Department of Science and Technology Sec. Mario Montejo: "We may no longer need a Department of ICT."
Source: InterAksyon.com
While Congress is snail-paced in passing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, they approved the in a snap of a finger a law that will create another department for information and communications and technology. This department is called Department of Information Communications Technology (DICT). While it was lined up in the agenda of Congress, it did not get the attention of the media and the people themselves. It seems like it was hideously passed and signed into a law by the legislative and executive branches of our government. Now, questions continue to hound the creation of a separate department for ICT. Is it really one of the priorities that our government should be spending money for?
In creating the DICT, it renamed the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) as Department of Transportation (DOT). Coloma as cited by Sabillo (2016) mentioned that some agencies will be abolished and transferred to DICT. The agencies include Information and Communications Technology Office (ICTO), National Computer Center (NCC), National Computer Institute (NCI), Telecommunications Office (TELOF), and National Telecommunications Training Institute (NTTI). The said department is headed by a Secretary which joins the presidential cabinet. It also has 3 undersecretaries and and 4 assistance secretaries. On a positive note, it is good to streamline the functions of government agencies to avoid redundant functions. The agencies mentioned have actually almost similar functions and it should not just be transferred to the DICT but they should be reconsidered.
Source: newsflash.org
Some government officials have have been expressing disappointment with the department’s creation. As cited in a news article written by Helen Macasaet, “we are already doing a lot of ICT in our respective departments and we know what to do. So there really is no need for another department which can just add unnecessarily to the expenses of the government machinery.” This is a common sentiment that I would also like to pose. The ICT work can be done by the Department of Science and Technology or the Department of Transportation and Communication. They have huge ICT work and it only needs centralism. It is not surprising that sentiments like there were vested interests that hound the bill to be passed to easily.
Compared to the DICT, there are a lot of bills in Congress that are collecting dust but they are of great importance. The Freedom of Information Bill that will implement our constitutional rights to FOI. This bill was dilly dallied by Congress during the previous administration until time lapsed and was archived. Groups had been lobbying for the FOI to be a law. It has been a noisy ride but it did not reach its destination unlike the DICT.
For the farmers sector that is still the majority of country’s population, there has not been a law passed that significantly favoring their plights. The Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) is already more than 10 years in Congress and it is junk every time it is filed. The People’s Mining Bill which was filed in 2010 did not get any merit in the House of Representatives because our leaders do not want to repeal the existing Mining Act which is the Mining Act of 1995. For me, for our country to develop and stand on its own, we need a law like the People’s Mining Bill wherein our mineral resources will not be plundered by big foreign mining firms. These are only few among the tons of significant bills filed which are the concerns of the basic sectors of our country. These laws were however archived or deliberately set aside by landlords and big businessmen who are lording in the Philippine politics.
Interestingly, DICT’s declaration of policy is vague. In the first point, it says, “to recognize the vital role of information and communication in nation building” (R.A. 10844, 2015). It is as if saying that country did not recognize the role of ICT before the enactment of this law. More than recognizing the role of information and communication in nation building, I think it is more important to stress the people’s access to public information which will advance people’s participation in nation building. The first statement alone in the declaration of policy is not a music to my ears and to the ears of many critics of this law.
The purpose of the law is not well articulated in the declaration of policy. After reading the first statement which for me was vague, I was more confused on the next statements. I did not really understood what the law meant by “to ensure the provision of strategic, cost-efficient, citizen-centric information and communications technology (ICT), infrastructure, systems and resources as instruments of good governance and global competitiveness.” Aside from its vagueness, I cannot visualize how the said declaration will be actualized.
After reading all the points in the declaration of policy, I was not convinced that this country that is in poverty and political turmoil needs this department. I cannot stop myself in concluding that the DICT was only created to siphon more money from the peoples coffer. It happened at the National Anti Poverty Commission (NAPC) during the previous administration. Recently, it was found out that NAPC has included in its payroll hundreds of consultants who monthly received a salary ranging from Php 25,000 to Php 500,000. It was a scandal that was only found out recently with the change of administration. The DICT was railroaded by the people who are close to the previous president namely, Herminio Coloma.
I don’t think that our country become globally competitive with the setting up of DICT. I cannot see the logic of having a department that will only focus on what the other departments have been doing as part of their mandate will accelerate nation building. I share the sentiment of the DOST that line agencies have been doing ICT work for quite long and the country is doing fine. I do not see how this department will help in the major problem of the Philippines which poverty and underdevelopment.
When the bill was approved in the Senate during its third and final reading, Senator Drillon mentioned in an article written by Gonzales (2015), “the measure addresses the need for the Philippines to be at par with other ASEAN economies which have cabinet level departments for their information and communications technology (ICT).” The thing is, our leaders see development in an outward manner. What matters to them is how the Philippines gets across other countries. Instead of resolving the dire situation in the domestic that will propel the economy, they pass policies like the DICT to impress regional and international organizations like the ASEAN. Our country cannot afford anymore to spend much money on unnecessary things. We do not need to look good in the outside but rots in the inside. Like the sentiment mentioned in the article written by Macasaet (2012), it says, “We don’t have enough resources to spend in ICT, that’s why we cannot budget much for it. It is too expensive. And our people are not ready to do it. Some just don’t want to take it. There are other more important things to prioritize like food and electricity.”
I would like to point out some of the sentiments in 2012 that I think were not addressed when the law was railroaded in Congress and finally, when it was signed into by former president Benigno Aquino III. Below are the sentiments that I share up until today.
“There are political tones to the DICT creation. There are Cabinet members who do not see eye to eye on several matters and the ICTO will neutralize those people in the Cabinet. What happens is if a DICT is created, it can land on a Cabinet secretary who is presently already so influential with the President. What with another department in his influence?” (Macasaet “DICT: Is it really Necessary for Transformation?”)
“No amount of ICT can eliminate corruption. What we need is just the right leadership and taking out all the corrupt officials and not voting for them again! There are still quite a number of those corrupt officials who just don’t like ICT because they cannot continue with their old ways” (Macasaet “DICT: Is it really Necessary for Transformation?). Moreover, what the government needs to do is empower its manpower on ICT. Putting up a cabinet level department is like putting ICT as one of the country’s pressing concern when in fact, there is only a need to systematize the ICT work without setting up a new department. Putting up a system which will tie all the ICT work of the government units and agencies using the existing manpower and running resources is the smartest thing to do especially in this era where spending less but gaining higher impact is the language.
I would also agree on a sentiment of a fellow Filipino that says, “I think we need help from those countries whose ICT organizations have already proven to be successful like Singapore. Maybe we should get advice from them on how we should structure our ICT department in the Philippines, instead of just creating a DICT right away.” Aside from the fact that it is not one among the priorities of the government, setting up the department right away is shocking. It is like creating a white elephant which is actually a trend in the government projects.
To cite a local example of a white elephant, the huge building called BAPTC which is a concern among the farmers of Benguet because instead of decreasing the farmers’ burden, it has only pressed another burden by adding fees into almost everything. Thus, the old trading post is still preferred. This only shows that farmers are not ready for an advance trading system because their major problem which is the relations of productions is not stripped off. The new trading system, although promising, is not yet fit in their present situation.
It is like the DICT. It is a white elephant because the government invested resources including manpower to it but it is not an appropriate solution to whatever it is that the country is facing.
Moreover, some people do not really care for this law. When they were asked in 2012, they said, they do not care and they wanted to leave the issue on the IT experts. This is one evidence that it is not a mass issue. It is not the concern of majority of the Filipinos. There concern is mostly on what to eat for the next meal and if their rights are being recognized.
Contemplating on the passing of the DICT into a law leads me into a suspicion that the law is all about business. When this bill was still being lobbied in Congress, the support came mostly from the private sector. It seems that the business sector sees a lot of opportunity in tying up with the government on ICT related investments. Today, the appointed secretary who sets in the President’s cabinet is a former executive of Globe Telecommunications. Now, it is crystal clear that the smooth passage of the law is a “business as usual.” What is now the assurance that our information and communications technology will not be controlled by corporations? I can sense a brewing deregulation of one of the government’s service which is communications.
I want to reiterate that what the government needs to look into is the snail paced Freedom of Information Bill not a law that uses the peoples’ coffer in advancing the interests of business institutions.
Works Cited
Gonzales, Yuji. “Senate OKs bill creating ICT department.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 Jun. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.
Macasaet, Helen. “DICT: Is it really necessary for PH transformation?” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.
Philippine Congress. “Republic Act No. 10844. An Act Creating the Department of Information and Communications Technology, Defining its Powers and Functions Appropriating Therefor, and other Purposes.” Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 23 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.
Sabillo, Kristine Angeli. “Dep’t of Information and Communications Technology created.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 23 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.
Somosot, Janice. “5 Things To Know About the DICT Act Of 2015 Signed Into Law By President Aquino.” Times, 24 May 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment