Home Blog Page 10335

How to relay bad news to the workers

Our company will be sold to a competitor. The sale may result in a massive restructuring and job losses. Being head of the human resources department, I was tasked to create a communication plan for the employees who may be demotivated because of the impending sale. How should I proceed? What are the things that I must consider to minimize the adverse effects on employee morale? – Deep Blue Sea.

A priest was preaching to his congregation about the difference between heaven and hell. To emphasize the difference between the two, he asked that all who wanted to go to heaven stand up with him. At the signal, all parishioners rose. He then asked that all who wanted to go to hell stand up with him. No one rose.

For full dramatic impact, he waited for about 30 seconds while scanning the audience before continuing. The silence was broken by a 10-year old who slowly rose to his feet. The astonished priest spoke to the boy. “Surely, son, a fine young man like yourself does not want to go to hell.” The boy answered:

“Maybe not, reverend. But I just couldn’t stand the sight of you standing there all alone.”

As distasteful as it is, just like the little boy in our story, there are inevitable occasions when you have to take a stand and be in solidarity with new management and perform your job as the bearer of bad news to the employees. With the new owners, it is expected that there will be job transfers, demotions, and job losses due to redundancy or the introduction of new work methods.

However, no matter how unpalatable your new task may appear to be, there are several ways to go about it to minimize the emotional letdown for you and the workers. Explore the following:

One, ask the new owners what things they want to do first. Or would they rather hear your recommendations first? Find out. Try to determine the new management style by learning as much as you can from all available materials on the Internet or some other places. Do your homework. Then take it from there.

Two, devise your communication plan, resources needed, and the timelines. Do research on the things that will help you bridge the gap between the new owner’s interests and that of the workers. Then seek management approval. Include in the plan the introduction of the new management team to the employees, if necessary.

Three, organize a town hall meeting as soon as possible. Face the people. Don’t even think of issuing a circular as this could be misinterpreted as lack of sincerity. Talk to the workers and don’t delay. Every day of delay creates the possibility of an information leak. If this happens, the employees’ fears may blow out of proportion which could make your life more difficult.

Four, anticipate all difficult questions from the employees. Prepare a list and send it to the new owner so they can be guided during the town hall meeting or meetings. Likewise, anticipate the new owner’s answers by giving them a list of all objective and positive approaches in dealing with those difficult questions.

Five, understand the workers’ poor morale after conveying the bad news. They may feel emotional, lousy and it is possible absenteeism could rise. Sympathize with the people but not to the point of exaggeration. Also, avoid humor at all costs even if you try to lighten the mood. Don’t even think of making light of things as it could be misinterpreted as sarcasm.

Six, discuss the reasons for the sale of the company to a new owner. This may be obvious to some people but not all can understand it from the management’s perspective. However, if you are the HR head, leave it to the new owner to discuss the reasons. They are more credible than any other persons in the organization.

Last, open up to those people who would be adversely affected. In case of job losses, demotions or transfers to unfavorable departments or locations, it should always be done in private with those concerned. Choose a private room where no disturbances are possible and keep things confidential.

If there’s no urgency, schedule the meeting for late in the day, when everyone is about ready to go home. Generally, it’s a good time to relay bad news.

Whatever happens, it’s always a good idea to remain objective and positive all the way, even if you think you’ll be affected by the restructuring. It’s always the best approach to remain gainfully employed.

 

ELBONOMICS: You can’t control the bad news, but you can create the good news.

Send anonymous questions to elbonomics@gmail.com or via https://reyelbo.consulting

How strong is the Philippines’ ‘brand’ reputation compared to those of other economies?

How strong is the Philippines’ ‘brand’ reputation compared to those of other economies?

How PSEi member stocks performed — July 4, 2019

Here’s a quick glance at how PSEi stocks fared on Thursday, July 4, 2019.

 

BoC rice import tariff collections at P5.9 billion

THE BUREAU of Customs (BoC) has collected a total of P5.9 billion in tariffs from 1.43 million metric tons (MT) of rice imported by private traders following the implementation of the Rice Tariffication Law in March, the Department of Finance (DoF) said Thursday.

According to the DoF, the Port of Manila generated the highest tariff collections from the rice shipments at P978.51 million, followed by the Manila International Container Port at P942.76 million, then the Port of Cagayan de Oro at P754.13 million.

The Port of Davao, meanwhile, collected P703.93 million, based on preliminary data from the BoC.

The Rice Tariffication Law removed quantitative restrictions on rice imports while imposing tariffs to fund the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF), which will aid rice farmers in the form of mechanization, credit, education and seed.

The RCEF allocation for farmers is P10 billion annually.

The DoF said that liberalizing rice imports has made the food more affordable, with a drop of P10 per kilo at retail during the dry-season months.

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has said that it expects revenue collected from rice imports to exceed P10 billion.

The law provides that the excess is to be used to help farmers diversify into other crops.

“The law stipulates that the excess of P10 billion will go back to assist farmers diversifying into other crops. Assistance for diversification is not in the RCEF. Funds for this will come from the excess revenue,” NEDA Undersecretary Rosemarie G. Edillon has said. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio

Trade dep’t launches Halal-certified logo

THE Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) said it launched the official Philippine Halal logo, which will be used to identify all Halal products made in the country.

“We would like to see notable exports of our Halal products in the future. With this logo, our products can be identified easily by consumers as Halal-certified products,” Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez was quoted as saying in a statement Thursday at the National Halal Conference held in Clark on July 3.

The DTI said the current logo of Halal certification bodies will still be allowed.

Mr. Lopez said DTI’s accreditation bureau will also implement a special window to cater to Philippine Halal certification bodies.

Undersecretary for Trade Promotions Group and Special Concerns Abdulgani M. Macatoman has said the DTI is targeting to boost Philippine Halal exports by 6% to 8% every year on the back of growing demand.

Mr. Macatoman said export growth is driven by increasing demand from countries with a large Muslim populations as well as health-conscious consumers, who find Islamic dietary standards to be attractive.

The DTI estimates Halal exports in 2018 totaled $560 million.

Of this, 90% were food and non-alcoholic beverages, while the remaining volume consisted of personal care products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and detergents.

The markets for these products were the Middle East, Southeast Asia and South Africa.

“We encourage our MSMEs, especially in the countryside, to develop their products, and explore the opportunities in the growing demand for Halal-certified products,” said Mr. Lopez.

“I am optimistic that with greater collaboration between various sectors, we can support more MSMEs, encourage them to do and grow their businesses, and help us in developing more Halal hubs in the country catering to domestic as well as export markets,” the Trade chief added.

The DTI said the global Halal market is currently valued at $2.6 trillion, with 62% consisting of food and beverages followed by pharmaceuticals at 22%, cosmetics and personal care at 10% and nutraceuticals at 6%.

The global Halal market is estimated to hit $10 trillion by 2025, with the food and beverage segment expected to top $1.93 trillion by 2022. — Janina C. Lim

Tariff Commission deadline to report on cement safeguards expires

A CONSUMER GROUP said the Tariff Commission’s (TC) hearings to evaluate safeguard duties on cement are “moot and academic” because the commission failed to comply with the timelines provided by the law.

Laban Konsyumer Inc. (LKI) said the TC’s failure to comply is grounds for rejecting a safeguard duty on imported cement.

“In our opinion, the Tariff Commission should declare the investigation and release of the report functus oficio, or moot and academic, and cancel the safeguard duty immediately for non-compliance with Sections 8 and 9 of RA (Republic Act) 8800,” LKI President Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba said in a Thursday statement.

Mr. Dimagiba, a former undersecretary at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), was referring to the provisions of the Safeguard Measures Act of 2000 which specifies a 200-day period for the imposition of the provisional duty and a 120-day investigation period after the Feb. 22 effectivity date.

Although the provisional duty expires in the first week of September, the TC has failed to beat its deadline to complete its investigation report, according to LKI.

“As of today, July 3, [last Wednesday] 2019, the final report and findings of the Commission have not been issued and delivered to the Secretary of Trade and Industry,” Mr. Dimagiba added.

In addition, Mr. Dimagiba said the duty has caused an increase in cement prices which will end up as an additional costs passed on to consumers.

Citing government data for June, Mr. Dimagiba said the prevailing price of members of the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CeMAP) stood at P235 per bag, an increase from the P225 reported in May.

Meanwhile, prices of Eagle Cement Corp., which is not a member of CeMAP, averaged P220 per bag.

“Demand for cement is strong and CeMap members cannot meet the demand. Imports will continue and definitive duty will hurt consumers. Local plants will increase their prices and match landed costs of imports,” it added.

CeMAP is composed of CEMEX Holdings Philippines Inc., Holcim Philippines Inc., Republic Cement Services, Inc., and Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, Inc.

At a public hearing at the TC in May, the group said it was seeking a safeguard duty that is higher than the P210 per ton imposed by the DTI.

The ongoing investigation on cement is the TC’s first motu proprio case on safeguard duties.

The DTI launched the review, saying the surge in cement imports have been seriously hurting the domestic industry.

The DTI has said it will look into the possibility of stretching the use of the provisional safeguard duty should the TC fail to complete its investigation in time for the tax’s removal in September.

The Philippine Cement Importers’ Association had said that the domestic cement producers have high operational costs, making their product less competitive than imports.

The TC and the DTI were asked to comment but had not replied at deadline time. — Janina C. Lim

Council set up to ensure compliance with international maritime standards

PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte has issued an executive order (EO) creating a council to oversee the Philippines’ compliance with the policies of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) ahead of a 2021 audit.

Mr. Duterte signed on July 2 EO No. 84, “Creation of an inter-agency council on the international organization member state audit scheme (IMSAS).” The Palace released to reporters copies of the document on Thursday.

The IMO Assembly conducts audits to determine how “obligations and responsibilities” are being carried out by the organization’s member states. The Philippines will undergo IMSAS in “2021 and every seven years thereafter.”

The audit covers six areas: “safety of life at sea; prevention of pollution from ships; standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers; load lines; measurement of ships; and regulations for preventing collisions at sea.”

The EO noted that there is a need to “ensure strict and full compliance with the commitments and obligations” of the country as a member state of the IMO” by carefully “planning, managing, directing, coordinating and monitoring the corresponding efforts of relevance government agencies and instrumentalities.”

The inter-agency council will be composed of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DoTr) as Chairperson and the Administrator of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) as Vice Chairperson, and representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and Cebu Port Authority (CPA), as members.

The council will ensure that the government agencies implement and comply with all the policies, laws and issuances pertaining to the implementation of the IMO instruments in an “integrated manner.”

The council will also review, approve, and implement a National Work Programme (NWP) and adopt mechanisms to “ensure that international obligations and responsibilities of the Philippines as a flag, port, and coastal state are fully satisfied.”

The EO designated the Overseas Shipping Service of MARINA as the Secretariat of the Council, which will “coordinate with relevant agencies on the status of the council’s plans and programs, and provide updates to the council on the implementation of the NWP.”

The Palace also directed all other government offices and agencies to render prompt and necessary assistance, “consistent with their respective mandates, to fully implement the provisions of this Order.”

Funding for the council is to be “charged against sources to be identified by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).” — Arjay L. Balinbin

Mindanao Barter Council finalizing guidelines for ports in Sulu, Tawi-Tawi

DAVAO CITY — The Mindanao Barter Council (MBC) is finalizing the guidelines for the barter trade office, which will initially be established in the ports of Jolo, Sulu and Bongao, Tawi-Tawi.

Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) Assistant Secretary Romeo M. Montenegro said the MBC has held various meetings to discuss the proposed rules and sort out technical matters.

“MBC will be responsible for coordinating and facilitating activities related to barter trading,” Mr. Montenegro said at the Habi at Kape forum this week.

The MBC is composed of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Secretary as chairperson, the Bureau of Customs (BoC) commissioner as vice chairperson, the MinDA chair, and representatives from various agencies, including the Departments of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, DTI-Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Maritime Industry Authority, Philippine Coast Guard, and Philippine Ports Authority.

The MBC is tasked to supervise, coordinate, and harmonize policies, programs and activities concerning barter in the southern Philippines.

Among its functions are issuing regulations on the accreditation of qualified traders, including the imposition of registration fees and facilitation of all documentary requirements for them to avail of the zero-tariff benefits under the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA).

Mr. Montenegro said the barter trade offices will be in charge of monitoring what would become a formal buying and selling system.

“We have no way of knowing how much volume of goods will be coming in, how much in terms of value are they pumping in to the local economy because there had been no system in place as of the moment, and that is exactly the design of the barter trade office. Barter trade had been going on for several centuries but until today is informal,” he said.

“The Barter Trade Executive Order is to assist them to facilitate their gradual transition from informal trading to formal trading and mainstreaming them into our economic set-up because right now they are part of the shadow economy,” Mr. Montenegro added.

President Rodrigo R. Duterte issued Executive Order 64 on Oct. 29 to “strengthen trade and commerce between and among the member states of the Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines-East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA).”

The EO provides that “Goods traded under the barter system shall enter Philippine territory only through barter ports established for the purpose. Products enjoying tariff protections and quantitative restrictions such as rice, corn, and sugar as well as products requiring special import permits and subject to standard requirements shall remain regulated by applicable laws, rules and regulations.”

Olie B. Dagala, director for MinDA’s investment promotion and public affairs office, said the agency is hopeful that the barter office will be operational by August. — Maya M. Padillo

Beyond the numbers game

No one should be under the illusion that any impeachment complaint against President Rodrigo R. Duterte will by itself remove him from office. But it might help.

Someone or some organization may be willing to face the firestorm of hate that the regime’s online trolls and mercenaries in print and broadcast will certainly unleash when such a complaint is filed in the House of Representatives. But that complaint is unlikely to even pass the House justice committee which will decide whether it is “sufficient in form and substance.” If by some miracle it does survive that body, it is even more unlikely that the complaint will get the one-third vote of the total House membership needed to pass a resolution calling on the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.

The reason is clear enough, and even presidential mouthpiece Salvador Panelo doesn’t want anyone to forget it. He laughed off the possibility that his boss of bosses (or, as the Mafia puts it, the capo di tutti capi) will be impeached. He crowed that the “supermajority” in the House won’t let it happen, impeachment being “a numbers game.”

The regime’s accomplices in the House have indeed not even concealed the fact that despite Congress’ being the “co-equal” of the Executive branch of government, they will pretty much do what Mr. Duterte wants. Asked if they will be his rubber stamp, several members of that less than august body emphatically said “no.” In the same breath, however, they also declared that they will continue to support Mr. Duterte, in the process merely confirming what they have been denying.

Mr. Duterte may have violated the Constitution not only by entering into an agreement with China’s President Xi Jinping to allow Chinese fishermen to fish in the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but also by persecuting the independent press and encouraging the killing of thousands of poor Filipinos without due process. But the House of ill-repute — dominated by warlords, provincial despots, and political dynasties with neither honor nor conviction and driven only by their personal, familial, and class interests — just doesn’t have the love of country or the brains to see how far the ruination of the country has come during the Duterte watch.

Members of the minority Makabayan bloc in the House have nevertheless said they will either endorse an impeachment complaint or else file it themselves, but have also said that it is unlikely to prosper.

What would then be the point?

Despite the odds against them, people’s and sectoral organizations, party list groups, and democratic personalities and progressives have fielded candidates for office every three years on the assumption that doing so would raise the level of discussion and debate during electoral campaigns and thus enable the public to gain a better, or at least some appreciation of what is at stake during such elections as the last one. It has been suggested that once an impeachment complaint against Mr. Duterte is filed, the ensuing debate would lead to the citizenry’s being enlightened on the need to defend the EEZ and assert the country’s sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea, and on the damage to Philippine interests Mr. Duterte’s refusal to stand up to China is causing. In the course of that debate, the expectation is that such other issues as the killing of journalists, political activists, and leaders of farmers, workers, and Lumad, and the displacement of Filipino workers by the hordes of Chinese nationals illegally working in the Philippines will inevitably be part of the public discourse.

Campaigning for either a cause or a candidate primarily for the instructional opportunities it offers is a strategy that has been tried before, most recently during the last mid-term elections.

The more concerned opposition candidates did their best to direct the 2019 campaign to the issues. But the most telling indicator of whether it worked are the results. If the voters had learned anything during the campaign, they wouldn’t have sent to Congress the very same individuals identified with Mr. Duterte and his brutal “war on drugs,” his misogyny, hate speech, contempt for human rights, incoherent foreign policy, attacks on the independent press, and disdain for criticism. Instead they ignored those candidates who had sound programs and focused instead on who was prepared to sing and dance, look pretty on stage, make stupid and tasteless jokes, and forego debating the issues.

The regime candidates’ ploy of evading debate was among the crucial factors that shaped the results of the last elections — in addition to vote-buying, intimidation, and control over the command votes of its warlord allies and certain churches at the local level. The signal lesson from the May 13 campaign is that for the sake of the citizens’ enlightenment, any impeachment complaint must be amply discussed and debated in the public sphere.

There is, of course, every possibility that that opportunity for mass enlightenment will be blocked by the majority members of the House even at the committee level. Those in control of government have again and again showed that they can ignore good custom, sense, reason, and even the law — that they can make up the rules as they go along without regard for the Constitution or even basic human decency.

Because that is likely to happen, the proponents of any impeachment complaint will have to address the public through the media, whether print, broadcasting, or online. In doing so, they will face the worst that the regime’s vast horde of online trolls and old-media hacks can muster, in addition to the possibility of being threatened, harassed, arrested, physically harmed, and even assassinated.

Things have indeed come to such a pass in the country of our sorrows that reporting the truth or merely expressing an opinion can subject anyone to threats, profanities, insults, arbitrary arrest, and even murder. Only the courage, love of country and people, and best efforts of its best men and women can correct this descent to barbarism. Today may be the best time to do it, when the regime has been exposed to the entire country and the world as unwilling and unable to even defend its own citizens against the aggressive drive of its Chinese patron to claim and exploit what legally, historically, and customarily belong to this country and its people.

Those efforts may not lead to Mr. Duterte’s impeachment by his House cohorts. But they can at least contribute to providing the information that can lead to the disenchantment of the poor and marginalized who think him one of them despite his privileged origins and immense wealth.

Because of the Marcos kleptocracy’s control over the crony press, it took three years after the assassination of Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. in 1983 before enough outrage developed the critical mass that led to the civilian-military EDSA mutiny in 1986. A number of media organizations and journalists have either been coopted or intimidated into silence and acquiescence today. But there are still others who, despite the dangers of truth-telling under creeping fascist rule, are doing their best to provide the reports and commentary that are needed. It is these media organizations and the independent journalists who can help enlighten citizens on the real state of the nation. History could yet repeat itself — this time, as in 1986, for the country’s good.

 

Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).

www.luisteodoro.com

China and the troubled waters

Someone once said that foreign relations is merely the extension of domestic policy. Thus anybody familiar with the state of our local politics would not be surprised at how we conduct ourselves on the global stage.

The main issue of the day, of course, being China’s bullying.

It’s really fascinating to see China’s local fanatics try to drum up support for their favorite totalitarian government: China never invaded another country, they say; China is our oldest ally, says another; China made a lot of investments here, chimes in one more.

Which is all perfectly fine and well if not for the insane forgetting of one humongous fact: China is trying to grab our territory!

But it’s their territory too, China’s minions say. Which should inevitably lead to this question: are you people actually Filipinos?

Because as Filipinos our territory is what we say it to be, expressly written in our Constitution and further delineated in legislation.

Then there’s the 2016 arbitral ruling, which this column actually believes was a case better left unfiled and for purposes of international politics would have best served as a Damocles sword.

The crux was the issue of enforceability.

That the Philippines had the law on its side was without doubt; the question was how to make China realize that. Nothing has happened so far that would justify modifying this view.

Self-styled foreign relations analysts argued then that China would cave in, the same way that the US complied with the ruling in the Nicaragua case; that the Philippine petition would encourage other countries to rise up and file their own cases against China; and that the US would unequivocally and immediately side with the Philippines to enforce the ruling by any means necessary.

None of which happened.

Those analysts have been consistently wrong then as they are today.

To clarify: While the belief that the case should not have been filed is maintained here, nevertheless, the fact remains the case was filed and, of course, we should be thankful and glad for the victory we won at the tribunal.

But here is another point: Noynoy’s administration was simply irresponsible in timing a petition knowing that they will not be around to manage (i.e., take advantage of) the decision’s aftermath.

It left an incoming Duterte administration to grapple by itself the steep learning curve necessary to handle an issue of utter complexity.

The thing with international politics is that the options and permutations change simultaneous with time. And President Duterte was placed in a field whose changes kept accelerating due to the 2016 decision.

To put a not too fine point to it: the past administration simply mucked up the field for Duterte.

Having said that, some suggestions previously made here (“For a strategic, coherent Philippine foreign policy,” 2016; “Keeping China out of Panatag,” 2017) should still be valid and relevant:

Open and transparent discussions and agreements allowing for mutual exploration and use of the disputed areas and resources, without necessarily prejudicing sovereignty claims at a more opportune future time.

Enhanced trade arrangements should be raised. We must continue calls to revive the World Trade Organization and maintain openness to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (if and when the US decides to rejoin) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Definitely maximize the BIMP-EAGA.

We need to strengthen our relationship with Russia, particularly on trade.

Seek to acquire defense pacts with our longtime trading partners: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

Establish readiness, in case of further Chinese aggression, to bring the matter before the UN Security Council or the General Assembly.

Yes, China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, yes, China has generated support, much more so than the Philippines, in relation to the arbitral tribunal ruling, by doing the thing we should have done and that is have a coordinated media plan to take advantage of the ruling’s outcome. Which, as alluded to above, we didn’t do. Nevertheless, the UN Security Council or UN General Assembly still makes for a more visible platform.

Finally, even in diplomacy, talk is futile unless one has the muscle and will to back it up. Our foreign policy must be partnered with a strong, robust military.

The Duterte administration is doing well to increase defense spending and reviving mandatory military service for all college-age students.

We must realize that — like it or not — our geography and history made us strategic, right dab in the middle of world affairs. We should accept that and act like a country vigorously pursuing a policy of democratic values and principles.

And patience: realizing that foreign policy is not played out in months or years but decades, if not centuries.

We should also change our mindset, to stop being perpetually reactive to whatever the world throws at us.

Now is a good time to start conducting foreign relations by envisioning a world beneficial to Filipinos and then crafting a policy creating that world.

 

Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

jemygatdula@yahoo.com

www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com

facebook.com/jemy.gatdula

Twitter @jemygatdula

Deadline dilly-dallying

The habit of postponing a difficult task is one of exasperating traits of the mañana or tomorrow syndrome. It can stretch from the day after to the month or the year after. Somehow, it seems to be a maddening cultural glitch that some people probably picked up during the long colonial era.

The American poet Don Marquis once wrote, “Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.”

A lay observer would say that this character flaw is a form of irresponsibility. The self-absorbed individual does not have a sense of urgency or time. What can be done later is left hanging indefinitely. He does not want to deal with anything unpleasant.

Moving at a turtle’s pace, he is not eager or enthusiastic about the duty or chore. By dilly-dallying, he wastes precious time. Instead of doing something today, he looks for excuses and justifies the delay.

Of course, there are real reasons for some people when they postpone. It is not good to rush just for the sake of complying. The quality of a job could suffer.

The habitual procrastinator would rather have fun than do what he should do.

The habit starts in childhood. A petulant or spoiled child taunts his parents or teacher by not doing his homework. A lazy student delays turning in a term paper. When he does, it is a sloppy, haphazard job. He postpones studying for the exam and then he crams at the last minute — burning the midnight oil.

The self-defeating cycle continues.

He sets aside a “must do” list of good projects, important resolutions or tasks. Then he conveniently forgets about them. Unless he is reminded.

An annual medical checkup is reset for another season, another year. Getting a license, paying taxes or loans, completing a tedious legal process, writing a document are chores.

Delaying the inevitable is costly in terms of one’s health, peace of mind, and well being. There are frazzled nerves, hypertension, hives, and hyperacidity. Surcharges, penalties, extra fees are imposed.

Resolving to lose weight, to quit smoking (or any vice) is often unpleasant or painful.

Starting the exercise regimen is put off for as long as possible.

He goes to the gym a few times a year. There are many reasons for not going regularly.

I’m too busy.

I’m not feeling well. I have too many meetings.

I don’t have time.

I don’t have the energy.

The gym is too crowded.

The treadmill is a torture machine.

The stationary bicycle causes cramps.

The weights are too heavy.

The financial report, chart, blueprint or architectural plans are not ready because:

The boss is too demanding.

The team is not innovative.

The resources are meager.

The research material is not sufficient.

The computer crashed.

The individual cannot make a commitment because:

I have to wait for the right time and the right sign.

The weather is bad.

The stars and planets are not aligned in a favorable position.

The litany of “valid” excuses is endless.

Hemming and hawing.

Hesitation and tentativeness.

The reluctance is palpable.

The procrastinator unwittingly sabotages his performance, promotion and success. He jeopardizes personal happiness or a promising relationship. By postponing, he loses valuable points, turns off other people and spoils his chances.

His personality would be an interesting case study. What makes him tick? What slows him down to a snail’s pace? Why does he miss crucial deadlines on purpose?

Is it an inherited genetic flaw? A passive disorder? Or a rebellious streak?

The reality is clear.

Laid-back people often pass the buck. They are immature and blame others for what are actually their own shortcomings and mistakes. It is not accurate to say that the fault is someone else’s.

Today is precious. Life is too short.

It is time — to grow up, move forward, and evolve.

 

Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.

mavrufino@gmail.com

Solar para sa politika, Part 2

Two weeks ago, this column argued for the President’s veto of HB 8179 or the Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. (SPSBC) franchise bill. I quoted the objection speech of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, Chairman of the Committee on Energy, on why the bicameral report should not have been ratified.

Then these two reports in BusinessWorld cam out last week:

1. “Power group seeks veto of solar firm’s franchise” (June 28),

2. “Review of Solar Para sa Bayan franchise sought” (June 28).

The first is about the statement of Philippine Independent Power Producers Association, Inc. (PIPPA) asking President Rodrigo R. Duterte to veto the bill because the SPSBC franchise “only serves to create chaos in regulation, act as a disincentive to investors, and show the public that undue advantages can be granted to people in power.”

The second is about the joint statement of six groups — the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (AmCham), the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), the Makati Business Club (MBC), the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), the Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines, Inc. (SEIPI), and the Women’s Business Council Philippines (WBCP) — calling for the “Economic Cluster of the Cabinet [to] review this franchise bill prior to any executive action.”

Amen. Good, direct and frank positions.

The Philippines is until today still a laggard in energy infrastructure and capacity compared to its neighbors. Our primary energy use, including oil consumption for transportation (land, sea, air), is even lower than Singapore which has just 5.7 million people but attracts some 15 million foreign visitors and investors (see table). It is not wise to give a special privilege to just one company simply because it projects itself as a greenie solar firm.

Solar para sa Bayan Corp. is a Solar Para sa Politika project. President Duterte should veto it in its entirety. If he signs it into a law, it will be a precedent for many other cronyist bills to be filed in the next three years. Goodbye further to rule of law in the country.

 

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers.

minimalgovernment@gmail.com