In the last few weeks in the United Kingdom, the reading public has been treated to a raft of sensational stories, all purporting to be in the interests of the public good.
First, there was the sting involving the England football coach, Sven Goran Eriksson, who was invited by a reporter from the “News of the World” tabloid to come to Dubai, on the pretext that the latter was a “sheikh” who was interested in opening a football academy in the emirate, and wanted Eriksson’s advice on managing it. The Swedish coach, thinking this was a legitimate business opportunity for him, went along for the ride.
And boy, what a ride it turned out to be!
The coach was wined and dined by the fake sheikh, during which he was asked “private” questions on various things - from his plans after the World Cup, his thoughts on his players and his views on the English football scene. All along his responses were videotaped and recorded, and were then sensationally “revealed” to the British public in typical tabloid style.
The resulting fallout was toxic.
Eriksson was baited into thinking that the sheikh was interested in buying an existing English club (Aston Villa) and asked if he might be interested in managing it if offered the job after the World Cup was over. Sensing an opportunity in the hypothetical query, he answered positively to the overture, i.e. he would consider it. This was not the end of his woes yet.
When asked what he thought of his team, he remarked that some of them were less hardworking than others, etc. As a final blow, when asked about the state of English football, his reply was that he thought it was rampant with corruption, with managers and agents involved in huge kickbacks and payoffs with players moves and transfers.When all these revelations came out in the papers, the man was crucified. Many called for his head to be on the chopping block, notwithstanding the fact that in five months’ time, the tournament that this whole nation has been waiting for will kick-off in Germany, with Eriksson’s team among the early favorites to come home with the crown.
POLITICS. On the political front, Britain’s third largest political party, the Liberal Democrats, was marooned in a press storm of its own. First its leader Charles Kennedy was forced to resign due to revelations that he was a recovering (yes, recovering!) alcoholic. As if this was not enough, one of the frontrunners to replace him in the party leadership was exposed as being gay and associating with male consorts. Of course, tragedy always strikes in threes because what happened next was that another senior frontrunner was also revealed to be gay, and sadly, also happily married with children.
In both instances, the tabloid media has been instrumental in revealing the salacious details to a news-hungry public. In fact in one case, it went out of its way to create the news, rather than just report it.
All these of course are justified on the bases that it is “in the interest of the public” that these stories are published.
But what public good is conceivably being served here? If anything, Eriksson’s men may feel that much less motivated now, after hearing from third party sources what he has supposedly said about them. And the fact that their coach is now definitely leaving after the World Cup is over may not make him work as hard as he would otherwise have, to win the crown. After all, he may still be bitter after being betrayed by the English press.
(More on this next week)
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on January 28, 2006.
Saturday, 28 January 2006
Wednesday, 4 January 2006
A day without a Filipino
In 2004, the movie, “A Day Without A Mexican,” was shown in the United States. The film’s plot dealt with a hypothetical situation that many Americans cannot even contemplate happening today - what would it be like in the state of California if all the Mexican-Americans living in the state today (all one-third of the state’s population) suddenly disappeared. Without a trace and without any explanation.
One day, all the nannies, gardeners, pool cleaners, storekeepers and, of course, professionals of all careers and fields of endeavor that have helped the state run smoothly all these years were nowhere to be found. Of course, the result was total chaos and dysfunction.
The film was meant to be humorous and tongue-in-cheek, but underneath the comedy was a very serious reality — the economy of the state of California, and indeed many states in the US, was being run by immigrant labor. From California in the east to New York in the west, the American economic machine would cease to function if there were no immigrant workers to do the critical jobs necessary to make it run.
One can easily substitute the world “Mexican” in the film to “Filipino” and no one would probably notice the switch. For that matter we can extend the state of California to include most of the Middle East, many countries in Europe and majority of the United States — and the hypothesis of the movie would still stand.
Quietly, but efficiently and with total dedication and commitment, we Filipinos can be very proud of the role we play in today’s global economy. In airport duty free shops, massive oil tankers and containers ships, inside blue chip corporations, working in schools and universities and, of course, running hospitals and critical health care facilities — we Filipinos are everywhere doing critical and value-adding roles that make the world run smoothly.
In our little corner of Stockport in northwest England, in our own small way, we carry on the role that so many of our brothers and sisters perform in most parts of the world. Health care professionals, most of us, we keep the folk of the Northwest hale and healthy that they may themselves perform the various roles that they do in the community.
We are in information technology too, designing websites that help businesses in the area advertise their products and services to the world. We are even in management, looking after markets and territories far beyond the confines of English shores.
Whatever it is that we do — whether assisting in an operating theatre, designing a state of the art website, developing strategies for a global organization, whipping up fantastic culinary creations or working in a learning institution — we do so with the same enthusiasm and dedication that have made us favorites the world over, including here in our corner of the United Kingdom.
This much-admired work ethic is due to our faith and spirituality as a people.
Whether it is Hong Kong, Geneva or Stockport the best place to meet and greet fellow Filipinos is in the Church. Wherever we are in the world we always strive to preserve our faith — and in keeping with its teachings — express it with the example and witness of our own lives.
Small wonder then that one day without a Filipino — wherever it may be in the world — will be one day nobody would like to experience.
GREETINGS: Warmest greetings to the Parish of St. Chad’s in Cheadle, Cheshire (United Kingdom) on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of its founding.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 01, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/04/01/bus/batuhan.a.day.without.a.filipino.html)
One day, all the nannies, gardeners, pool cleaners, storekeepers and, of course, professionals of all careers and fields of endeavor that have helped the state run smoothly all these years were nowhere to be found. Of course, the result was total chaos and dysfunction.
The film was meant to be humorous and tongue-in-cheek, but underneath the comedy was a very serious reality — the economy of the state of California, and indeed many states in the US, was being run by immigrant labor. From California in the east to New York in the west, the American economic machine would cease to function if there were no immigrant workers to do the critical jobs necessary to make it run.
One can easily substitute the world “Mexican” in the film to “Filipino” and no one would probably notice the switch. For that matter we can extend the state of California to include most of the Middle East, many countries in Europe and majority of the United States — and the hypothesis of the movie would still stand.
Quietly, but efficiently and with total dedication and commitment, we Filipinos can be very proud of the role we play in today’s global economy. In airport duty free shops, massive oil tankers and containers ships, inside blue chip corporations, working in schools and universities and, of course, running hospitals and critical health care facilities — we Filipinos are everywhere doing critical and value-adding roles that make the world run smoothly.
In our little corner of Stockport in northwest England, in our own small way, we carry on the role that so many of our brothers and sisters perform in most parts of the world. Health care professionals, most of us, we keep the folk of the Northwest hale and healthy that they may themselves perform the various roles that they do in the community.
We are in information technology too, designing websites that help businesses in the area advertise their products and services to the world. We are even in management, looking after markets and territories far beyond the confines of English shores.
Whatever it is that we do — whether assisting in an operating theatre, designing a state of the art website, developing strategies for a global organization, whipping up fantastic culinary creations or working in a learning institution — we do so with the same enthusiasm and dedication that have made us favorites the world over, including here in our corner of the United Kingdom.
This much-admired work ethic is due to our faith and spirituality as a people.
Whether it is Hong Kong, Geneva or Stockport the best place to meet and greet fellow Filipinos is in the Church. Wherever we are in the world we always strive to preserve our faith — and in keeping with its teachings — express it with the example and witness of our own lives.
Small wonder then that one day without a Filipino — wherever it may be in the world — will be one day nobody would like to experience.
GREETINGS: Warmest greetings to the Parish of St. Chad’s in Cheadle, Cheshire (United Kingdom) on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of its founding.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 01, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/04/01/bus/batuhan.a.day.without.a.filipino.html)
Wednesday, 1 June 2005
The Global Player
Many business schools today position themselves as “global” institutions. Most of them Western or American-based, they anchor their claim on the basis that a good number of their graduates end up working for Western multinationals, which in turn send them to manage in many of their overseas subsidiaries.
But what about managers in Asia, who would also wish to embark on a global management career? Is their choice of a business school necessarily limited to American or European institutions?
As a project finance analyst - many years back - working for one of the leading partners of multilateral agencies such as the International Finance Corporation and the Asian Development Bank, I was fairly confident that I already possessed the technical skills necessary for a functional career in finance, which would be my path to eventually get into general management. After all, I had trained and worked with some of the best accountants, economists and financial wizards in the region. But deep down inside I knew that functional competence alone would never be enough to see me through my ambition.
And so it was with a desire to fill this gap in my skill set that I decided to pursue an MBA. And I will admit quite candidly that having decided on this course, my early choice was to do it in America.
So how come I chose AIM in the end?
Well, I ended up being accepted in a couple of American schools that I applied for, and was just counting the days until the fall semester start of classes when one day, a friend of mine invited me to a recruitment event that was sponsored by AIM. There I had the chance to hear testimonials from former graduates. It did not take me very long after that day to decide that AIM was the business school I wanted to be in.
So why, you may ask, would one give up a place in a US school, to go to another within the region? Two words readily come to mind – excellence, and relevance.
The Asian Institute of Management has always been the best school of management in Asia, full stop. No other institution even comes close. Even to a well-prepared and professionally competent student like I was then, AIM was still one daunting challenge.
The rigorous and exacting case study method that AIM alone has perfected in Asia is to my mind one of the best ways to prepare aspiring managers for real life management situations. Every session is like a contentious management meeting, to which one has to come fully prepared.
Imagine having four or five of those meetings every day, for two whole years, and you get a pretty good sense of just what preparation this entails. Of course you will have to work hard. Of course you will have to spend late nights discussing with your teammates group projects.
But there is nothing in this discipline's demand for prioritization that is divergent from real-life career situations. In fact the beauty of this method is that it mirrors exactly what happens in the workplace, with unadulterated and true-to-life realism.
For the past 14 years I have worked and managed in over a dozen countries, across almost all continents of the world. I have also had the privilege of working with colleagues and partners coming from esteemed institutions like Harvard, Wharton, the London Business School and INSEAD. I can proudly say that not one single day in those last 14 did I ever feel inadequate or out of place.
Our excellence and relevance as an institute is now officially acknowledged by our peers, as evidenced by the seals of approval from both the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) of the United States, and the European Foundation for Management Development’s Quality Improvement System (EFMD-EQUIS).
Deciding to pursue an MBA, especially a full-time one, is one of the biggest commitments one will ever make in his or her life. It is one that should be made with considerable thought and with a great deal of soul searching. I cannot make that choice for anybody, in the same way that nobody made the decision for me back then.
I can only tell you that whether it is a career in Jakarta that you wish for, or a job in Singapore, Hongkong, New York, London, Frankfurt or Amsterdam that strikes your fancy, an MBA from AIM will be the best preparation you can ever give to yourself.
Published in the AIM Manager, June 2005
But what about managers in Asia, who would also wish to embark on a global management career? Is their choice of a business school necessarily limited to American or European institutions?
As a project finance analyst - many years back - working for one of the leading partners of multilateral agencies such as the International Finance Corporation and the Asian Development Bank, I was fairly confident that I already possessed the technical skills necessary for a functional career in finance, which would be my path to eventually get into general management. After all, I had trained and worked with some of the best accountants, economists and financial wizards in the region. But deep down inside I knew that functional competence alone would never be enough to see me through my ambition.
And so it was with a desire to fill this gap in my skill set that I decided to pursue an MBA. And I will admit quite candidly that having decided on this course, my early choice was to do it in America.
So how come I chose AIM in the end?
Well, I ended up being accepted in a couple of American schools that I applied for, and was just counting the days until the fall semester start of classes when one day, a friend of mine invited me to a recruitment event that was sponsored by AIM. There I had the chance to hear testimonials from former graduates. It did not take me very long after that day to decide that AIM was the business school I wanted to be in.
So why, you may ask, would one give up a place in a US school, to go to another within the region? Two words readily come to mind – excellence, and relevance.
The Asian Institute of Management has always been the best school of management in Asia, full stop. No other institution even comes close. Even to a well-prepared and professionally competent student like I was then, AIM was still one daunting challenge.
The rigorous and exacting case study method that AIM alone has perfected in Asia is to my mind one of the best ways to prepare aspiring managers for real life management situations. Every session is like a contentious management meeting, to which one has to come fully prepared.
Imagine having four or five of those meetings every day, for two whole years, and you get a pretty good sense of just what preparation this entails. Of course you will have to work hard. Of course you will have to spend late nights discussing with your teammates group projects.
But there is nothing in this discipline's demand for prioritization that is divergent from real-life career situations. In fact the beauty of this method is that it mirrors exactly what happens in the workplace, with unadulterated and true-to-life realism.
For the past 14 years I have worked and managed in over a dozen countries, across almost all continents of the world. I have also had the privilege of working with colleagues and partners coming from esteemed institutions like Harvard, Wharton, the London Business School and INSEAD. I can proudly say that not one single day in those last 14 did I ever feel inadequate or out of place.
Our excellence and relevance as an institute is now officially acknowledged by our peers, as evidenced by the seals of approval from both the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) of the United States, and the European Foundation for Management Development’s Quality Improvement System (EFMD-EQUIS).
Deciding to pursue an MBA, especially a full-time one, is one of the biggest commitments one will ever make in his or her life. It is one that should be made with considerable thought and with a great deal of soul searching. I cannot make that choice for anybody, in the same way that nobody made the decision for me back then.
I can only tell you that whether it is a career in Jakarta that you wish for, or a job in Singapore, Hongkong, New York, London, Frankfurt or Amsterdam that strikes your fancy, an MBA from AIM will be the best preparation you can ever give to yourself.
Published in the AIM Manager, June 2005
Saturday, 18 September 2004
How Turkey averted a crisis
JUST LIKE RP. Apart from a completely different language, living in Turkey reminded me so much about life in the Philippines.
The pleasant Mediterranean climate had a great deal to do with it—nice balmy evenings, sunshine-filled summers and pleasant weather most of the time.
There were also the beaches reminiscent of Mactan’s crystal clear waters and white sand. And of course who can forget the people—inquisitive, friendly and very hospitable. In my seven years in that country, it was like I never left the Philippines.
EVADING TAXES. It was not just the pleasant things that reminded me of home, however. Its bad sides likewise mirrored those of the Philippines.
Istanbul’s rush-hour traffic could compete on even terms with Manila’s worst.
Turks behind the wheel, with their total disregard for road safety and courtesy, were more than a match for our own jeepney drivers. Oh, and the police took bribes as well. And to round off the list, almost everyone did not pay his proper share of taxes, unless he had to.
My ruminations on Turkey came while reading about the Philippines’ “forthcoming” fiscal crisis, which now seems to be the hot topic of conversation among armchair economic pundits. That of course means over 90 percent of the Philippine population.
CURRENCY CRASH. In 1994, Turkey was in the midst of one messy economic crisis. Its currency, the Turkish lira, had devalued 20 percent overnight, effectively wiping out millions of dollars in locally denominated financial assets. Our company alone lost $200k on the value of our cash deposits, all in the space of a single day.
People now talk of Argentina’s collapse as a warning for the Philippines, but with Turkey being so close and so inextricably linked to Europe, this crisis was potentially more troublesome for the global economy than Argentina’s.
COURAGE AMID STORM. Turkey weathered the storm, and emerged less than a couple of years later a stronger and more competitive economy. The things it did along the way were fundamental, and yet it took a lot of courage on the government, and cooperation from the people, to make them happen.
First off, Turkey did not renege on its foreign debt obligations, something that many now advocate for the Philippines to do.
Former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, who like our own Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a trained economist, reasoned that the erosion in Turkey’s standing with international creditors was something she did not wish to jeopardize, as it was vital to get their full support for the economy’s future growth. Clearly, this option is something our own government will have to consider very carefully indeed.
REVENUE BOOST. To boost short-term revenues and avert a looming fiscal crisis, Ciller undertook a serious of measures that no one thought would be acceptable, much less workable. But they were, and with astonishing results.
Turkey, much like us, had a very porous tax collection system. Those that were taxed at source like salary earners could not escape payment, but many others got by with paying bribes to tax examiners instead.
As a one-time revenue earner, an “economic stabilization tax” was introduced, which was a five percent surcharge on the previous year’s income. The tax was collected at source so there was no avoiding it.
Simultaneously, the criminal and financial penalties on tax evasion were tightened, in order to ensure fairness.
After a grace period to allow for the repentant to come forward and arrange payment, a few prominent businessmen who did not heed the warning were thrown in jail, to serve as an example.
More next week…
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, September 18, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/09/18/bus/batuhan.how.turkey.averted.a.crisis.html)
The pleasant Mediterranean climate had a great deal to do with it—nice balmy evenings, sunshine-filled summers and pleasant weather most of the time.
There were also the beaches reminiscent of Mactan’s crystal clear waters and white sand. And of course who can forget the people—inquisitive, friendly and very hospitable. In my seven years in that country, it was like I never left the Philippines.
EVADING TAXES. It was not just the pleasant things that reminded me of home, however. Its bad sides likewise mirrored those of the Philippines.
Istanbul’s rush-hour traffic could compete on even terms with Manila’s worst.
Turks behind the wheel, with their total disregard for road safety and courtesy, were more than a match for our own jeepney drivers. Oh, and the police took bribes as well. And to round off the list, almost everyone did not pay his proper share of taxes, unless he had to.
My ruminations on Turkey came while reading about the Philippines’ “forthcoming” fiscal crisis, which now seems to be the hot topic of conversation among armchair economic pundits. That of course means over 90 percent of the Philippine population.
CURRENCY CRASH. In 1994, Turkey was in the midst of one messy economic crisis. Its currency, the Turkish lira, had devalued 20 percent overnight, effectively wiping out millions of dollars in locally denominated financial assets. Our company alone lost $200k on the value of our cash deposits, all in the space of a single day.
People now talk of Argentina’s collapse as a warning for the Philippines, but with Turkey being so close and so inextricably linked to Europe, this crisis was potentially more troublesome for the global economy than Argentina’s.
COURAGE AMID STORM. Turkey weathered the storm, and emerged less than a couple of years later a stronger and more competitive economy. The things it did along the way were fundamental, and yet it took a lot of courage on the government, and cooperation from the people, to make them happen.
First off, Turkey did not renege on its foreign debt obligations, something that many now advocate for the Philippines to do.
Former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, who like our own Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a trained economist, reasoned that the erosion in Turkey’s standing with international creditors was something she did not wish to jeopardize, as it was vital to get their full support for the economy’s future growth. Clearly, this option is something our own government will have to consider very carefully indeed.
REVENUE BOOST. To boost short-term revenues and avert a looming fiscal crisis, Ciller undertook a serious of measures that no one thought would be acceptable, much less workable. But they were, and with astonishing results.
Turkey, much like us, had a very porous tax collection system. Those that were taxed at source like salary earners could not escape payment, but many others got by with paying bribes to tax examiners instead.
As a one-time revenue earner, an “economic stabilization tax” was introduced, which was a five percent surcharge on the previous year’s income. The tax was collected at source so there was no avoiding it.
Simultaneously, the criminal and financial penalties on tax evasion were tightened, in order to ensure fairness.
After a grace period to allow for the repentant to come forward and arrange payment, a few prominent businessmen who did not heed the warning were thrown in jail, to serve as an example.
More next week…
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, September 18, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/09/18/bus/batuhan.how.turkey.averted.a.crisis.html)
Saturday, 21 August 2004
Conniving, Cheating Executives
REALITY SHOW. There seems to be no satisfying the appetite for so-called “Reality TV.”
With its humble beginnings in the live “cops and robbers” shows which catered to those with the kicks for thrills and speed, the genre has branched out into all varieties of programs, with one to suit every taste and preference.
Voyeuristic lawyer types have “Court TV.” “Wife Swap” is there for those who wish to see the goings-on in an everyday household. And couch potato adventurers revel in the challenges of “Survivor.”
TV producers have been quick to capitalize on this new-found taste for real-time television, with new and more novel shows being produced all the time.
One fairly recent addition to the offering is “The Apprentice,” a show that purports to portray the goings-on in the search for a successful businessman and entrepreneur.
Hosted by real-life tycoon Donald Trump, the participants—composed of career people, recent MBA graduates etc.—go through various decision-making exercises, board meetings, and deliberations with Donald Trump judging their performances. Each episode, one contestant is expelled until an eventual winner emerges at the end of the show.
No doubt it makes for good television.
Machieavellian machinations are clearly not alien to business and corporate life, and this show only highlights the fact that all is not fair in love, war and business.
The fact that some real-life executives connive, cheat and steal their way to the top is not big news, and in fact is taken for granted. However, putting it on show has the effect of reinforcing the belief that it is the only route to the top.
But just as it is admitted that some Hollywood aspirants are reported to be sleeping their way to success, it does not mean that all actors and actresses are compelled to have intimate relations with their producers and directors in order to succeed.
Business does need a fair amount of bravado, especially in its early stages. Richard Branson’s Virgin Group is perhaps one of the better examples of this.
Starting with the music business, Virgin now offers everything from trains, airline services and mobile phones, taking advantage of risky but profitable niche opportunities and outmaneuvering their larger competitors for a lucrative share of the market.
The problem is that the line between calculated risk-taking and outright foul play is becoming blurred all the time. Major American corporations have pushed the envelope too far out, with resulting disastrous consequences for investors, employees and the larger economy.
This is where I take issue with “The Apprentice” and all its spin-offs, in their portrayal of business success.
There is no denying the fact that the road to the top is littered with the bodies of those who are less astute and perhaps even those too rule-bound. Every successful CEO— and Donald Trump himself is the perfect example of this—has at some point laid all their cards on the table for that “one-throw, one-chance” shot at total success or abject failure.
What is not shown, however, is the immense responsibility that comes with being a caretaker for the interests of investors and stakeholders—an obligation sadly all too often forgotten as they chart their own personal course to the top.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, August 21, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/08/21/bus/batuhan.conniving.cheating.executives.html).
With its humble beginnings in the live “cops and robbers” shows which catered to those with the kicks for thrills and speed, the genre has branched out into all varieties of programs, with one to suit every taste and preference.
Voyeuristic lawyer types have “Court TV.” “Wife Swap” is there for those who wish to see the goings-on in an everyday household. And couch potato adventurers revel in the challenges of “Survivor.”
TV producers have been quick to capitalize on this new-found taste for real-time television, with new and more novel shows being produced all the time.
One fairly recent addition to the offering is “The Apprentice,” a show that purports to portray the goings-on in the search for a successful businessman and entrepreneur.
Hosted by real-life tycoon Donald Trump, the participants—composed of career people, recent MBA graduates etc.—go through various decision-making exercises, board meetings, and deliberations with Donald Trump judging their performances. Each episode, one contestant is expelled until an eventual winner emerges at the end of the show.
No doubt it makes for good television.
Machieavellian machinations are clearly not alien to business and corporate life, and this show only highlights the fact that all is not fair in love, war and business.
The fact that some real-life executives connive, cheat and steal their way to the top is not big news, and in fact is taken for granted. However, putting it on show has the effect of reinforcing the belief that it is the only route to the top.
But just as it is admitted that some Hollywood aspirants are reported to be sleeping their way to success, it does not mean that all actors and actresses are compelled to have intimate relations with their producers and directors in order to succeed.
Business does need a fair amount of bravado, especially in its early stages. Richard Branson’s Virgin Group is perhaps one of the better examples of this.
Starting with the music business, Virgin now offers everything from trains, airline services and mobile phones, taking advantage of risky but profitable niche opportunities and outmaneuvering their larger competitors for a lucrative share of the market.
The problem is that the line between calculated risk-taking and outright foul play is becoming blurred all the time. Major American corporations have pushed the envelope too far out, with resulting disastrous consequences for investors, employees and the larger economy.
This is where I take issue with “The Apprentice” and all its spin-offs, in their portrayal of business success.
There is no denying the fact that the road to the top is littered with the bodies of those who are less astute and perhaps even those too rule-bound. Every successful CEO— and Donald Trump himself is the perfect example of this—has at some point laid all their cards on the table for that “one-throw, one-chance” shot at total success or abject failure.
What is not shown, however, is the immense responsibility that comes with being a caretaker for the interests of investors and stakeholders—an obligation sadly all too often forgotten as they chart their own personal course to the top.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, August 21, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/08/21/bus/batuhan.conniving.cheating.executives.html).
Saturday, 20 March 2004
Emigres defend adopted homeland
HORNET’S NEST. When I wrote last week about the apparent inconsistency of collective Western policy toward eradicating all forms of discrimination from their societies, I did not realize the hornet’s nest I was about to stir.
Upon returning from office in the evening to check my personal mailbox, there waiting for me were a number of reactions from our readers.
All of them focused on the issue of immigration, which I had used as a specific example of what I call systematic discrimination.
Opinions were divided between those who were “victimized” by many Western embassies’ denial of visitor visa applications —some merely on the suspicion that the applicant has no intention of ever coming back home—and those who succeeded in immigrating, and have integrated themselves into Western society.
The former lot agreed with me, recounting their horror stories with strict consular officers dispensing their own brand of “deny first, ask questions later” justice.
Most emigres were of the contrary opinion, taking the side of their adopted homelands in saying that because immigration has become a heavy burden to the West, it is right to impose strict policies to stem the human tide.
THE POINT. The fact is I was drawing no conclusions, but merely stating well-known facts. And immigration was not even the central theme of the piece, merely a convenient and well-known illustration to support my point.
And my point was?
A country works hard at eradicating all forms of discrimination inside its borders, creating catchy slogans like “one country, many cultures,” “melting pot,” “cultural mosaic,” and every other synonym of the word integration that one could think of.
To back up their efforts, they sprout billboards and posters all over the place, bearing pictures of happy faces with all the colors of the rainbow you could imagine. And they expect the majority of their citizens to embrace their minority countrymen.
But hold on one second. The majority citizens they are trying to educate also read the papers and listen to the news. And there they see the debates about immigration policy, interspersed with pictures of would-be immigrants being turned away at their borders and ports of entry.
The faces of those being turned away, do they not resemble many of those with the happy smiles up on the anti-discrimination billboards? Oh silly me, of course they do!
This creates just a little bit of complication for our audience, does it not?
Okay, the happy face is a legal alien, the unhappy one being led away is an illegal immigrant. The distinction should be clear enough, shouldn’t it? Everyone ought to know that, right? Yeah right.
DISTINCTION. Racist white trash roaming the streets at night in poor and run-down housing estates are very conscious of this distinction.
Before they beat up their next colored victim, they ask him first for his British passport, and if he has one, they let him go away. But if the unfortunate bloke happens to whip out one from the Caribbean, then he may not be so lucky! Really, this is how they operate.
Okay, that’s an extreme example.
How about the olive-skinned MBA who comes in for an interview at an investment bank in the city? Why he looks like the guy stepping off the refugee boat from the Mediterranean as well, does he not? Could he really do this job? Is he good enough? Hmmm… Let me think.
Even to the most discerning and intelligent among us, the situation poses not a few complications. And let’s face it, the majority of us are not really that intelligent and discerning.
And that includes the countless consular officers in many of our Western embassies all over the world.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 20, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/03/20/bus/batuhan.emigres.defend.adopted.homeland.html)
Upon returning from office in the evening to check my personal mailbox, there waiting for me were a number of reactions from our readers.
All of them focused on the issue of immigration, which I had used as a specific example of what I call systematic discrimination.
Opinions were divided between those who were “victimized” by many Western embassies’ denial of visitor visa applications —some merely on the suspicion that the applicant has no intention of ever coming back home—and those who succeeded in immigrating, and have integrated themselves into Western society.
The former lot agreed with me, recounting their horror stories with strict consular officers dispensing their own brand of “deny first, ask questions later” justice.
Most emigres were of the contrary opinion, taking the side of their adopted homelands in saying that because immigration has become a heavy burden to the West, it is right to impose strict policies to stem the human tide.
THE POINT. The fact is I was drawing no conclusions, but merely stating well-known facts. And immigration was not even the central theme of the piece, merely a convenient and well-known illustration to support my point.
And my point was?
A country works hard at eradicating all forms of discrimination inside its borders, creating catchy slogans like “one country, many cultures,” “melting pot,” “cultural mosaic,” and every other synonym of the word integration that one could think of.
To back up their efforts, they sprout billboards and posters all over the place, bearing pictures of happy faces with all the colors of the rainbow you could imagine. And they expect the majority of their citizens to embrace their minority countrymen.
But hold on one second. The majority citizens they are trying to educate also read the papers and listen to the news. And there they see the debates about immigration policy, interspersed with pictures of would-be immigrants being turned away at their borders and ports of entry.
The faces of those being turned away, do they not resemble many of those with the happy smiles up on the anti-discrimination billboards? Oh silly me, of course they do!
This creates just a little bit of complication for our audience, does it not?
Okay, the happy face is a legal alien, the unhappy one being led away is an illegal immigrant. The distinction should be clear enough, shouldn’t it? Everyone ought to know that, right? Yeah right.
DISTINCTION. Racist white trash roaming the streets at night in poor and run-down housing estates are very conscious of this distinction.
Before they beat up their next colored victim, they ask him first for his British passport, and if he has one, they let him go away. But if the unfortunate bloke happens to whip out one from the Caribbean, then he may not be so lucky! Really, this is how they operate.
Okay, that’s an extreme example.
How about the olive-skinned MBA who comes in for an interview at an investment bank in the city? Why he looks like the guy stepping off the refugee boat from the Mediterranean as well, does he not? Could he really do this job? Is he good enough? Hmmm… Let me think.
Even to the most discerning and intelligent among us, the situation poses not a few complications. And let’s face it, the majority of us are not really that intelligent and discerning.
And that includes the countless consular officers in many of our Western embassies all over the world.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 20, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/03/20/bus/batuhan.emigres.defend.adopted.homeland.html)
Saturday, 13 March 2004
Two-faced?
DISCRIMINATION. Last week I attended a seminar held by a leading UK law firm on the subject of new European Union legislation governing the issue of discrimination in the workplace.
The stricter laws, coming into effect from 2004-2006, tighten the already stringent anti-discrimination measures in place today, and would place Europe closer to the United States, which is currently ahead in protecting the rights of its minority and disadvantaged groups.
Along with disallowing employment selection based on nationality, race, religion or gender—the new laws also seek to do away with what is today still a common criterion for screening out applications—age.
From 2006 when these laws finally take effect, it may not be uncommon for us to see 50-year-old flight attendants, along with lady bus drivers and openly homosexual combat soldiers. The conduct of colleagues at work will be curtailed to exclude even the common green jokes that are today the main feature of water-cooler breaks in most offices.
Europe and the rest of the West, at least on paper, are preparing for what it sees as a “color, race, nationality, gender, age and disability” neutral society.
The intentions are admirable, but the realities are far from the stated intentions. The gaps are apparent in their policies toward immigration.
VISA DENIED. Take the recent case of my wife’s sister-in-law, who applied for a visa to visit her sister in Canada.
A mother of four, she is a qualified nurse who has not practiced her profession for some time, to devote herself to taking care of her young family.
Their circumstances are by no means meager—my brother-in-law is a fairly successful agri-businessman, and she has no intention of leaving for Canada as an economic migrant. But did the immigration authorities share the same view? No chance.
Without so much as giving her a minute to explain the purpose of her visit, her own economic and family circumstances, and her intention to return, the consular officer immediately denied her application.
The reason? She has “no compelling reason” to come back to the Philippines, and from all indications, would stay on and practice her profession in Canada.
Had she been of European origin, the outcome would surely have been different.
Canada is not alone in this clearly discriminatory method of granting visitation rights to their countries. The United States and the European Union are equally guilty of denying visitor applications on the mere suspicion that someone may have a reason—however improbable—of staying on beyond the allowed period.
All this while they are enacting laws to end all forms of discrimination in their borders, similar to the proposals discussed in the seminar I attended.
The reasons behind their draconian immigration policies are clear—no country wants to be burdened by masses of immigrants taking work away from their own nationals. And because permission to visit a country is a privilege that is up to a state to grant or deny, no laws are broken by their strict policies.
But these same policies appear to create a two-faced image of the West to the world.
For how can a country that promises to look beyond race, color, ethnic origin, religion and gender, in the same breath turn away well-intentioned visitors to their countries, just because based on the same characteristics they promise not to discriminate against, there is some probability that they may stay on?
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 13, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/03/13/bus/batuhan.two.faced..html)
The stricter laws, coming into effect from 2004-2006, tighten the already stringent anti-discrimination measures in place today, and would place Europe closer to the United States, which is currently ahead in protecting the rights of its minority and disadvantaged groups.
Along with disallowing employment selection based on nationality, race, religion or gender—the new laws also seek to do away with what is today still a common criterion for screening out applications—age.
From 2006 when these laws finally take effect, it may not be uncommon for us to see 50-year-old flight attendants, along with lady bus drivers and openly homosexual combat soldiers. The conduct of colleagues at work will be curtailed to exclude even the common green jokes that are today the main feature of water-cooler breaks in most offices.
Europe and the rest of the West, at least on paper, are preparing for what it sees as a “color, race, nationality, gender, age and disability” neutral society.
The intentions are admirable, but the realities are far from the stated intentions. The gaps are apparent in their policies toward immigration.
VISA DENIED. Take the recent case of my wife’s sister-in-law, who applied for a visa to visit her sister in Canada.
A mother of four, she is a qualified nurse who has not practiced her profession for some time, to devote herself to taking care of her young family.
Their circumstances are by no means meager—my brother-in-law is a fairly successful agri-businessman, and she has no intention of leaving for Canada as an economic migrant. But did the immigration authorities share the same view? No chance.
Without so much as giving her a minute to explain the purpose of her visit, her own economic and family circumstances, and her intention to return, the consular officer immediately denied her application.
The reason? She has “no compelling reason” to come back to the Philippines, and from all indications, would stay on and practice her profession in Canada.
Had she been of European origin, the outcome would surely have been different.
Canada is not alone in this clearly discriminatory method of granting visitation rights to their countries. The United States and the European Union are equally guilty of denying visitor applications on the mere suspicion that someone may have a reason—however improbable—of staying on beyond the allowed period.
All this while they are enacting laws to end all forms of discrimination in their borders, similar to the proposals discussed in the seminar I attended.
The reasons behind their draconian immigration policies are clear—no country wants to be burdened by masses of immigrants taking work away from their own nationals. And because permission to visit a country is a privilege that is up to a state to grant or deny, no laws are broken by their strict policies.
But these same policies appear to create a two-faced image of the West to the world.
For how can a country that promises to look beyond race, color, ethnic origin, religion and gender, in the same breath turn away well-intentioned visitors to their countries, just because based on the same characteristics they promise not to discriminate against, there is some probability that they may stay on?
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 13, 2004 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/03/13/bus/batuhan.two.faced..html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)