My last article
got me accused of being too anti-Filipino for my stand against giving
poor Filipinos the opportunity to get a university degree. I was told
that to deny the poor Filipinos the same opportunity that I had, to get
to where I am in life right now, is not only cruel but also unpatriotic.
Education will pave the way to uplift the lives of many poor Filipinos
and ultimately the country, as claimed by my critic. In addition, the
fact that I chose to contribute my skills and knowledge for the benefit
of another country instead of the Philippines, where I benefitted from
public education, makes me a traitor to the Philippines. I submit that
too much idealism and patriotism is non-sense.
First let me be clear. I am not about denying the poor Filipinos the
opportunity for higher education. What I am against is the State funding
of higher education (for the poor or otherwise). The opportunity is
always there. Financial constraint is merely a roadblock but it isn’t a
show-stopper. There are other avenues one can take to get to a
destination. State funding of higher education does not necessarily have
to be the only avenue for the poor. Anyway, going back to the topic of
my “treason”, I am reminded of a Youtube video that went viral a few
years ago showing Professor Winnie Monsod’s last lecture prior to her
retirement from the University of the Philippines in Diliman. Here is
the video: http://youtu.be/sF3yPcqO6gE
When I first viewed the video, I was entertained by the Professor’s
way of teaching her students an ideal she holds very dearly. If I was
one of the students in her class, I would have been quite attentive
because of the energy and humor of her litany. Nevertheless, although I
admire the Professor’s delivery, I do not support her contention as I do
not see any solid philosophical and moral ground on her arguments nor
do I see any sense in heeding her call on a pragmatic view.
The fundamental question, I guess, to ask is: “Do
Philippine public scholars have a moral obligation to stay in the
Philippines and use the knowledge they have acquired from public schools
to benefit the country that supported their education?”
To ponder on this question, I would like to use an analogy that is
simple yet close to our senses – the relationship of parents and
children. With this, of course I am equating the Philippine government
as the parent and Philippine public school scholars as the children.
Most parents value and love their children. As a parent myself, I
want the best for my kids. So I work and invest time, money, and energy
on ventures that would result in the greatest benefit for my family,
especially my kids. Is this an admirable “selfless” thing of me? Well,
it is admirable but I do not think it is entirely “selfless” although
there is a great deal of work on my part for the benefit of others (my
wife and kids). I find my act rooted on “self-interest” because my wife
and kids are what I value in life and I will do everything to take care
of them. Because of my love for them, I will do everything to ensure
emotional, financial, and psychological support for them. So really, my
love, itself, is a “self-interest” emotion.
So given that “self-interest” isn’t inherently bad, should I ought to
hold it against my kids if they choose to do something that would
benefit their own family first (when they have their own kids to take
care of) instead of mine, considering that I took care of them when they
were still young? I do not think so. Surely it will be nice if my kids
would take care of me in my twilight years but I also recognize that
they have their obligation to attend to their self-interests first (i.e.
to take care of their own family) before mine. I certainly would not
label my kids as traitors for choosing to attend to their self-interest
first before mine.
So the point is – I think it is absurd to take it against State
scholars who choose to leave the country to seek better opportunities or
a better life. Surely it would be nice on the Philippine scholars to
remain in the Philippines and use the knowledge they have acquired from
the country’s public schools for the benefit of their homeland. But
where should a person prioritize his or her moral obligation – to self
or country? If a Philippine scholar has a family to support and a better
life for his family lies outside of the country, why would the choice
to leave the Philippines be morally wrong?
A schoolmate of mine (from one of the Philippine Public schools I
attended when I was still in the Philippines) contends that Prof.
Monsod’s stand is supported by “Christian and Buddhist philosophy” which
morally obligates the “rich” to help the “less fortunate”. If that is
the case, then shouldn’t Professor Monsod have addressed the students of
the De La Salle University and the Ateneo de Manila University,
instead? Given that most products of these universities come from the
Philippine society’s “rich” and given that these universities come from
the religious fold – Christianity? But what makes someone “rich” anyway?
Suppose I make $150,000 (USD) a year and Jollibee Foods makes $1.7 Billion (USD) a year,
should Jollibee be morally obligated to give me free “Chicken Joy
Meals” or hamburgers, at the very least, considering that I am “less
fortunate” compared to it? So why should I be morally obligated to help
someone who makes, say, $125,000 (USD), considering that the other guy
is “less fortunate” than I am in terms of money? Is there a definitive
line drawn on what separates the “rich” and the “less fortunate”? Is
there a Biblical verse or a Buddhist chant that we can refer to that
shows this definitive line?
What is in it for me to follow this purported Christian moral
obligation if I do not subscribe to the idea of my soul’s eternal
salvation come “Final Judgment Day”? What’s in it for me if I do not
subscribe to the idea of attaining a higher form of life in my next life
when I get re-incarnated? Why should I even prioritize the benefits
that I will supposedly get from these fantastic religious claims on what
lies ahead of this yet-to-be-proven afterlife over the immediate
benefits for myself, my wife, and my kids? Again, even with a religious
twist, I find my schoolmate’s contention absurd.
Why should Philippine scholars who graduate from publicly funded
schools in the Philippines stay in the Philippines especially if there
is little opportunity for a fulfilling job in the marketplace or a
decent quality of life there? Why should Philippine scholars be
obligated to endure a less promising and secure life in the Philippines
when the Philippines does not necessarily foster a culture of fair play?
During one of Noynoy Aquino’s earlier visit to the United States as President, then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
“Let’s be honest here, too many of Filipinos feel that they cannot progress in their own country. Too many of them feel that the elite in business and politics basically call the shots, and there’s not much room for someone who’s hardworking, but not connected. Too many of them believe that even if they get the best education they can, that there won’t be an opportunity for them, and so they take that education and build some else’s economy, very often here in the United States!”
That message was right on the money! If a scholar has no prominent
political or business pedigree there is very little chance for the
person’s talent to be rewarded and for the person to move ahead on equal
ground.
Filipino-American doctor, Joy Antonelle De Maracaida, says that:
“Filipinos overseas are self-exiles. We chose to leave our homeland when this became intellectually, politically, financially, artistically or philosophically limiting or oppressive. We are drawn to another country because of the vitality of its intellectual, scientific or artistic scene, its support and tolerance for innovation, progress and intellectual energy, and by its high regard for the immigrant who brings in new talent and skill, allowing him or her the freedom to achieve success, find his or her identity and express his or her ideas. Self-actualization in another land is not a crime. And Filipinos back home, who seek their own success, would be well-served to rejoice in ours. We are no different. We are just far from home.”
I agree with Dr. De Maracaida. In addition to promoting our self-interest in achieving “Self-Actualization” (amongst the highest form of need according to Maslow),
the life lived abroad by a successful Filipino scholar will produce
much needed financial support to the Philippines from the remittances
sent to loved ones in the country. Why these Filipino scholars, who
choose to live and work away from their homeland, ought to be deemed as
“traitors” is beyond me.
I feel that Filipinos (such as Prof. Monsod and my schoolmate) who
hold too much idealism and patriotism are simply out of touch. Not only
is their idealism standing on shaky ground, it is also very unjust. A
system that binds someone to a duty to forego self-interest in order to
pay back the education it provides, I think, is oppressive. A nation
that dismisses as traitors its people who choose to live and be
successful elsewhere is seriously misguided in my book.
No comments:
Post a Comment