The three-year limitation dilemma
The approval of the three-year limitation law has sent shock waves across the business community who must begin plans to replacing their guest workers by the year 2002. The new law was signed in the midst of a deepening crisis where politicians are fearful that some 4,000 locals would be jobless when the crisis bottoms out.
It may be a legitimate statute that ought to trigger a partnership between the two sectors in the education and training of prospective local workers. But the messy question of unemployment of locals goes back more than 20 years when the going (boom years) was good and politicians aren’t prepared for any long-term planning other than to build upon unbridled development.
No one had the local resolve to slam the brakes on development in the mid-eighties. The common expression then was “go for it” to the extent where we succumbed to the craze for more hotels and golf-courses to cater to the Japanese tourism market. This unbridled development triggered the beginning of local government creating more jobs for others rather than its own people.
In the process, there emerged an attitudinal deficiency that certain jobs are designed for certain category of people. The locals created a superficial belief that they aren’t supposed to be working as waitresses, dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and bell boys. These are seen as dirty menial jobs that must go to guest workers most of whom, believe it or not, are far more literate than locals.
We weren’t prepared to begin a career by securing lifetime skills. We wanted everything handed down on a silver platter. Politics played a key role in encouraging political patronage jobs. What with community workers and incompetent secretaries (redundant workers) getting $16,000 to $47,000 per year.
The basic dilemma that now haunts the NMI is the effect of the lack of definition of what it wants for the future of posterity. To define the future is to buckle down with a plan that begins with step one. But our propensity for ad hoc solutions to substantive long-term economic and social issues is often fueled by our lack of interest in forging a well thought-out integrated plan on, i.e., emplacement of basic infrastructure, opening up of homestead subdivisions, among others. As such, there will always be incoherence in our mission if we continue to address and resolve issues on an ad hoc basis.
Finally, there’s also the apparent lack of vision and analysis on how certain policies would affect private sector expansion and investments. Most of the protectionist policies churned out of the two legislative chambers are shortsighted at best, ruinous at worse in that what they were intended for have actually resulted in self-destruction. In short, we’ve blindly forced wealth creation to head elsewhere and when this phenomenon takes root, out the window goes jobs creation. As revenue generation declines by leaps and bounds between now and the year 2002, there won’t be anymore scapegoats to blame except ourselves. By then, nothing would work as current investors downsize and prospective investors head elsewhere to friendlier investment venues.
