Lessons on labor “importation” from hiring dynamics in football

The World Cup kicks off today in Russia, and for the players who perform well, it could earn them a transformative move to a European club. Are these moves a boon for fans and development, or are they an example of how migration and money have gone too far?

But with only 11 players starting per football club, isn’t this a classic case of another migrant taking a job that would otherwise be done by a native? And isn’t the amount of money completely disproportionate to the talent? And what has football really got to do with real life?

Are footballers just a lump of labour?

In general, the idea that when migrants arrive they deprive a “native” of a job is a fallacy both theoretically (because the migrant’s consumption creates jobs) and empirically (because large influxes of migrants don’t increase unemployment). This is known as the “lump of labour fallacy.”

While it’s true that in football there are only 11 players in the starting line-up, the extra quality that migrants bring to a league attracts new supporters, which in turn creates new jobs on the playing staff (through bigger squads), in coaching, TV, and on the commercial side.

Pairing the best players with the biggest platforms makes sense for fans and players alike. The infrastructure of stadia, leagues, and television technology at the big clubs enable more fans to appreciate a player. This is the same as migration everywhere—pairing ability and commitment with the capital creates more output.

But aren’t players paid too much?

Top footballers do indeed earn too much because TV money is inflated by clubs’ market power. But while competition authorities allow football to generate huge sums, who other than the players deserve them? Their earnings largely reflect that so many of us are willing to pay to watch them, and television technology means that we can.
Take the Champions League final a fortnight ago between Liverpool and Real Madrid—similar past audiences were estimated at around 180 million people . If each subscriber paid €10, then the revenue would be €1.8 billion. Who deserves that? The stadium owners, the TV crew, presenter, and commentator need some—but it’s the players who create the spectacle. For 48 squad members, that’s over €37 million each.

These substantial financial rewards attract talent. They create incentives for Bale, Ronaldo, or Salah and their parents to devote their lives to practising football and tempt them away from other careers.

Science, football, and life

But what has all this got to do with real life? Surely football is just a sport. Football is unique because skill level is almost completely observable. So, talent is recognised and rewarded quickly. It’s clear that Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, and Maradona are the best—and even an amateur fan can see it. The best players are easy to spot and fans quickly accept them in their teams for the same reason.

Contrast this with talent in other sectors, like science or entrepreneurship. Imagine if the Pele of science was in Russia or Saudi Arabia. With the best equipment and colleagues, perhaps that scientist could cure cancer, or make the key breakthrough in mitigating climate change—but will he or she be spotted and allowed to move?

Top-level football is remarkably liberal when it comes to migration, and the world’s audience and players both reap the benefits.

World Cup 2018: The World’s Biggest Open Audition, Ian Mitchell, Center for Global Development

Advertisements

On the “ouster” of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

image

I don’t understand the hullabaloo over the “ouster” of Sereno as Chief Justice, which, thanks to media, is perceived by the general public as a “decidedly manipulative” move of the current administration. Well, bad news people the “ouster” isn’t wrong, not in the way you thought it.

In this country, the position of Chief Justice is an appointed position by no less than the President. On that note, if I’m appointed into a position, more so if it’s the highest and most coveted in my industry, I’d feel beholden to the person (or, committee) who appointed me. I’d feel very grateful toward that person. I’d bless that person every minute of my waking day. I’d swear loyalty to the person (even to his or her kin) who has power over my appointment. The dynamic, on the whole, mimics the relationship between creature and Creator. This is the nature of appointments.

On the other hand, if the person who appointed me is leaving the organization or moving away, I’d expect him or her to be responsible enough to discuss with me (including HR) my future with the organization. Does my appointment still stand, is it still valid, when he or she leaves? If not…well, these details should’ve been spelled out and mutually agreed on right from the start. Like, a prenup agreement. In the absence of a written agreement or specifics to that matter, the appointment is valid only until the term (or, whim) of the appointing party. Afterward, appointees are subject to the will of the wind.

In that situation, I won’t wait for when I’m told to my face to get out for lack of provision on continuity. I’d be proactive about it and go, grateful for the opportunity, deserving of it or not, to have been trusted with the position at all.

Sereno is an appointee of former President Noynoy Aquino who’s not exactly chummy with the current one (at least that’s what we know). Sereno, obviously, isn’t either.

Following the nature of appointments, the incumbent President has the prerogative to make his own set of appointments which as early cues have indicated doesn’t include Sereno. Solicitor General Calida’s accusation that Sereno didn’t comply with JBC’s requirements is moot given that it’s sufficient that the incumbent President by himself rescind or terminate his predecessor’s appointments which he does not honor or does not see serving the goals of his administration.

The real hullabaloo surrounding Sereno then should be about, (a) how come it is made to appear that Sereno is ousted by the current administration, (b) how come that Congress tagged along too justifying it’s involvement by Sereno’s lack of compliant SALNs, (c) how come that esteemed UP people wete too quick to launch #BabaeAko campaign implying that the case is a gender, and most confounding of all, (d) how come that Sereno played along with what apparently is a simple game of round robin? What do these strange bedfellows make of the Filipino nation by this – if I may call it – prank?

If there’s anybody who should be called in to enlighten the nation of why it deserved a Sereno, that would have to be the one who made the appointment. And, if there’s anybody who should be called in to enlighten the nation of why it doesn’t anymore deserve a Sereno, that would have to be the one who is presently making the appointments. These two should at least have the balls to proactively make a stand for their choices. The rest need to shut up.

Yet, the most crucial issue remains: why is the position of Chief Justice a mere appointment? Is this inscribed in the Constitution? Well, it is stupid. Foolish. And it doesn’t make sense. It’s inconsistent for the Constitution to say that the person in the position is unimpeachable when she is an appointee. How would an appointee, who owes her job and position not to hard work but to somebody who has favored her with it, imbibe the objectivity of Lady Justice? The people shouldn’t even expect it. How could her co-Justices, who are not appointees but are there as a result of hard work, not resent her appoinment? How would a Supreme Court that’s headed by a Presidential appointee and divided because of this truly fulfill it’s role as an institution independent of the Executive Office?

These are the real issues that continue to eat at the country, which media, if it’s still in it’s right mind, ought to make news of.

To be truly independent, and unimpeachable, the Chief Justice ought to come to the position through objective and fair means, a point system perhaps showing beyond doubt that he or she is the most deserving among his or her peers. Or, actually why not have the CJ elected in keeping with the two branches of government wherein the elect are accountable to the people (although we’re also having problems with this concept). Then, every good and persistent lawyer out there has a fighting chance. Then, Chief Justices are the products of a rational system rather than of politics gone wrong.

SK and Barangay Elections 2018: eeny, meeny, miny, moe

Eenie, meenie, miney, moe,
Catch a tiger by the toe.
If he hollers, let him go.
My mother said to pick
The very best one
And you are not it.

When the Sangguniang Kabataan and Barangay Local Government Unit elections were postponed for what seemed like indefinitely public expectation in general was that a plan toward improvement of the two institutions, the SK and the Barangay LGU, was in the works. But, here we are today with the holding of local elections come Monday, 14 May, and except for the one or two push messages from Globe and National Telecommunications Commission reminding subscribers of the ban on campaigns done in specific ways and places, nothing. It’s the same saba all over again. To this, you could hear the people going what else is new?

Use your vote

Is there anything more that could be done about the situation?

The general belief and attitude among Filipino voters toward government is that the President has all the answers to their problems therefore has all the power to change the country’s ills. This cloths him or her in God-like omnipotence. Not only is this understanding absurd and dangerous in democracies like the Philippines, it also ignores and does away with local government, that level of government having the most impact on the lives of the people.

In 2018 and beyond, therefore

  1. We want SK and Barangay officials who have in their minds if not their hearts the best interest of the people in the villages.
  2. We want local authorities who are efficient and effective managers (meaning, they get things done on time according to plan or public expectations) or at least learning and striving to become efficient and effective managers of their villages. We want local authorities who are leaders that don’t cower in the presence of top brass when arguing that top-down policies and actions are not helping the people and communities.
  3. We want local authorities who source their passion from the people that put them there and not from the promise of money, fame, and power.

We do not care for local authorities who appear on our doorsteps camouflaged as sheep (when they really are goats), as tigers (when they really are hyenas), or as owls (when they really are bats), and when voted upon based on these mistaken identities conveniently forget vows and promises made (“er, that was the tiger talking”). We are so fucking sick of and done with their kind.

But what if it’s the same faces and names that we don’t care for? That’s the conundrum in Monday’s elections, see? Power is underhandedly taken from the people who are inevitably left with little or no choice. The other option is electoral boycott for, well, want of public preparation. But imagine the chaos that could ensue. Who now wants chaos? Then again are we not already living in a silent, waiting kind of chaos? Suppose federalism pushes through in the near future, we’ll be seeing again the same authorities elected on Monday.

Livelihood programmes:  a comedy of sorts

​In the days and months after the Sri Lankan civil war ended in 2009, aid groups wasted little time.

Many women had been on the front lines, fighting among the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Now, these groups decided, those women needed a healthy dose of “empowerment.”

In development circles, the word “empowerment” has become synonymous with an income stream. So the organizations offered the women opportunities to take sewing classes or attend beauty school. “These are women who had joined an armed movement because of their political ideals,” said Kate Cronin-Furman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School who studies human rights and mass atrocities. “And they were being sent to learn cake-making.”

A lot of these programs were actually disempowering, Cronin-Furman found. They kept women at home, disconnected from their networks and from opportunities to organize. One government official told Cronin-Furman that despite years of training programs, she had never seen any of the women earn a living from these skills. “It’s not just that they failed to help,” Cronin-Furman said. “It’s that it actually made them worse off, cutting them off from political power.”

Aid groups say they’re ’empowering’ women with cows and chickens. They’re not., Amanda Erickson, The Washington Post

Precisely. This reminds me of Angat Kabuhayan a national livelihood programme implemented by the Office of the Vice President. Apart from it (1) reeking of bad politics, that is, an obvious PR tactic to endear the VP to the people (the natural outcome of the VP’s name, face, and person going around localities to launch this and that livelihood project), (2) use of public and donated funds as if it’s personal money by attaching the VP’s name instead of the Filipino people’s or donors’ names as programme owner, and (3) which compels people to ask what’s the country’s VP doing livelihood projects when the VP ought to be strategic, provide oversight to the national legislative agenda, and assist the President considering they’re both the current Administration ie. the Duterte-Robredo Administration? (in short, lend the Office of the VP the respect and credibility it should), the Angat Kabuhayan is another replication of the numerous livelihood projects of various government agencies. DSWD has it’s SL or Sustaimable Livelihood Programme (apart from livelihood projects attached to it’s 4Ps). DOLE has it’s Livelihood Integrated Program / Kabuhayan Program. DILG, it’s own (why the Department of Interior funds village association-level livelihood projects behooves me. Truly only in da Philippinesfunded through the Bottom-Up Budgeting process. The LGUs as well have their own. And we’re not mentioning here those by the I/NGO community that’s come to billions worth through the years. The question regardless is, to what extent have all these livelihood projects contributed over time to regional and national GDP? It is apparent, without a PSA-type impact survey to know, that it’s been minimal, and what’s been stimulating growth ie. consumption instead are OFWs’ regular remmittances from abroad. 

Livelihood is alright but only as a stop-gap intervention. It’s always been a stop-gap intervention, intended to transition skills-, resource-, or capital-poor households from hand-to-mouth existence as when on top of production training they’re taught basics of accounting and saving, but agencies and organizations looked at livelihood as the miracle cure to poverty and the direct path to immediate wealth. But how is that when, in the first place, majority of livelihood project beneficiaries do not own the land they built their houses on and till so that no matter the tools given them, be these in the form of carabaos, goats, chickens, hoes, and loads of training, if they cannot decide on their own how to appropriate the land and enhance it according to their needs, as well as if they also lack mobility (essentially cash and networks to be able to relocate to a better place) these tools will eventually come to naught as when granaries built for them free turned into dance halls if not white elephants. Carabaos, goats, and chickens are butchered one by one and eaten for dinner by money-strapped and near-starving beneficiaries. Livelihood has never been the engine of economic growth. It’s not now, in this fast-globalizing and hyper-paced world.

The other argument against livelihood as the miracle cure to poverty especially when it involves public funds is fairness and justice given that many of these projects are dole-outs to individuals and families who are identified by contestible measurements because they filter out the more economically poor. For example, how is providing ten heads of goats to a farmer-household on leased land while withhelding intervention to a woman-headed household whose house is on public land fair and just? Livelihood projects in these instances overlook the systemic causes of poverty thus perpetuating these dynamics and so no matter the interventions the community, overall, ends up as poorly, forever in circles. Moreover, it’s painful for a taxpayer who is, say, paying off a mortgage at the same time putting the children to school and struggling to sustain medical needs of elderly parents, to reconcile with the fact that one is working one’s butt off just so for government to decide, oh, hey, there’s one family (out of 10M) we’d grant a capital fund for a sari-sari store. If it was a personal choice, the taxpayer would just as soon hand the tax amount from the year’s earnings to his ailing and widowed neighbor.

It would seem livelihood projects are to keep the mass of poor people busy never mind if what they’re busy at has, without their knowing it, gone bust even before it could take off. We wouldn’t want them to congregate into an angry mob, chant insensible things, destroy public property, and maybe if they’re lucky, overthrow an administration because they’ve got nothing else to do, would we? So keep them happy and busy raising pigs (without a market).

What the country need to further stimulate, support, and take advantage of right now, any economist would tell you, is entrepreneurship. And entrepreneurship is essentially about owning “intangible resources” as for instance the ability to visualize a clear vision of the livelihood or business you want and to communicate this as clearly and convincingly thus compel others eg. investors, consumers to latch onto and actually build your vision. Traditional livelihood on the other hand is about other people eg. governmeent, I/NGOs going to you to tell you that what you need to get yourself rungs up the ladder is, say, weaving. They then get into your head by painting a very rosy picture of you and your woven products that are unique in all the world they’ve caught the eye of the global market…and millions in exchange. What’s funny in this is (1) it’s the outsider-vision peddlers who are really the entrepreneurs and the beneficiaries the “consumer-victims” (for lack of an appropriate term), and (2) the “promise” of producing a “one-of-a-kind” product hence profit is however undermined or negated even before the beneficiaries have started with their weaving business because of funders’ decision to distribute 1,000 weaving kits which is all the households in the neighborhood.
The fair and just approach to poverty alleviation, aside from the support of entrepreneurship, is a social insurance system comparable to the Nordic countries’. We have a system but is still far from being fair and just. For one, many of the poor remain outside of the SSS and PhilHealth system which begs the question whatever happened to the “registration of indigents” that LGUs are supposed to oversee? It should’ve been completed by now.

Another is the upgrade of basic and adult education. The K12 that we have has turned out as an embarrassment to the study and profession of ‘public education’. The children no less are being shortchanged as a result. This conversation can start with the lack of and poor content quality of textbooks. Also, to have a significant number of illiterate adults at this time and age when technology is all around is the saddest thing for a country. The ALS program need to be re-designed for relevance in today’s workplace. But, in order for such innovations to be recognized and adopted, the public education system need to loosen up, meaning, to become flexible and agile.

And one more, land. How could the poor own land without being pushed to do the usual violence, or becoming victims of violence?  The right to own land is a human right, right? The concern is within libertarian aspirations thus ought to be the priority project of the Liberal Party. On the other hand, if the Communist Party is the one yakking about the poor owning land we ought to know this goes against communism (wherein resource ownership is communal) and is an indication of disjuncture within and among the Parties. Who are each of them yakking for really? ‘Me’, again?

In sum, what I’m saying is re-appropriate the amount targeted for livelihood projects instead to strategic high-impact programmes and initiatives. This implies a more efficient governance framework as programme redundancy is eliminated because then government and I/NGOs are talking to each other and agencies and organizations focus on producing and delivering their comparative advantages.

The one lesson Filipinos have yet to learn going forward

Unity quote

We thwart the one who’s leading us. We wilfully disobey. We insist that our way is the only way. We don’t take well to suggestion or correction. Our pride and pocket hurting, we push the one who’s leading us into the waters and look for a puppet to replace the one who we’ve felled. But what does our history tell us? With or without a leader, whether he’s or she’s a puppet or dictator, highly educated or not, professional or actor, reluctant or eager to take the reins, each Filipino is rowing his or her own way.

Do we want to move forward to modernization? Then we need to sacrifice today. Modernization of transportation should’ve been done eons ago but it didn’t happen and when the government did make one commies were successful in thwarting the plan by labeling it as “anti poor”. BS! (Or, should I say what else do we expect from that ideology?) Thanks to them the problem of outmoded transportation has again overtaken us, now, together with an altogether new generation of commuters riddled with the result of past inaction.

Earth’s time space is forward (not backward) moving hence it’s inevitable that any change in our world is going to be in the form of improved versions of yesterday’s. Anybody who’s conscious of this fact yet insists otherwise, in effect wishing the nation and country to stay unimproved like the vineyard worker who instead buried the talents given him, is obviously a painter of an anti-human progress narrative, an anti-God.

In this day of advanced communication and planning models a smart transport union or association will not hijack the needs of the community just because they can (although such a capacity was rendered irrelevant with Malacanan declaring nationwide two-day suspension of classes and work). The group should’ve come up yesteryears pa sana with it’s side of the modernization plan and asked to speak and negotiate with authorities. That’s the win-win move. That’s business with a brain. That’s business with a strategy. That’s business with responsibility.

Members of Congress who publicly oppose the modernization plan thereby adding fire to the misdirected protest and undermining authority should be held accountable for sheer rebelliousness against a lawful order which eventually benefits the country and nation no less the jeepney drivers (because then with improved green-compliant jeeps the dagdag pamasahe they’re demanding every year or so is justified.

Iconic jeepney by thecolorofred

We Filipinos are crazy for agreeing, out of awa, to pay more and more for crap facilities and lousy service. Awa in these instances are misplaced.).

Something beautiful

Displaced persons Marawi City
photo via Philippine Inquirer

We are all trying to change
what we fear into something beautiful

Peace is, ultimately, that ‘something beautiful’. Toward that, interim initiatives like rehabilitation and redevelopment of destroyed homelands need to be done. Another, repatriation of displaced persons and refugees. Yet another, preparing the displaced, psychologically, mentally, and economically, for their eventual return. And, on a continuing timeframe, respect for differences extremely difficult or impossible to change in oneself more so in others (eg. gender, race, religion, history) and not forgetting that at the bottom of it all we all belong to the same specie. The framework for human relationships then is one that should seek to promote collective resilience not to hasten destruction of the specie.

A reckoning

Zero-based budgeting is a management practice that was introduced and popularized by Peter Pyhrr in the 1970s.

Most budgeting processes – especially in large firms – are based on questions of whether a particular department or function will get more or less money than they did the previous year.

Managers will use last year as a baseline and argue for where they think they should get more, or haggle with their boss and the finance department if they’re told they’ll get less.

Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) asks everyone to start afresh each budget period, and so managers must build up all of their costs for the next period and submit that as their budget. It can help finance teams and the managers they work with take a fresh and comprehensive look at how funds are used and reallocate resources to the most profitable activities.

Indeed, US presidential hopeful and former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina suggests the US administration adopt ZBB .

Myth #2: ZBB budget cycles are excruciatingly long

The truth: ZBB is fundamentally designed to force managers to think hard about how to fund every function or every program within his or her control, and then document, analyze, and prioritize which ones will get funding and which ones will not.

So ZBB should take significantly longer than the traditional approach. But not according to CEB data: the average traditional budget cycle time is 69 working days, and ZBB is just marginally longer at 74 working days.

Myth #3: ZBB is a budgeting approach

The truth: ZBB is a more of a mindset than a process. Companies that are best at managing ZBB set a strong tone from the top that this is a shift in strategy versus an introduction of a new process. A zero-based mentality must permeate the day-to-day conversations that finance teams have with business partners, and that business partners have amongst themselves.

3 Myths of Zero-Based Budgeting, Gartner Inc.

Congress may have unwittingly introduced ZBB in government budgeting, starting with the CHR, ERC, and NCIP, with PHP1,000 each. This is consistent with the past administration’s financial reform of performance-based incentives among goverment employees: poor or no performance, no incentive. It’s just fair. Plus, ZBB does away with politically-motivated “priority lists”.

With CHR, one can see that, in going over it’s functions, it’s work on the following, for example, has not translated into significant change:

  1. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
  2. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
  3. Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families.

The state of jails all over the country will break anyone’s heart. They are no place for humans. What has CHR been doing to facilitate change in this? We don’t see any third party reports.

National broadcast media have been indiscriminately showing to the public, practically anyone with a TV and internet connection, video recordings of CCTVs to bone up their news about who they report as crimimals. This is illegal, the very basis of anti-CCTV arguments because it intrudes on the right to privacy and protection from judgment without proper and fair trial. What is even more disturbing is how were they given access to the recordings, and why did owners of the CCTV system in the Metro think they’re doing the public a good turn by giving access to citizens’ data to third parties? But, above all, despite these disturbing practices there has been no word, admonition to the media companies, from CHR.

And, instead of joining members of Congress in hurling accusations left and right which they have no intention of following up in court, inadvertently revealing that the accusations are only meant to rile up public sentiments, the public has not heard news about CHR recommending, in a non-combative stance, effective policy measures to promote human rights in the country as a result of research it regularly undertakes.

I’ve read CHR reports for Philippines, publicly available on the UN site, and most in them are motherhood statements that are too-associated with campaigns pushed by personalities. came by it’s 2016 report in which there’s this statement

The government generally respected the privacy of its citizens, although leaders of communist and leftist organizations and rural-based NGOs alleged routine surveillance and harassment.

My god. We’re not a communist country so of course groups that are a threat to a republic will be routinely surveilled. What does CHR want? For this nation to give up a hard-earned republic? CHR people need to remember that for every right acted on, a corresponding right is withheld. By protecting the right of communist groups to take to the streets, you deprive the right of democracy-loving citizens of security. Where does CHR stand, with the voice of communism or of democracy? In any case, I was looking for a human rights-based analysis in the reports. Let’s take the right to basic education. The quality standards of this right include, quality, access, and availability.  How is the quality of teaching, learning materials, school infrastructures, and the like? To what extent are school-aged children have access to schools? To what extent are schools available to school-aged children? To what extent is DepEd allocating resources to uphold these standards?

As to IEC on human rights, they don’t show up unless invited (meaning,     expenses are paid for by the inviting party). This says so much about who their clientele are. What about the masses, the poor communities whose rights have long been overlooked and/or stepped upon? There have been no initiatives from CHR, for example, of launching a caravan of human rights educators and counselors traveling the entire year to every nook and corner unreached by electricity, television, radio, or telephone. If this will take them to rebel or guerilla lairs, well and good because these communities need to have a good shakeup around human rights issues. Christian missionaries, private citizens, were brave enough to take the road less travelled in order to educate communities not even government has reached. This should inspire CHR- to make it their mission to educate each and every Filipino on their human rights. But, none.

Same with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). In 2005, ADB released it’s Sector Assistance Program Evaluation of ADB Assistance to Philippines Power Sector report from which the following risk assessment is lifted:

Fast forward to 12 years, now, the state of power facilities and supply lag behind ASEAN member-countries. The sector remain controlled by just a few the reason they are incentivized to dictate the price. And what has ERC done about this?

Lastly, what is this PHP1Billion budget the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) wants from taxpayers? The Philippines is probably among the countries populated with multiple ethnic minorities. Cordillerans probably have a better deal, with each ethnic group having it’s own territorial land where they basically could practice their own unique culture and governance practices. Still fundamental issues common to IPs remain: titling, poverty, recognition of their language, beliefs, and practices, ownership to indigenous inventions eg. farming technology, seeds propagation, medicines, art, music, lierature. Of the latter, NCIP could have assisted the IP communities set up a kind of community savings from royalties received from use of patented inventions. But, none. Little is known about the IPs in this country and they remain misunderstood and hidden. If not for a private individual who popularized “carrot man” many Filipinos would’ve remained ignorant of the “normal” features of “carrot people”.

So, yes, PHP1,000…until these agencies come up with the one critical thing they will do this year and show results for. 

On the plan to build a new Marawi City

Coordination for the City’s rehabilitation is said to be led by ADB and the World Bank. I don’t know what their terms of reference as lead coordinators entail but I’m sure Filipinos prefer to have a national body or institution in the lead. Marawi City is not just a city, it’s a heritage city (as Aleppo is in the Muslim world). For this reason alone, the City’s rehabilitation should be fronted by insiders. Planning and actual rehabilitation should involve or integrate input from City residents especially the Moro people. In fact, visioning exercises can already start now with the temporarily-displaced inside evacuation centers in Iligan City and elsewhere, for them to also get their minds off despair and on productive and hopeful thoughts. Peace-building could be embedded as a strategy into the rehabilitation which should bring to the table the GOP, MNLF, MILF, civil society, private sector, and urban planning experts. This project could be implemented as a pilot project to test the operational workability of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (rather than have Congress again bore citizens to death by arguing theoretically whether or not BBL works).

On Headstart, in June, I watched the interview with Senator Gordon about the plan to rebuild Marawi City. He said that a tourism hub is what comes to his mind. This is the thing, whether or not Marawi will become a tourism city should be an offshoot of the planning process with City residents not what politicians want. Says who? you might ask. Says lessons learned.

I’m really excited for the rebuilding of Marawi City. When I told my host organization I’m interested to take part in it, they exclaimed “are you planning on committing suicide?” I didn’t expect the reaction. But my primary motive is, I’d like to put my urban management knowledge into practice, to help ensure that the foundation of the rehab plan is anchored on input from locals/residents. It’d be similar to an architect or interior designer getting the clients’ vision of their dream house and giving expert suggestions as to the best way to put the dream together and then render that on paper and eventually onto the actual space. In other words, to transpose this creative process – collab – in planning the new Marawi City (in contrast with the usual practice of urban planning in this country which is developer-led or largely the playground of real estate developers which does nothing to bridge the gaping divide between the haves and have-nots of this country).

It is said “war in Mindanao is a business” the reason why conflict is sustained which benefits the architects and actors of such a business. It is also the reason why Mindanaoans in general are wary and distrusting of external initiatives that promise peace and stability. Sincerity is needed, for once, and the opportunity to demonstrate that has presented itself once again this time in Marawi City. Let’s not lose it (like we did with Tacloban City post-Haiyan).

war torn city via livejournal