Mapanganib sa ekonomiya ng Pilipinas ang pagsandal sa call center industry

MEDIA RELEASE
27 January 2012

IBON Foundation, Inc., IBON Center 114 Timog Avenue, Quezon City Philippines
Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 62|Fax: 929-2496| E-mail: media@ibon.org
http://www.ibon.org

OBAMA'S "INSOURCING" HIGHLIGHTS RISKS OF RELYING ON BPOs

The recent pronouncement by US Pres. Barack Obama to bring outsourcing jobs back to the US highlights the dangers of relying on business process outsourcing (BPO), and on foreign economies in general, for Filipino jobs. According to research group IBON, even if it is still unclear if Pres. Obama’s proposed “insourcing” legislation will pass, the vulnerability of the sector and the government’s misplaced attention to this is increasingly apparent.

The “insourcing” initiative has been dismissed either as mere election-related rhetoric or in any case as unlikely to prosper against corporate lobbying, such as by the Business Processing Association of the Philippines (BPAP). But the initiative is just another example of adverse trends facing the sector and more of this are likely to emerge as the crisis in the US and the rest of the world worsens in the coming years, the research group said.

Government and industry estimates for the BPO are of 1.3 million jobs and US$25 billion in revenues in 2016. These are unlikely and it will be recalled that the original BPO “Roadmap to 2010” target was for 1.0 million jobs and US$12 billion in revenues in 2010 – of which only 525,000 jobs and US$8.9 billion materialized.

As it is, IBON noted that the growth of the BPO sector is already slowing slightly in terms of jobs and revenues. The 21.9% growth in BPAP-reported jobs in the sector in 2011, to an estimated 640,000, was slightly slower than the 24.1% growth in 2010. Similarly the 22.5% reported growth in revenues, to some US$10.9 billion, was slightly slower than the 25.3% growth in 2010.

The slowing global and, in particular, US economy appears to have affected the sector’s performance despite the country reportedly having nudged India out as the world’s leading BPO center. The World Bank has previously estimated global economic growth to have fallen to 2.7% in 2011 from 4.1% in 2010 and US economic growth from to 1.7% (2011) from 3.0% (2010). Developments in the US economy are particularly relevant because the latest Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) data notes that the US accounts for 72% of foreign investment and 80% of BPO service exports.

It can for instance be noted that the trend in the deployment of Filipino nurses to the US dropped from 649 in 2008 to just 85 in 2010. In his campaign for the US presidency, Pres. Obama campaigned for prioritizing American nurses over migrants declaring: ““The notion that we would have to import nurses makes absolutely no sense.” Recently, the Democrats’ House Bill 1933 reviving temporary visas for registered nurses was approved by Congress. Among others the bill limits the number of H1-C temporary registered nurse visas to 300 per year from a previous quota of 500 annually.

The government has so far budgeted at least Php575 million in subsidies for private foreign BPO investors consisting of trainings, curriculum and teacher development, career marketing and scholarships through TESDA and CHED. According to IBON, these funds will be more productively spent supporting Filipino industry, science and technology than for a sector that is such a small part of the economy and by its nature does not give much value-added. The BPO sector is barely integrated into the local economy outside of its relatively few jobs and so does not stimulate or encourage domestic production. (end)

IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.

English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout

To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate — that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place — many do! — but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States — don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation