We remain poor due to poor attitude

William Esposo, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

A friend and colleague in the marketing and media world recently forwarded to me by email a PowerPoint presentation (its author unfortunately was unidentified but certainly deserved recognition for the observations) which explained so simply and so clearly why there are rich and poor countries. When the truth stares you in the face, it becomes a truly enlightening moment and one can only accept naturally. The presentation was so simple and yet so profound, I feel that I just have to share with my readers.

The gist of the presentation says:

"The difference between the poor and the rich countries is not the age of the country. This can be shown by countries like India and Egypt that are more than 2,000 years old and are poor. On the other hand, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that 150 years ago were inexpressive, today are developed countries and are rich.

The difference between poor and rich countries does not reside in the available natural resources. Japan has limited territory, 80 percent mountains, inadequate for agriculture and cattle raising, but it is the second world economy. Japan is like an immense floating factory, importing raw material from the whole world and exporting manufactured products.

Another example is Switzerland, which does not plant cocoa but has the best chocolate of the world. In its little territory they raise animals and plant the soil during four months per year. Not enough, they produce dairy products of the best quality. It is a small country that transmits an image of security, order and labor, which made it the world's strong safe.

Executives from rich countries who communicate with their counterparts in poor countries show that there is no significant intellectual difference. Race or skin color are also not important: Immigrants labeled as lazy in their countries of origin are the productive power in rich European countries.

The difference is the attitude of the people, framed by the education and the culture. On analyzing the behavior of the people in rich and developed countries, we find that the great majority follow the following principles in their lives: Ethics, as a basic principle, integrity, responsibility, respect for the law and rules, respect for the rights of other citizens, work loving, strive for saving and investment, will of super action and punctuality.

In poor countries, only a minority follow these basic principles in their daily life.

We are not poor because we lack natural resources or because nature was cruel to us. We are poor because we lack the attitude. We lack the will to comply with and teach these functional principles of rich and developed societies."

Though we are not inclined to absolve the failure of leadership in our country as the single biggest cause why we were left behind by our neighbors in Southeast Asia, when we used to be second only to Japan in economic performance in all of Asia, still it is not being truthful when we absolve ourselves of the blame either.

Bad leadership notwithstanding, it has been proved that a people with the right attitude and values can rise above their country's leadership failures and still progress.

The Chinese are a good example. Before Deng Hsiao Peng, China had problems with their leadership and was one of the most backward countries in Asia. The Thais too were not that well endowed with consistent good leadership and the long history of coups in that country in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s prove this. Yet Chinese Confucian work ethic and Thai stick-to-it-tivity somehow brought these two countries into their own share of achievement in Asia.

While it is true that in the case of China timely economic liberalization reforms prepared the ground for its phenomenal growth, still it cannot be taken away from the Chinese people that it is their efforts that made the giant economic strides possible. We have all those economic reforms in place since 1946 -- far longer than China enjoyed these since Deng introduced the reforms after Mao's era -- yet we have nothing to show for it.

The 2004 elections provide the country with an avenue by which we, the stockholders (voters), can opt to change the political landscape to one where the proper values will be allowed to prevail and bring us into the promised land. To do that, Filipinos must be able to discern who among the candidates represent that prospect for meaningful, sustainable change.

Those who can discern should try to reach out to those who have been brutalized by their neglect and poverty into now clinging to the empty lures of attractive personalities who we know cannot reverse the continued slide of the country. For indeed, our national situation has become so bad that the majority who need the reforms most are unable to sense who will truly deliver their real salvation from ignorance and poverty.

The irony of our sorry situation is that when the same Filipino is transported to another country where the rules are strictly followed and the said values are encouraged if one is to be accepted in that society -- our countrymen manage to adopt to the rules and the values! Given the opportunity there that they are deprived of here, they excel -- which is why Filipinos continue to be the preferred overseas worker in these countries.

We do have many things that should work well for us. We have the natural resources. We have the strategic location. We have the people. We even have good values which we altogether forget like our spirit of bayanihan.

What we lack is the right attitude. If we can change our attitude, changing our failed leadership and making democracy work become the least of our worries.