In the recently concluded Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Vietnam, President Duterte addressed a side assembly of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) working in this fast-growing neighbor of ours. Most of these OFWs happen to be professionals and skilled workers.
And yet, in the YouTube documentation of his speech, the President devoted the first 15 minutes of his hourlong speech bemoaning the brain drain that has slowed down the country’s industrial progress. Paano ang mga naiwan? [What now for those left behind?]” was his plaintive question. He elaborated that, the exodus of the country’s best and brightest has stunted the growth of domestic industry and agriculture, including livestock raising. He said that, without these talents, industrial development in the Philippines has been so weak we cannot even produce decent toothpicks.
In summary, the President’s message is a reiteration of what we have been saying: Filipino talents are the country’s gift to the world, in particular to the more developed labor-receiving countries that are always in short supply of engineers, information-technology (IT) programmers, doctors and other professionals and skilled workers. The economy of a number of Middle East countries are likely to be impaired, even grounded to a halt, if there will be a massive return migration of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). In the North sea oil-drilling project in Europe, the rig engineers and workers who go down to the sea floor
several kilometers deep are mostly Filipinos.
It is, thus, ironic that while these OFWs are able to contribute to the development of other countries, they are not able to share their God-given talents and skills in building a more progressive Philippines. Their contributions to the home country come mostly in the form of remittances, most of which are spent either on imported consumption goods or on the service industries (malling, real estate, education, etc.) that the Sys, Gokongweis, Ayalas and Gaisanos have been building to take advantage of a remittance-driven economy.
Industry complaints on the adverse impact of the brain and skills drain were registered as early as the late-1970s, when the “manpower export” was officially launched by the martial-law government as a “temporary” program while the country was still waiting for the “labor-intensive export-oriented” (LIEO) industrialization of National Economic and Development Authority to bear fruits in terms of robust growth and job creation. The LIEO tree failed to bear the anticipated miracle fruits of more jobs and more development. Instead, the exodus of skills and talents even intensified in the succeeding decades of the 1980s to 1990s as almost all continents of the world, including the North Pole, became the destination for our migrant workers. The list of professionals and skills leaving the Philippine shores also grew exponentially, covering not only the construction industry (mainly for the Middle East) but also the IT industry, health sector, finance, mining and so on.
Complaints of Philippine-based industries also grew—from the loss of scarce skills, such as those possessed by expert electricians, plumbers and carpenters to the cost of training provided by industry to those who eventually become migrant workers. One old theoretical debate on migration states that the departure of OFWs represents a drain; however, the OFWs, upon their return to the home country, bring with them new or enhanced skills that they can apply at home. In short, these OFWs can become industry innovators and job creators. This argument is illustrated in the case of South Korea, which was a major exporter of manpower in the 1970s and 1980s and which became a major importer in reverse once it reached the “migration hump” in the 1990s because of its rapid industrial growth. In the case of the Philippines, this did not happen. Very few successful and rich OFWs invested on job-creating undertakings utilizing the know-how they acquired from working overseas. Also, there were hardly anyone who went into industrial development based on the knowledge and skills that they gained from certain industries abroad. For example, there were no records that those who worked as professionals and skilled workers in the high-tech small and medium enterprises of South Korea and Taiwan, such as watch making, IT parts assembly and shoe production were able to set up similar ventures in the Philippines upon their return or retirement.
The point is that migration, as a platform for industrialization, has not worked in the Philippines, as lamented by President Duterte himself.
Meantime, more problems are cropping up. The Middle East, which hosts the most number of OFWs, is a powder keg and can explode in a big way. The Shia-Sunni conflict, not to mention the terror campaign of the Islamic fundamentalist ISIS group, is putting the two big powers of the region, Iran and Saudi Arabia, on a collision course. Some OFW communities are also affected by the rising xenophobia in Europe, America and other places. What will the Duterte administration do if there is a sudden massive return migration of OFWs? This question is not new. It was also raised in the past administrations, and, fortunately, this never happened. Instead, there were only some dislocations in a few host countries involving only a few thousand OFWs, not millions. Nonetheless, the question remains valid and should be raised given the uncertain times we are in. The government should always be ready with its contingency plans.
However, the immediate policy challenge to the Duterte administration is how to revisit the issues of migration and industrialization. Paano babalikan ang napag-iwanang industriya at agrikultura ng bansa? The phenomenal growth of migration as a life saver for the country is due to the phenomenal failure of industry and agriculture to grow under the LIEO and export-oriented industries development programs from the 1970s to the present.
Some economic commentators claim that the Philippines is a victim of the “Dutch disease,” that is, industrialization has been stunted by national dependence on a resource abundance in the form of OFW remittances. This is clearly not the case because the growth of migration came about precisely because of the poor growth of industry.
Ironically, some manpower recruiters are complaining that the eroding industrial base of the Philippines is affecting their capacity to recruit and deploy more talents and professionals. The explanation is simple: Overseas labor market is selective not only in terms of skills and know-how but also on a person’s actual work experience and background. If they lack direct experience in managing manufacturing units in the Philippines, qualified production engineers cannot be deployed.
To conclude, the Philippines cannot afford to forever wait for the migration hump to happen. The efforts of Department of Trade and Industry officials to have a “manufacturing resurgence” should be intensified and should involve more stakeholders, not only established industry associations. These include the OFWs and their families, especially those who claim that these OFWs have acquired new skills that can help the country do industrial leapfrogging. Why not a strategic road-mapping exercise on how the Philippines can finally graduate from its overwhelming dependence on migration and how skills and savings gained from migration can be used to spur accelerated industrial and agricultural development? Dapat walang maiiwan!