Brick by brick
By Antonio Montalvan II
Inquirer

Advertisement

CHINA. WITH BOTH THE PAST AND MODERNIZATION very much on its agenda, China has announced a novel technology that will be used in preserving its greatest relic. A specially fitted helicopter will be deployed to fly over the entire 5,000-kilometer length of the Great Wall of China. Through a specially manufactured scanner, the chopper will keep track of the number and dimension of all the bricks making up this behemoth of a treasure that is one of the world's greatest wonders.

Despite the amazing growth of its cities, China has given as much importance to the preservation of its heritage as it has to its modernization program. Just last week, government announced the discovery of yet another cultural relic: a rare 5-door imperial gate, the Gate of the Vermilion Phoenix built in the reign of a Tang Dynasty emperor, the new discovery was unearthed in the historic city of Xian, the capital of old China, home of the Terra Cotta Warriors that guarded the burial mound of Emperor Qin, China's first emperor, who started building the Great Wall. The Terra Cotta Museum is a popular destination for Chinese and international tourists.

The Vermilion Phoenix sits on a hill, where some houses are also located. In an impressive move, China announced it would demolish the houses after relocating the affected residents. Sadly, the cultural aggressiveness of a China that appreciates the soul of its nationhood is not something that we see in our country, whose only predilection seems to be its inutile politics of personalities.

Governance, in fact, is the focus of an international conference that Beijing hosted just over the week ago. The Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (Napsipag) was organized in 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, with the cooperation of the Asian Development Bank. It seeks to enhance the quality of governance and public administration in the Asia-Pacific region through relevant and responsive training, education, and research.

Over 160 delegates from 27 countries attended the 2nd Napsipag gathering in Beijing, which included delegates from Central Asia's "stans" -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, and Uzbekistan. I had gone to the Beijing meet, having in mind my cultural advocacies as part of public governance. Napsipag, in a way, had addressed the issue of multiculturalist governance during its first meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 2004.

A Filipino from Mindanao, Dr. Macapaldo A. Muslim, had espoused the cultural discourse of governance in that meet. The chancellor of Mindanao State University in General Santos City, Muslim argued for addressing cultural diversity as a top priority in reform initiatives in public governance. The trivialization of cultural heterogeneity in the societal context is a fundamental flaw in Philippine governance. The Philippine dilemma is having a government that does not imbue us with a soul and identity.

Only the intervention of local cultural advocates in the private sector and in the academe (though many remain as accomplices of government apathy) is saving the day for Filipino cultural heritage. Yet, even the cultural advocacy sector is composed of disparate groups whose concern is usually limited to their respective localities. As I have said before in this column, things have been made worse by national culture agencies that are very much "Manila-centric" and, for the most part, do not listen to the voices coming from the grassroots. On top of that is the national government's lack of political will in embedding cultural advocacy and diversity in the system of governance.

Napsipag is certainly a small step towards good governance. But it recognizes the fact that to achieve its goal, bureaucrats in the lower echelon of government should be made to undergo relevant trainings, with emphasis on the cultural characteristics of each member country. Towards this end, Napsipag's Beijing conference focused on schools and institutions and their programs, particularly those relating to governance; also, on enlarging citizen participation and greater local autonomy. Instead of a marathon reading of papers as is the wont in many such conferences, the organization steered the plenary sessions towards the sharing of ideas, enabling delegates to expound on individual innovations that member countries can certainly learn from without imposing on local cultural peculiarities.
For the Beijing meet, the Philippines was ably represented by stalwarts in the public governance academe. They were Luvismin Aves (Capitol University), Val Baac (University of Santo Tomas), Victoria Bautista (UP Open University), Ernesto Bumatay (UP Los Baños), Nenita Dayrit (UP Extension Program in Pampanga), Mely del Rosario (University of Santo Tomas), Marlon and Belinda Era (De La Salle University), Eduardo Gonzales (Development Academy of the Philippines), Lilibeth Juan (UP Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy), Magdalena Mendoza (Development Academy of the Philippines), Emily Pacoy (University of Southeastern Philippines), Ester Raagas (Xavier University-Ateneo de Cagayan), Eleazar Ricote (Jose Rizal University), and Estelita Tucay (Nueva Vizcaya State University).

Public servants, no matter how lowly their rank may be, are like the bricks in the Great Wall of China. Spotlighting them brick by brick is one hope that, thanks to Napsipag and the Asian Development Bank, our disparate worlds of governance must eventually come together.

Comments to monta@cu-cdo.edu.ph

Copyright 2005 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.