On the concept of “universal access” and “people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society”
The implementing guidelines of “access” envisioned by the proposed ICT Roadmap give no indication of respect for human rights and the fundamental freedom to choose the way that people and communities actually wish to live.
Thus, “access” in the language of the proposed ICT Roadmap is actually coercion and encroachment upon the diversity of ways that people would wish to conduct their lives. Here, “people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society” is used as a means to turn communities (up to the most remote ones) into expansive marketplaces for profit interests of both the public and private sectors.
Recommendation: Any development-oriented roadmap especially in developing countries like the Philippines may safeguard against its own danger of marginalizing the diversity of people’s interests and identities through the recognition of small-community-centered principles of ownership and autonomy. The programs for “Community e-Centers”, “Low Cost Computing”, and “National Broadband Plan” should all provide mechanisms for community ownership, and not merely access.
As per the government’s push for economic reforms through more foreign investments, the proposed ICT Roadmap must also protect the sovereign right of people from any possible changes in the constitutional provision that will allow foreigners to own and control media firms in the Philippines. The recently adopted Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions may be invoked for this protection, wherein media and information are specific cultural expressions to which countries have the sovereign right to nurture and protect beyond the demands of trade.
On the concept of “ICT as tool for Sustainable Development”
The question of whether or not ICT itself is sustainable in specific scenarios has not been addressed. “Propagation and widespread use of ICT in all aspects of Filipino life” is a very dangerous objective for “sustainable development” because it unilaterally pushes ICT as good without giving formal, popular, democratic and powerful mechanisms for the community (the “target-beneficiaries”) to determine and decide whether or not ICT (and which aspects of ICT) is socially relevant for them.
Recommendation: Initiate and support barangay, small community or cooperative-based dialogues and debates on ICT adoption and viability. Enable barangay, small community or cooperative-based ownership and fiscal autonomy of ICTs so that the context for ICT adoption is based on real needs and resources.
On the concept of “ICT for education”
Program focus seems to be limited to digitization and deployment of course materials (plus the attendant infrastructure and training). The channeling of manpower and resources on digitization and conversion of educational resources, and the subsequent enabling of infrastructures for dissemination of content (hosts, servers, etc.) should not obscure the greater and longstanding need for developing and nurturing actual social and physical environments conducive to quality learning.
Recommendation: In terms of education networking (which seem to be the primary concern of the ICT for Education program), the recommendation is to design programs that require relevant scenario studies of the social impact of ICT networks as support for actual physical learning environments whether in formal, non-formal and adult-education. Social scenario-based studies as requisites will enable a self-regulating and self-responsive mechanism for communities in decisions to design and implement ICTs in education.
There is also a danger in the conceptualization of ICT as mere tools used in transferring education resources because it renders the underlying ICT as neutral and value-free. Genuine education is concerned with critical and creative thinking, thus genuine “ICT for education” means encouraging analytical-thinking type of (vendor-neutral) IT education in all levels and not only in the IT fields. This means stronger and more creative mathematics/science education (especially in primary and secondary schools) in the context of a critical understanding of ICTs.
On the concept of “Philippine Digital Content”
Although the importance of creating and disseminating Philippine digital content is mentioned throughout the proposed ICT Roadmap, there is no indication of how the actual creation and use of local digital content may be encouraged.
Recommendation: The Digital Media Arts program, Career Advocacy programs as well as services of the CyberServices Corridor may be mandated not merely to provide skills or assess cyberservices capacity but also to encourage local creative content through a local content quota production and dissemination policy.
On the concept of “Philippine CyberServices Branding”
There is no explanation for the current “low-cost, call-center focused” brand image of the Philippines mentioned in the proposed ICT Roadmap. It must be made clear that globalization and global competition itself is the reason for such an image and reality. The divided countries of the south compete among each other for a share in the global market, which in turn renders degenerating conditions for labor in ICT. It is sad that much is said about industry, market and services but none whatsoever to protect and raise working and living conditions for its labor sector.
Recommendation: Reiterate the welfare of those in the ICT labor, especially women who are majority of this sector. The Workforce Mobilization Program and Human Capital Development grossly neglect provision of basic information on labor rights.
On the concept of “ICT enablement for SMEs”
While the proposed ICT Roadmap focuses on enabling SMEs “widespread use and application of emerging ICT to increase revenues and reduce cost, which again uses competitiveness as key to economic growth and development, there should be an admission of the current imbalance of social and economic welfare in the Philippines as a developing country. I am actually quite surprised that buzzwords of “global competitiveness,” “premium quality”, “world-class sophistication” and the likes are used throughout the proposed ICT Roadmap without consideration of the socio-economic realities of poverty and injustice in the country.
Recommendation: ICT enablement can be used to facilitate genuine social responsibility among SMEs, and perhaps even large businesses. This is possible through a more ecological approach to competitiveness and growth, meaning, ICT enablement activities proposed by sectoral ICT Blueprint Coordinating Councils should consider the current business ecology in the communities where ICTs are being pushed. The aim to encourage equitable distribution of resource, benefits and responsibility within the community as SMEs strive for ICT enablement, thus, serving as measure against any possible marginalization of certain community members in the enablement process. For example, in many remote communities, diversion of SMEs in their communities to ICT enablement could mean loss of jobs for community members.
The proposed ICT Roadmap should not create the impression that ICT is a gift from the skies that will solve everybody’s problems. ICT (or the decision not to adopt ICT) should at the very least be considered as everybody’s responsibility.
