sa game na 'to. Sports-minded kasi tayo. Di ba ang salitang "sports" sa Tagalog ay "palakasan"? Marami ngayon ang mga Pinoy na magagaling pero unemployed o underemployed dahil dyan. Dati, dalawa lang ang classification ng mga Pinoy - the "right" and the "left". Okay, okay, mayroong "center" sa right and left, pero dumami nang dumami ang "nothing left". Napakasakit, Kuya Eddie. At ang akala ko pa naman, archipelago ang tawag sa Pinas because 60% of the country is covered by water. Hindi pala. . . 75% pala is covered by mortgages. And, as an aside, sa umpisa, na-confuse din ako when you used the word "jumble"; I thought you were talking about basketball. Ano kaya ang masasabi ni Confucius sa confusion na ito, Kuya?
|
Kuya, I have an idea. Why don't I submit a draft of my blogs to you before I finally hit the "SUBMIT" button. Your insights and comments somehow provide interesting dimensions to my otherwise unpolished work. I believe between the two of us, we can have a few bases covered. Who knows, if we're lucky, we might hit a homerun. Needless to say, your E.R.A. will be properly acknowledged. So far, XVDs have a great tendency to operate in isolation, thus creating an archipelago of primitive information islands. Tnx agn
|
I'm locked in now to the Beijing Olympics. The opening night was truly a showcase of dazzling science, art, and management working in unison -- from the very dramatic lighting of the olympic torch, to the unbelievable architecture of the "bird's nest" stadium and the other games venues, to the spectacular fireworks. There was no paucity of imagination. We can expect more fusion of science, art, and management from the athletes themselves as the next 16 days unfold. Something struck me. Could this be an olympian statement that perhaps poverty is a function of imagination? Are people poor because they don't utilize their power of imagination? And simplicity? It's true that it's a choice that has its own value. Ford's counsel is that it is not what we earn but what we save that creates wealth for us. But Einstein is said to have remarked that we should "be simple but not simpler". If we can only learn how simple "simple" should be and how simpler "simpler" can be. . .
Science, art, management, and imagination . . . shouldn't they march along with Christian values for brothers to sincerely work as a team to improve their brothers' lot? . . . |
elmersarmiento wrote on Aug 10, '08
Deficit spending saved the U.S.from economic ruins. Spending for war also made the U.S. a world power. I think simplicity has to be balanced by selective consumption. Although short-lived, the highest GNP growth in the Philippines in the last 5 years was during the last election. Spending was the key to growth. Of course, spending should be worthwhile with an objective of economic returns. Just my simple input on the subject at hand, James.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment