Skip to content

Are you Kristel Tejada?

March 21, 2013
She posted this on Facebook.

She posted this on Facebook.

You’re young and innocent. You don’t care what’s going on around you. You’re told– by your schoolteachers, the media and the people around you– that you should not think too much of politics. That politics is only for ‘armchair intellectuals’, media personalities, corrupt politicians and compromising people who lust for power. You’re told that you’re too young to think of serious things.

You learned early in life that politics is naturally dirty, and no one informed you about the difference between partisan politics and being interested in politics to protect your rights and future, that economics is purely statistical and an esoteric field of science that can only be understood by those who studied it in college, and that the government exists to serve your needs and desires.

You thought that serious, esoteric political and economic issues should only be tackled and resolved by public intellectuals (e.g., economists, college professors, media personalities and government officials) who studied such issues in college or who are more equipped, intellectually and professionally. Your informers (the media, schoolteachers, welfare advocates, politicians, etc.) encouraged you to be a critical thinker, without telling you what constitutes critical thought or critical thinking. They simply told you to criticize things. Then you observed that some people criticize the government for not providing them with the things they need, such as education, healthcare, food, jobs, housing, etc. This crude observation somehow gave you an idea of the nature of, or what constitutes, critical thinking. 

As you grew older you learned– from your schoolteachers and the media– that “education” is the key to success without knowing its nature and concept. You learned that without it you wouldn’t be able to achieve financial independence and social mobility. You simply learned that to be educated, one only has to finish high school and obtain a college diploma. What they didn’t tell you is that education and schooling are not synonymous– that they are two different concepts. The same informers told you that you’re entitled to your “right” to education whether your parents can afford to pay for it or not, without telling you what constitutes such a “right”. You were told that your existence makes you entitled to public education, healthcare, etc. Since critical thinking was purely designed to criticize your informers’ enemy, you didn’t bother to think that what they termed as “right” is something or anything that must be provided or funded by the government. Thus, you simply embraced the belief that the government exists to feed you, to clothe you, to pay for your medical bills, and to provide you with the things you need to survive on this planet.

And as you grew older you observed that your social/public informers hate the government for being corrupt and for not being able to satisfy their needs. They hate the government for depriving the people of their alleged

Iskolar of subsidized stupidity?

Iskolar of subsidized stupidity?

right to education, healthcare, medicine, food, jobs, etc. They loathe the government for being corrupt and abusive yet they demand a bigger form of government. They despise corrupt government officials for being indifferent to their needs and so-called “rights”, yet they’re willing to give them more and expansive political powers. They pay lip-service to upholding people’s rights without realizing that their actions, choices and ideologies are, in reality, anti-rights.

Imagine yourself being regularly bombarded with these social constructs. Imagine yourself being exposed, from the time you entered first grade, to the flawed idea that schooling (not education) is the best way to achieve success and social mobility, and that the government exists only to serve and provide you with your needs and desires.

What or how would you feel if reality failed to meet your and your informers’ expectations? Yes, the only obstacle that stands between your social informers and their anti-reality wishes/desires is reality.

All your life you’re told that all you need is college schooling (again, not education) to help your family escape poverty and that it is the political obligation of your government to provide it to you. You simply took these assertions on faith, perhaps because critical thinking should only be employed against your informers’ enemy.

But what if reality were not on the side of your informers? What if your State University imposed certain “anti-poor” policies, because your government didn’t have enough money to pay for all its promised public services, thus depriving you of your so-called right to education? What, then, would you do?

Would you not lose hope and strive to understand and assess the failed ideologies of your informers?

Would you look for other possible opportunities (e.g., find a job, transfer, etc)?

Would you protest your government?

Would you join the social cause of the armed communist revolutionaries?

So-called iskolar ng bayan who have false sense of entitlement.

So-called iskolar ng bayan who have false sense of entitlement.

Would you blame the system and stay idle for years?

Or: would you lose hope and kill yourself… or others?

They say education is a priceless, very important “pamana” from our parents. The other Filipino term for “pamana” is “kaloob”. In English it means “bequest” or “legacy”. The term “bequest” or “pamana” suggests that it is our parents’ responsibility to send us to school, not anyone’s. That’s why it’s called “pamana”.

They’ve repeatedly told you about the value of education, right? However, they didn’t tell you about the value of freedom, particularly economic freedom. That’s your informers’ biggest mistake. That’s why they all have blood on their hands. May they all rot in hell!

Their failure to spread the value of economic freedom– as they’re all statists– has a very high cost. Millions of Filipinos are out of job and living on one-dollar a day because of their contempt of economic freedom and love of Big Government. They say ‘education is a powerful weapon’ in this age of information, yet they try and find all possible ways to make it difficult for you to find jobs and others to put up and maintain a business. They reject the idea of foreign participation and foreign ownership of the mode of production, as they naively believe Filipinos must be the masters of their own land. They reject the idea of market competition and decontrol, as most of them believe that corporations are evil and that ‘individual greed’ is more evil than Government greed.

Isn’t very ironic that the very people who have made it their job to loathe and protest the government (for more government subsidy) actually demand and love a Bigger Government? Others– the uber-leftists– seek to abolish this semi-socialist government in order to replace it with an all powerful socialist regime– an absolute welfare state that arrogantly knows better than you and provides almost everything you need from womb to tomb. This is the kind of social system some of your informers have been wishing for throughout their entire hate-infested lives.

They don’t have the slightest idea what it takes to create wealth. They have this belief that all wealth comes from the government. This is the reason why they think the government has the obligation to educate you, to feed you, to clothe you, to provide you housing, healthcare, etc. They demand more government because they believe it is the only solution to all social and economic problems.

These people want you to be schooled, but they don’t want you to find a job and to survive. The logical, end result of their economic policies is a failed society of massive poverty, unemployment, corruption and ignorance.

Yes, your informers have shamelessly branded themselves and their cause as “pro-education right”, but the truth is, they’re opposed to freedom, because they don’t know what freedom means. Freedom simply means freedom from government compulsion, influence and interference. Yet their dream is to send all kids to public schools, which have been highly politicized by both the country’s education planners and political ideologues. These clueless ‘education’ right advocates are, in reality, enemies of real education and freedom.

Now a lot people concluded UP Manila freshman Kristel Tejada killed herself because she was forced to file a leave of absence for being unable to pay tuition. It is easy to assume this was the main cause of her death. We can only speculate.

But how many young Filipinos were indoctrinated, brainwashed or programmed to think like Kristel? How many millions of Kristels have been created, molded, misshaped by our misguided educators, media and welfare do-gooders?

Are you one of them?

31 Comments leave one →
  1. Spencer permalink
    March 22, 2013 3:38

    Big talk for someone who said that we can only assume.

    • March 22, 2013 3:38

      But are you Kristel Tejada?

      • Spencer permalink
        March 23, 2013 3:38

        No. And your point is?

      • March 23, 2013 3:38

        Read the blog again. You’ll see my point.

      • Spencer permalink
        March 24, 2013 3:38

        But then again, these are just your speculations.

      • March 24, 2013 3:38

        Well, THAT is an speculation. 😉

      • March 24, 2013 3:38

        No. It’s not. The first part of the blog does not comprise my speculations. Observe that I simply used the Kristel issue to present my views against public education and the idea of putting the future of young people under State control. These are not my speculations. This is reality. This is what is happening in the country today.

      • March 25, 2013 3:38

        There’s no doubt. Spencer is Kristel Tejada.

  2. Redge permalink
    March 26, 2013 3:38

    It’s ideal for the public to not rely on the gov’t for their education. So what do you propose to do then when it comes to education of the public, especially, but not exclusively the economically-challenged and yet academically gifted ones?

    If you are critical of the very system/mentality that our society is operating upon and how all of these “indoctrinations” are dragging the entire nation down then you should lay down your cards.

    For the sake of principled and philosophical discussions, elaborate your solution to the present problems we’re facing. Begin with this”right to education” problem. How should the government address the education needs of its citizens? It’s better if you can write a separate blog about your detailed proposals as to how we should approach these ills as a nation.

    • Redge permalink
      March 26, 2013 3:38

      Vince,based on the substance of your blog, is it safe to say that you are in favor of the stopping altogether the subsidy of public education? That people should start paying for their own education? So what do you really propose to do in the face of our present socio-economic situation?

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      “So what do you propose to do then when it comes to education of the public, especially, but not exclusively the economically-challenged and yet academically gifted ones?”

      — “Academically gifted?” That’s a funny term to use. 😉

      Socialism, socialized system, or fascism is not the only way. There’s a better alternative, and I’ve been writing about it for years.

      First, we need economic freedom to fix our economy. This is how Singapore, HK, South Korea and other tiger economies achieved economic growth.

      I discussed this issue in the following blogs–


      Then we need a free market education system wherein schools should be privatized. But we couldn’t do this without constitutional reform. We should also allow foreigners to put up schools and teach. We should allow foreign investors and professionals to be part of our team. This is what Singapore and others did. Like Nobel laureate and economist Milton Friedman said:This [America] country did not become great by preventing people from coming here from abroad and buying land and setting up businesses.”

      I discussed this issue in the following blogs:


      And then change our collectivist, palamunin culture—

      • March 26, 2013 3:38

        I stated here:

        “I have stated several times that privatization of ALL public schools, colleges, and universities is NOT the first reform. It would economically, socially, and politically dangerous to execute an abrupt, unplanned privatization of all public SUCs without addressing first other government areas that could be subject of the ‘initial reform process’ so as not to cause damage to the economy. I’m not an economist, but I think that the first wave of reforms must start within the government. Depending upon how government officials and lawmakers weigh things out, they may start with the most burdensome, high-spending government agencies, corporations, and other state instrumentalities, particularly the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR). The fundamental process is to revise the 1987 Constitution in order to establish a Republican-federal government, the role of which is purely limited by the fundamental law of the land.”

      • Redge permalink
        March 26, 2013 3:38

        You mentioned Singapore and other progressive/ wealthy nations -> how they were able to achieve economic growth. True, we need economic reforms. But I have to mention here that these wealthy nations are subsidizing their public education as well. Singapore, for example, is offering public basic education for FREE and subsidizing State Universities/Colleges.

        It only shows that they value education that much. And if they can offer it for free, then why not? For as long as the government can afford such funding then I don’t think it’s fundamentally a bad idea. In fact, Singapore education is widely regarded as a model for other nations to emulate.

        Our government only needs to find better ways to make this “free education” economically-sustainable. Don’t you find this as a long-term investment of the government that will eventually yield profits for our nation as a whole?

        If investing in one’s own citizen through quality education is a bad idea, then I don’t know what “good investment” is anymore.

      • March 26, 2013 3:38

        “how they were able to achieve economic growth.”

        That’s a good question. They didn’t achieve economic growth by embracing protectionism. Do you even know the difference in terms of economic policies between RP and these Asian Tiger economies?

        They have a higher degree of economic freedom. We limit foreign investors through our 60-40 law and many other protectionist policies, while these tiger economies allow foreign investment, including foreign professionals.

        We totally ban foreign professionals from joining our Team. This is why I said America should Give Filipinos ‘Parity Rights’, too.

        I stated here:

        “They sincerely believe that we can also be rich and industrialized by simply doling out publicly funded condoms and contraceptives to the poor who must be prevented from producing too many unwanted babies. Their proposed road to prosperity is more welfare spending– that we can spend our way out of poverty and ‘overpopulation’. Yet the undeniable truth is, the envied first-world nations did not achieve economic growth by simply limiting the ability of their people to procreate. United States, Japan, Singapore, Russia, France and United Kingdom are rich and industrialized because of their relatively freer economies. While it’s true that all countries in the world are either socialistic or mixed economies and impose economic restrictions, these first-world nations fully allow and encourage foreign participation (both in investment and practice of profession). By contrast, the Philippines does not only limit foreign ownership of business and land; it also totally bans foreign professionals from sharing their knowledge and skills and practicing their respective professions.”

        Plus here:

        Over three to fives decades ago, the Philippines was economically freer and more open to foreign trade compared to its neighbors. Just think of China that literally closed its borders to foreign trade during its red era. The first wave of economic reforms only came to China from 1979 to 1984, wherein economic reforms were aimed at revising the socialist country’s foreign economic relations. And then everything changed in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization to officially become a Corporatist state.

        A lot of Filipinos have this nostalgic attitude and mentality to look at their old good past and say: “A long time ago this country was economically great and stable… Today, it’s called the sick man of Asia.”

        But what made our formerly great fatherland sick? It’s our welfare-statist mentality!

        In my own humble opinion, we were economically strong in the past due to the following reasons:

        * The United States was still our main trading partner in Asia.
        * During the post-war era the Philippines was one of the freest economies in the region.
        * Other Asian countries were still struggling. Soon these struggling Asian nations learned from this socialistic economic past and began to compete for foreign trade and investment.

        Our pre-1986 economic past was pockmarked with stripes of economic liberalization and stains of protectionism and welfare politics. However, things went from good to bad following the passage of the 1987 Constitution. Instead of embracing economic freedom, our Constitution drafters and past leaders upped our level of protectionism and welfare state.

        The 21st century marked a heightened period of intense global trade due to technological innovation/advancement, economic liberalization, economic integration of nation-states, e-commerce, and continued knowledge-based industrialization. The Philippines failed to compete due to its protectionism, semi-closed economic policies and intrusive regulations.

        You said: “Singapore, for example, is offering public basic education for FREE and subsidizing State Universities/Colleges.”

        So what? Does welfare create wealth? They can afford to do that because of their stable, strong, robust economy. In fact, THEY DON’T NEED TO DO THAT because the Singaporeans have jobs. They all have jobs that they need foreigners like Filipinos to work there. There are more jobs in Singapore.

        But what you don’t know is that Singapore has a very LIMITED welfare.

        Here’s what Singapore’s PM Lee Hsien Loong said:

        “We have started with very minimal welfare and we’ve gone on the basis of growth and high employment and low unemployment. If you’re out of a job you can find a new job. You will get help but the help is not something you’re absolutely entitled to.

        “We have to adjust that without going overboard and ending up where the Americans are or the Europeans are or where the New Zealanders were.”

      • March 26, 2013 3:38

        You talked about Singapore’s welfare policies (free education,etc.). These are called WELFARE POLICIES or programs. I wrote several months ago:

        “Others like Balisacan and his ilk might argue: ‘Well, it’s because these progressive countries implement welfare policies!’ But who pays for those welfare programs? Those government welfare programs are simply like vampires that suck the blood of their victims: the productive industries and people.

        “Welfare programs do not create wealth; it is the people’s willingness and ability to use their mind (e.g., introducing new inventions and innovations, and developing new productive ideas, etc.) and to be productive (e.g., starting new ventures and businesses) that truly creates economic wealth that people need to survive.”

        Here’s a related post:

        There’s no causal link between high population and poverty (translation: that high population is the main cause of poverty). But there is causal link between repressive economic policies and poverty. Contrary to Balisacan’s interpretation, the reality is that the theory of demographic transition indirectly shows that in most cases, poverty causes population growth, and poverty is CAUSED by repressive economic policies.

        The Philippines is poor because of its repressive economic policies, and it failed to achieve demographic transition because of its increasing poverty, again, CAUSED by its repressive, protectionist, failed economic policies.

        The case of Singapore, Japan, South Korea and other developed nations shows that governments don’t need to adopt aggressive population control policy to secure economic growth. This is because demographic transition is merely the result of a nation’s economic success. In other words, demographic transition FOLLOWS economic growth, and this is what Malthusian intellectuals like Balisacan fail to see.

        I must repeat: DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION FOLLOWS ECONOMIC GROWTH, not the other way around. This is almost the same as the scientifically proven argument against man-made global warming that CO2 (carbon dioxide) follows temperature, not the other way around. But that’s another story.

  3. March 26, 2013 3:38

    I need to post links to somehow tell you I covered these issues in the past. This is to save me time…

    Here’s my debate with a Filipino freefarter who argued more welfare could create wealth… You only have to remember that most countries today are MIXED ECONOMIES.

    An excerpt of my debate with a Filipino freefarter:

    Here’s what you should understand about basic economics… This is pure logic!

    1. An economically prosperous country like HK and Singapore with few taxes and low tax rates is expected to have a VERY HIGH GDP! That’s ouput!

    2. Since that economically prosperous country merely levies few taxes and low tax rates, it’s expected that it would only have a very low government revenue compared to its GDP.

    3. Since that country has minimal government revenue due to its lower tax rates, it’s expected that its welfare spending would be very low compared to its GDP.

    Now, the fact that HK’s welfare spending is 17 to 19% shows that it spends more on welfare!

    You said: “Among the countries with the highest quality of lif, most have very high welfare spending, and that in my opinion is what we should be striving for.”

    – This is funny and ignorant at best… Does that include Greece and Portugal?

    Also, Cuba is said to have more than 80% government expenditure of GDP…

    What makes those countries happy is not their big welfare spending. It’s their vibrant economies that make their people happy.

  4. Redge permalink
    March 26, 2013 3:38

    I am all for a making our economy more free by rewriting our constitution and hence improve our chances of achieving substantial economic growth. I don’t negate you when it comes to that.

    What I’m worried more is your seemingly over critical of your own economically-marginalized countrymen receiving assistance from the government in the form of free public basic education and subsidized tertiary education.

    What is your beef with our kababayans receiving assistance. I don’t know about you but as far as my Christian upbringing and faith and as written in the Bible itself, (basically the word of God). We should give preferential treatment for the poor. We should be discriminate FOR them.

    I read your frustrations about the government acting as “Robin Hood” robbing the productive citizens by taxing them and redistributing them to those small segment of our society. Don’t you think that this is actually somehow a fulfillment of “preferential treatment of and for the poor”?

    Do you really want to eliminate altogether the free education once we achieve certain economic success? Again,what’s your beef against them?

    I’m with you when you mentioned somewhere that UP students should not view their education there as government’s obligation to them – something that they can DEMAND from the government. Instead, they should feel grateful for this limited opportunities that the government or practically the entire nation is extending them. That should the right mentality.

    However, I object, once again, that cutting-off support for public education is the right way going forward. In fact, I believe that it be disastrous and will bring about negative social repercussions.

    What’s your take on the “preferential treatment of the poor”? Just asking!

    • Redge permalink
      March 26, 2013 3:38

      pardon me for the “errata” … i was typing as i think…

      • March 26, 2013 3:38

        “What is your beef with our kababayans receiving assistance.”

        — I am opposed to those who are asking for more freebies! That’s the point. I loathe anyone who claims he has the right to public services, because those services have to be extorted from SOME taxpayers.

        If you want more government services, you should be ready to pay more and higher taxes.

        Didn’t you observe what happened after the passage of the RH bill? The Aquino admin passed the EXPANDED SIN TAX LAW. Also, PNoy instructed the BIR to run after online sellers. The government needs higher revenue.

        Did you know that the Aquino regime BORROWED another P852.7 billion last year to finance its programs and expenses?

        Look at what happened to Greece. The socialists in Greece destroyed their economy through unsustainable welfare and regulations. They tried to hide their real economic conditions from the EU by trying to distort their records. They expended more than they collected.

      • March 26, 2013 3:38

        I must reiterate: I consider anyone who sincerely believes he has the innate, absolute right to welfare services (education, health care, housing, food, job, etc.) a POTENTIAL CRIMINAL.

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      “What I’m worried more is your seemingly over critical of your own economically-marginalized countrymen receiving assistance from the government in the form of free public basic education and subsidized tertiary education.”

      — You should be worried about the state of mind of your countrymen, too. Lemme tell you something. We have high budget deficit because the government’s revenue collection is not enough to cover all its expenses.

      The government allocated over P10 billion to UP system for the next school year. You want more? All state universities received budget increase. You want more? In fact many of these state universities have higher budget than private universities that have more students. How much budget do you need?

      I don’t think you want a better economy. You cannot have a better economy with very unsustainable welfare state. You should be worried of the state of mind in this country– of the kind of mentality that dominates public sphere and consensus.

      We need a limited government. A limited government is a government that must have a limited power to do something to its people. More welfare means more government power.

  5. Redge permalink
    March 26, 2013 3:38


    We should be discriminaTING FOR them. That should BE the right mentality. I believe that it WILL be disastrous …


  6. Redge permalink
    March 26, 2013 3:38

    I will appreciate it if you will answer me straight to the point. How are you going to treat our poor kababayans then?

    If, hypothetically, you will be given a free hand to address the situation of our poor kababayans, how can you actually help them escape the cycle of poverty? Are you not going to provide them access to free/ affordable public education as one of the vehicles to achieve this goal?

    I’m more concerned wth our poor kababayans that really need help while discouraging mendicancy or freeloaders’ mentality. How are you practically going to address this?

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      “I will appreciate it if you will answer me straight to the point. How are you going to treat our poor kababayans then?”

      — I’ve answered you already. We need more economic freedom. We need to free this economy. Check my previous posts.

      Besides, IT IS NOT my fault that they became poor. It’s the fault of this government and those who support our current protectionist setup. They are the VICTIMS of our protectionist system and FAILED WELFARE SYSTEM.

      You think your solution is MORE WELFARE?

      You asked me: “How are you going to treat our poor kababayans then?”

      I ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION and try to answer me straight to the point.


      The government is already giving them services. You think that is NOT enough? I told you our HIGH BUDGET DEFICIT proves we have a very unsustainable welfare state.

      My solution are as follows (just check my previous posts):

      Eliminate certain taxes or lower tax rates. Taxes that can be eliminated are income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, property tax, community tax, and corporate income tax. The government may focus on consumption tax as its source of revenue. However, the elimination of taxes should be done in a gradual, cautious manner.
      Lower government spending
      Privatization. It is time to privatize all government-owned and controlled corporations.
      Legalize gambling and lottery. Allow both foreign and local entrepreneurs to run gambling and lottery businesses. Let them compete with each other.
      Allow 100% foreign ownership of land and business.
      Allow foreign professionals to practice their professions here.
      Allow foreigners to put up schools, media, public utilities, etc.
      Allow foreign investors to put up power companies and compete with Filipino-owned power utilities.
      Decontrol or deregulate by repealing economic regulations and restrictions.
      Allow private insurers and social security companies to compete with SSS and GSIS.
      Abolish certain government departments and agencies like DepEd, CHED, DSWD, DOH, national housing authority, NFA, DPWH, DoE etc. But this should be done gradually.
      Abolish certain welfare programs like PhilHealth, government loan programs, subsidies, etc.
      More focus on our judiciary or court system, police, and military.

      The solution is to lower the taxes being imposed on everybody. But if you want MORE WELFARE, that means you want HIGHER TAXES. My proposed initial tax rate is 15% FLAT-TAX RATE.That’s the tax rate in Russia.

      If we open our economy to foreign investors, lower taxes, decontrol or deregulate and maintain a higher degree of economic freedom, THERE WOULD BE MORE INVESTMENT. More investment means MORE jobs and opportunities. And more jobs and opportunities mean LESS unemployment. And if more Pinoys have jobs, they don’t have to rely on the government. That’s my solution.

      What’s yours? Keep the system. Keep spending on more welfare?

      How much taxpayers’ money are you willing to give to the poor? ANSWER ME!

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      ALSO, why do we have more POOR PEOPLE in the first place?

      It’s because of the policies of the very people who support welfare programs. Those who support the so-called right to education, healthcare, housing, etc.

      We have more POOR people because of our SOCIALISTIC policies (protectionism, more welfare spending that breeds bureaucratic corruption, more regulations, higher taxes, etc.)

      The socialists and statists want more POOR PEOPLE in this failed state. If we have more POOR PEOPLE, they’d have more justification to push for their socialist agenda.

      The leftists and statists have one great fear: AN ECONOMICALLY PROSPEROUS PHILIPPINES.

      Their solution to our poverty is BIGGER GOVERNMENT or socialism. You cannot help the poor through that kind of evil policy. That would be like the monkey that tries to save a fish from drowning by putting it up on a tree.

      If you think the only solution left is to make these poor people dependent on government or taxpayers’ money, then I say I DO NOT THINK YOU RESPECT THESE PEOPLE. I don’t think you want them to have a dignified life.

      I do not want them to be dependent on the government because I respect them. I want them to have a dignified life. A parasite or palamunin doesn’t have a dignified life. I want them to have jobs and to be economically independent. The only way to achieve this is to change our economic and political setup. We need to embrace FREE MARKET REFORMS. We need more economic freedom. This is the ONLY WAY.

  7. Redge permalink
    March 26, 2013 3:38

    I need to make it clear to you that I did not, in any way, categorically say, much less imply that the ONLY SOLUTION to address the problem of poverty is to make them dependent on our government. I, in fact, discourage mendicant mentality adopted by some of our countrymen.

    I sincerely wish a higher quality of life for them. That one day, they or at least their children or children’s children will be able to break away from the chains of poverty. But I do believe that, assisting them by way of giving them free or subsidized access to education is one of the best ways to achieve this goal. I would even go as far as calling it as a “sound investment”. This is practically teaching them how to fish and feed them for life as opposed to just giving them the fish directly like the dole-out programs of the present admin. Such programs definitely promote mendicancy and I totally oppose such. The practice essentially takes away the pride and dignity of our poor countrymen by promoting dependent mentality.

    As we overhaul our economy, we should institute temporary provisions to assist our poor brethren as we transition them towards better quality of life.

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      “But I do believe that, assisting them by way of giving them free or subsidized access to education is one of the best ways to achieve this goal.”

      You’re for a mixed system. We already have that. You know what? It’s failing. Do you think our welfare system is a success?

      I don’t think that’s the best way. The best way is free market education coupled with economic freedom.

      Here’s what I believe. Cutting or abolishing subsidy WITHOUT economic freedom is disastrous or even suicidal. That would accelerate the social cause of the communists. That would be economically disastrous.

      Like I said, I believe that the privatization of schools is NOT the first reform. It has to be gradual. Focus on changing the Constitution first to pave the way for ECON FREEDOM. Privatize all onerous GOCCs that are supposed to MAKE- not lose- money, like PAGCOR, GSIS, NAWASA, MWSS, NAPOCOR, etc.

      Gradually privatize public hospitals. Foreigners should be allowed to put up hospitals and practice medical profession.

      The privatization of ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS might take years. It has to be gradual. It must be made in accordance with the country’s economic growth and employment expansion.

      There are ways to attract investors:

      1. Lower tax rates.A 15% flat tax is an ideal rate.
      2. Deregulate
      3. Limit our government.
      4. Make doing business a lot easier. In HK, it will only take 2 days to put up a business. In RP it will take 36 days or more.
      5. Abolish regulations

      Also, establishing economic freedom while maintaining more public schools and hospitals is an OXYMORON. The second is an anti-thesis to econ freedom.


      More welfare means:

      1. More and higher taxes
      2. More regulations
      3. More excuses to create more welfare and to tax
      4. More government power
      5. More CORRUPTION

      Public education is merely creating grade-conscious people who are NOT actually intelligent. They just know how to memorize things and to move within the system. Because that’s what they learned in college.

      If you UP people think are so good, then you’d also be able to obtain scholarship grants in private schools and universities.I was a university scholar. I didn’t pay a cent from first year until I finished college.

      From this blog:

      What will happen during the post-privatization process? Both the CHED and the DeEd must be abolished. These two government agencies only impose impediments on the private schools. Government bureaucrats and educators are no better than private educators when it comes to running private schools. Private schools should be left alone, and they have the sole prerogative and discretion as to what method of instruction to apply, what school facilities to acquire, what kind of research program to establish, among others. The government may only interfere when there’s a violation of rights. This is why the government must secure an impartial, incorruptible court system in order to protect the rights of every citizen.

      Others might also ask: What about the cost of education? Under a free-market economy, competition would force all private players to lower the cost of their education. Competition would also guarantee innovation, productiveness, better method of instruction, better research, improved school facilities, more scholarship grants to deserving students, among others. Just look at the cost of cellphones, computers, and phone or text cards that we have today. Because of competition, the top three telecommunication companies- Globe, Smart, Sun- were forced to lower the price of their products and services. Before, we had to buy P300 worth of prepaid card before we could text or call our loved ones. Today there are now a lot of promotional campaigns that allow us to choose among all telecom players in the country and buy telecom products at a very low price. Before, the cost of cellular phones ranged from P10,000 to P30,000. Today depending upon your choice, you could buy a cellphone worth P3,000 or more in spite of inflation. If you want a good cellphone, you could have iphone 4 for over P30,000. In a free society we are free to choose.

      Furthermore, in a fully privatized economy there would be more private companies and corporations to offer scholarship grants to poor yet deserving students. This means that the government doesn’t have to shoulder the schooling of poor children. The Western concept of “corporate social responsibility” would also somehow compel private corporations and companies to embark on private charity to help poor children and poor people. This is what is happening in most highly developed country. Most importantly, the essence of privatization of education is the free-market of ideas. Private schools are free to embark on scientific and technological research in order to boost their image, to attract more students, and to establish partnerships with private firms. If a certain school or university failed to perform its job, it would cease to exist. Only those better performing schools would continue to survive. This may sound harsh but in reality, competition encourages innovation and productivity. If we allow the non-performing schools to flourish by giving them government subsidies, it would have a negative impact on the people and on the economy, as this knee-jerk scheme would only encourage these incompetent schools not to innovate and, most importantly, it would also affect the performance of the students.

    • March 26, 2013 3:38

      Do you really think privatization would signal the END OF THE WORLD in the Failippines?

      This statement of yours really baffles me: “But I do believe that, assisting them by way of giving them free or subsidized access to education is one of the best ways to achieve this goal.”

      I ask you the ff questions:

      1. Do you really think our welfare system is a success with our higher budget deficit and higher taxes?
      2. If not, how can you make the system work better to provide more welfare services or welfare access to the poor?

  8. Booboo the Bear permalink
    April 23, 2013 3:38

    Hey Redge, if you are so damned concerned about these bastards why don’t you just write a stupid cheque to the government or give to your church?? Advocating more dole to the “poor” necessarily means using government monopoly of force against the collective (harharhar) citizenry. These citizens may not share your altruistic tendencies at all times. Admirable as your notion of “investing in education” seems, it is absolutely meaningless. The use of force to exact contributions under the guise of “doing good” is just plain silly. I hope you understand that completely. Bottom line is: GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PROPER MECHANISM OF CHARITY. Doesn’t Secularism mean anything anymore???

  9. Booboo the Bear permalink
    April 23, 2013 3:38

    @Redge: Furthermore, do you really think that government has the ability to successfully “invest in education”? Does the government even have such a capacity? Will there be “dividends” from such an investment? If you think that, then I suggest you think and read more.

    I am sure that you are familiar with the situation in re the oversupply of nurses in the country. Sound economic theory postulates that knowledge is widely dispersed throughout the society and that it is this dispersal mechanism that allows commerce to flourish (See Freidrich August von Hayek’s “The Use of Knowledge in Society”). Also, such decentralized data cannot be collated and processed by any central authority –it is simply too big and too dynamic for any mind of group of minds to calculate. Therefore, government intrusion on such a mechanism would only have the effect of disturbing and perverting this natural mechanism. Now, if the market itself makes mistakes every now and then as evidenced in this nursing “bubble-fiasco” despite the fact that knowledge processing is itself a part of the market system, do you really think that a central authority will be able to effectively “steer” anything concerning “education”???


  1. Shameless, Ingrate Savages! | THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: