Blessed are the politicians...

I read this from the website dedicated to the late Cardinal Francis Van Thuan.  It is worth sharing - as a prayer for our politicians, as well as a hope for renewed politics and social life.  Hopeful reading.

***

8 "beatitudes for politicians"

Cardinal Francois-Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, who is president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, proposed the moral guidelines on May 3, 2002 at a conference in the northern Italian city of Padua.
Echoing the eight beatitudes preached by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, Cardinal Thuan said politicians needed a similar set of rules that leave room for the faith in their profession.

• Blessed the politician who well understands his role in the world.
• Blessed the politician who personally exemplifies credibility.
• Blessed the politician who works for the common good and not for his own interests.
• Blessed the politician who is true to himself, his faith and his electoral promises.
• Blessed the politician who works for unity and makes Jesus the fulcrum of its defence.
• Blessed the politician who works for radical change, refusing to call good that which is evil and using the Gospel as a guide.
• Blessed the politician who listens to the people before, during and after the elections, and who listens to God in prayers.
• Blessed the politician who has no fear of the truth or the mass media, because at the time of judgment he will answer only to God, not the media.

***

Ang Talinhaga Tungkol Sa Pastol At Ang Dumaraming Tupa

Napansin ng pastol na dumarami na ang tupa at humihirap nang ihanap ng luntiang pastulan. Marami namang pastulan, pero mahirap puntahan. "Bakit ako magpapakahirap? Ano kaya ang dapat kong gawin?" napaisip ang pastol. "Bawasan ko kaya ang mga tupa? Pigilan ko kaya ang kanilang pagdami? Ang hirap alagaan ang ganito karaming tupa."

***

Psalmo 23

Ang Panginoon ang aking pastol
Pinagiginhawa akong lubos.

Handog niyang himlaya'y sariwang pastulan.
Ang pahingahan ko'y payapang batisan.
Hatid sa kaluluwa ay kaginhawaan.
Sa tumpak (matuwid!) na landas, siya ang patnubay.

Madilim na lambak man ay tatahakin ko.
Wala akong sindak; siya'y kasama ko.
Ang hawak niyang tungkod ang siyang gabay ko.
Tangan niya'y pamalo, sigla't tanggulan ko.

P-Noy

P-Noy, sabi mo, "kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." Did you merely state a fact you are just willing to accept...?

Mr. President (Aquino), you said it yourself - "kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." Is the government doing enough to curb corruption, prosecute offenders, restore lost government (people's) money, revamp corrupt systems and agencies, and many other things that need to be done? Are you and your people doing enough? A lifetime is surely not enough to eliminate corruption, yes. But that was your mandate. Deliver.

Did you merely state a fact we all know too well? Are you appalled by this fact and are doing your utmost best to stop corruption and restore morality in government, and thereby deliver the genuine and true need of the Sovereign Filipino People? Or are you after all like the rest who had accepted the fact, allowed themselves to be swallowed by the system and again let down our hopes for a government, a country that is truly walking in the "daang matuwid" which is "matuwid" in the sense of "righteous"?

More Questions Worth Asking....

From Wikipedia (Yes, I know, it is Wikipedia. But there are other reliable sources for this too.)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Come on. It is quite clear.

The article that should raise the questions:

***

National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) was completed on December 10, 1974 by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger.

It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975. It was originally classified, but was later declassified and obtained by researchers in the early 1990s.

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends]

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

***

A positive and hopeful echo

On a more positive note, here are some hopeful echoes:

Ambition - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Theres The Rub
Ambition
By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
05/04/2011


The text of the article:

***

MANG NESTOR used to scavenge in Smoky Mountain before the mountain of trash there was razed down. Driven to live in Bagong Silang, he tried to make ends meet doing this and that, but found it the hardest thing in the world with two kids. Though his wife helped by cooking and hawking food, his family was in constant want. His dream of being able to send his kids to school to help them escape his lot in life remained just that, a dream.

They lived austerely. During his kids’ birthdays, he worked longer hours to try to get them some noodles, but not always successfully. He could not comprehend how people could throw away food so easily, masasarap pa naman, in fastfood and restaurants. It was such utter waste.

What he particularly minded was that there was no toilet where he lived. To relieve yourself, he said, you had to hike for 20 minutes to the nearest public toilet and line up for your turn. A pretty trying experience when you’ve got to go, and which the more desperate solved by settling for the tabi-tabi. A brutish life, with no relief in sight.

But relief did come in the form of a newly opened Gawad Kalinga village in Bagong Silang. Mang Nestor’s was one of 30 families that got awarded a home in that village, a tiny house by the standards of the rich and middle class but a veritable palace in the eyes of the beneficiaries. It had of course the most wondrous thing in the world: a toilet. Or a CR, as Mang Nestor, like other Filipinos, referred to it. Nowhere did the term “comfort room” take on the most literal meanings.

This was one of the things shown in the Hope Ball in Las Vegas where I was last weekend, a fund-raising activity by Fil-Ams that managed to raise enough funds to build homes for 150 more families. A couple of things ran through my mind when I saw this, quite apart of course from the epic contribution GK has been making to solving poverty in the Philippines over the last several years.

The first was to get a glimpse of the ugliness and monstrosity of corruption again. Or to get a new appreciation for President Benigno Aquino III’s “’Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Corruption is not abstract, it is concrete—and cruel. Corruption is far more wasteful than throwing away barely touched food in Jollibee and Mang Inasal while the street children sniff rugby to forget their hunger pangs. The other side of things like the AFP spending P800 million to procure bond paper, a city hospital overpricing Mongol pencils 5,000 times, and a governor diverting P25 million to his kid’s wedding is a horde of Mang Nestors who have to hustle their way through life to treat a daughter to some pancit during her birthday or trek a mile or so to relieve themselves of their stomach’s contents and their soul’s cares.

Corruption isn’t just monies being lost God knows where, it is food being taken away from the mouths of the hungry, it is roofs being taken away from the desolate, it is comfort being taken away from the anguished and bereaved. Corruption crushes. Corruption kills. The corrupt and the desperate are to each other as cause and effect. Truly, where there are no pillagers, there are no paupers. Truly,’pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap.

The second thing that flashed through my mind was the grandness of spirit shown by the movement Gawad Kalinga—yes, it is a veritable movement now—and the hope it is giving us. GK’s professed goal is to eradicate poverty in this country by the next decade. That may seem like an impossible dream, a quest more admirable for the scale of its aspiration than for the possibility of its realization. Yet when you come right down to it, why should that be so impossible? Why should that be so quixotic?

Ambition, Shakespeare said, should be made of sterner stuff, and you can’t find sterner stuff than the tears of gratitude and joy streaming down the faces of those who have not only been given houses but communities to live in, who have not only been given a roof over their heads but a gladness in their hearts. You can’t find sterner stuff than the 30 families who have been plucked from utter want who now live like human beings in a spot of Bagong Silang, the 150 families who will live like human beings in other spots of Bagong Silang courtesy of what the Fil-Ams raised in just one event in Las Vegas, the hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of families that will live like human beings over the next several years in other Bagong Silangs in this country, in other New Births or New Days or New Lives in this country.

I don’t know how Manny Pacquiao’s fight will turn out (he was due to make a pitch for Gawad Kalinga earlier today), but I do know that somebody else has already won a far more magnificent fight for the country and will continue to win far more magnificent fights for the country in the coming years.

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff, and none comes sterner than the spirit shown by the people who have dedicated themselves to this. Men and women, young and old, Pinoys and Fil-Ams who have worked tirelessly, eagerly, joyfully to bring the vision of the Philippines freed from want a little closer to reality. It is the exact opposite of the baleful spirit of corruption. Corruption in the end is selfishness, an inability to see beyond oneself or one’s family, an overriding need to secure self and family beyond all others, at the expense of all others. Either the men and women of Gawad Kalinga have gone past that or they have extended the meanings of self and family to include the farthest of the far, the poorest of the poor. They too are self, they too are family, walang iwanan, you don’t leave them behind, you don’t leave anyone behind. That is grandness.

That is ambition.


*end*

Osama and the US on hindsight

This analysis makes a lot of sense - both on hindsight and hopefully insight and forsight.

Osama’s no Martyr, but the Man Prevailed - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

The text of the article:

***

Osama bin Laden is no martyr. He is certainly no Che Guevara, whose fate at the hands of the Central Intelligence Agency was strikingly similar to his. But one cannot escape the fact that he succeeded in unleashing a chain of events that led to his nemesis, the United States, becoming a diminished power compared to what it was in the halcyon days of unilateralism at the end of the last century. One cannot but acknowledge that in the duel between Washington and Osama, the latter was, at the time of his death, far ahead on points.

Soon after the US went to war against the Taliban in pursuit of Osama in October 2001, I penned a widely published analysis that at the time provoked controversy. However, it anticipated the course of the titanic struggle between a global power and a determined fanatic over the next decade. I am reprinting part of that essay below:

"In the aftermath of the September 11 assault, a number of writers wrote about the possibility that that move could have been a bait to get the US bogged down in a war of intervention in the Middle East that would inflame the Muslim world against it. Whether or not that was indeed bin Laden's strategic objective, the US bombing of Afghanistan has created precisely such a situation…

The global support that US President George Bush has flaunted is deceptive. Of course, a lot of governments would express their support for the UN Security Council's call for a global campaign against terrorism. Far fewer countries, however, are actually actively cooperating in intelligence and police surveillance activities. Even fewer have endorsed the military campaign and opened up their territory to transit by US planes on the way to Southwest Asia. And when one gets down to the decisive test of offering troops and weapons to fight alongside the British and the Americans in the harsh plains and icy mountains of Afghanistan, one is down to the hardcore of the Western Cold War alliance.

Bin Laden's terrorist methods are despicable, but one must grant the devil his due. Whether through study or practice, he has absorbed the lessons of guerilla warfare in a national, Afghan setting and translated it to a global setting. Serving as the international correlate of the national popular base is the youth of the global Muslim community, among whom feelings of resentment against Western domination were a volatile mix that was simply waiting to be ignited.

The September 11 attacks were horrific and heinous, but from one angle, what were they except a variant of Che Guevara's "foco" theory? According to Guevara, the aim of a bold guerilla action is twofold: to demoralize the enemy and to empower your popular base by getting them to participate in an action that shows that the all-powerful government is indeed vulnerable. The enemy is then provoked into a military response that further saps his credibility in what is basically a political and ideological battle. For bin Laden, terrorism is not the end but a means to an end. And that end is something that none of Bush's rhetoric about defending civilization through revenge bombing can compete with: a vision of Muslim Asia rid of American economic and military power, Israel, and corrupt surrogate elites, and returned to justice and Islamic sanctity.

Yet Washington was not exactly without weapons in this ideological war. In the aftermath of September 11, it could have responded in a way that could have blunted bin Laden's political and ideological appeal and opened up a new era in US-Arab relations.

First, it could have foresworn unilateral military action and announced to the world that it would go the legal route in pursuing justice, no matter how long this took. It could have announced its pursuit of a process combining patient multinational investigation, diplomacy, and the employment of accepted international mechanisms like the International Court of Justice.

These methods may take time but they work, and they ensure that justice and fairness are served. For instance, patient diplomacy secured the extradition from Libya of suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, and their successful prosecution under an especially constituted court in the Hague. Likewise, the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, set up under the auspices of the ICJ, has successfully prosecuted some wartime Croat and Serbian terrorists and is currently prosecuting former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, though of course much remains to be done.

The second prong of a progressive US response could have been Washington's announcing a fundamental change in its policies in the Middle East, the main points of which would be the withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia, the ending of sanctions and military action against Iraq, decisive support for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, and ordering Israel to immediately refrain from attacks on Palestinian communities.

Foreign policy realists will say that this strategy is impossible to sell to the American people, but they have been wrong before. Had the US taken this route, instead of taking the law--as usual--in its own hands, it could have emerged as an example of a great power showing restraint and paved the way to a new era of relations among people and nations. The instincts of a unilateral, imperial past, however, have prevailed, and they have now run rampage to such an extent that, even on the home front, the rights of dissent and democratic diversity that have been one of the powerful ideological attractions of US society are fundamentally threatened by the draconian legislation being pushed by law-and-order types…that are taking advantage of the current crisis to push through their pre-September 11 authoritarian agendas.

As things now stand, Washington has painted itself into a no-win situation.

If it kills bin Laden, he becomes a martyr, a source of never-ending inspiration, especially to young Muslims.

If it captures him alive, freeing him will become a massive focus of resistance that will prevent the imposition of capital punishment without triggering massive revolts throughout the Islamic world.

If it fails to kill or capture him, he will secure an aura of invincibility, as somebody favored by God, and whose cause is therefore just…

September 11 was an unspeakable crime against humanity, but the US response has converted the equation in many people's minds into a war between vision and power, righteousness and might, and, perverse as this may sound, spirit versus matter. You won't get this from CNN and the New York Times, but Washington has stumbled into bin Laden's preferred terrain of battle."

I take no credit for originality of the thoughts expressed in this ten-year-old essay. Many others who had studied the history of insurgent movements and imperial responses could have written the same thing then and anticipated the general thrust of events over the next decade.

Unfortunately for the world, hegemonic powers never, never learn from history, and Washington did stumble into Osama’s preferred terrain, with all the consequences of this move motivated by imperial hubris: thousands of lives lost, loss of credibility, loss of legitimacy, and a significant erosion of power.

*Inquirer.net columnist Walden Bello is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines and a senior analyst of the Bangkok-based institute Focus on the Global South.

*end of article*

Dead but not quite dead

Bin Laden is dead.

I would have preferred for him to have been caught alive, and brought to trial. This I think would be serving justice. Just killing him does not serve justice - or yes, if justice is simply lex talionis. But justice is about truth and goodness, for peace and right order.

Bin Laden is dead. But not quite dead.

Killing the enemy does not destroy the enemy. Physically dead, yes. But in our minds and in our hearts he still is an enemy. And as long as he holds us in our hurt, anger and desire for vengeance, he has not been defeated. He actually, athough already dead continues to win over us.

He can no longer plot and scheme terroristic acts, but as long as we glory in feeding our desire for vengeance, as long as we glory in violence, unless respect of human persons becomes a reality in everyone, terror continues to be schemed and plotted in our hearts.

Bin Laden is dead. Let us keep what he seemed to have become a symbol of - vengefulness, violence, terrorism - dead.

An Email Brigade

I received this through e-mail today. If I am not mistaken (which I could be), this was already published by Fr. Reuter earlier. Still, the message is ever relevant.

We pray for an integral renewal of Pilipinas, and ating Bayang Mahal, Lupang Hinirang. And also, we also pray, resolve, and act on our own personal renewal. As once said (thanks to the wisecracker), "Become the change you want to happen."



THE ONLY HOPE FOR THE PHILIPPINES

by Father James Reuter, S.J.

Our republic has become one of the weakest nations, steadily left
behind by its more progressive neighbors.

The signs are clear. Our nation is headed towards an irreversible path
of economic decline and moral decadence. It is not for lack of effort.
We've seen many men and women of integrity in and out of government,
NGOs, church groups & people's organization devote themselves to the
task of nation-building, often times against insurmountable odds. Not
even people's revolutions, bloodless as they may be, have made a dent
in reversing this trend. At best, we have moved one step forward, but
three steps backward.

We need a force far greater than our collective efforts, as a people,
can ever hope to muster. It is time to move the battle to the
spiritual realm... It's time to gather GOD's people to pray for the
economic recovery and moral reformation of our nation.

Is prayer really the answer?

Before you dismiss this as just another rambling, I'd like you to
consider some lessons we can glean from history.

England 's ascendancy to world power was preceded by the Reformation,
a spiritual revival fueled by intense prayers.

The early American settlers built the foundation that would make it
the most powerful nation today --- a strong faith in GOD and a
disciplined prayer life. Throughout its history, and especially at its
major turning points, waves of revival and prayer movement swept
across the land.

In recent times, we see Korea as a nation experiencing revival and in
the process producing the largest Christian church in the world today,
led by Rev. Paul Yongi Cho.. No wonder it has emerged as a strong
nation when other economies around it are faltering.

Even from a purely secular viewpoint, it makes a lot of sense. For here,
there is genuine humbling & seeking of GOD through prayer, moral
reformation necessarily follows. And this, in turn, will lead to
general prosperity. YES, we believe prayer can make a difference.
It's our only hope.

Today, we launch this email brigade, to inform Filipinos from all over
the world to pray, as a people, for the economic recovery and moral
reformation of our nation. We do not ask for much. We only ask of
you to fwd this email to your close friends and relatives.

This is the kind of resolve and unity which can make a big difference.
Of course, if you feel strongly, as I do, about the power of prayer,
you can be more involved by starting a prayer group or prayer center.

We have tried people power twice before; inboth cases, it fell short.
Maybe it's time to try prayer power. GOD never fails. Is there hope?
YES! We can rely on God's promise, but we have to do our part. If we
humble ourselves and pray as a people, GOD will hear and heal our land.
By GOD's grace, we may still see a chance of a better future for our
country..

'If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and
pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I
hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their
land...

(2 Chronicles 7:14).

If you care for your children and grandchildren, let's not abandon the
Philippines .

PLEASE, pass this on.

Remittances: More than the Dollar

I received this article in my e-mail from the Metro DC based Migrant Heritage Commission. I think it is worth a thought, and more.

__________________________________________________________


Subject: NOT ALL REMITTANCES ARE $ (THE OTHER FACE OF THE DIASPORA)
NEWS ARTICLE FROM ABS-CBN'S RODNEY JALECO

When people talk about remittances, most Filipinos will perhaps think about the dollars their overseas brethrens send regularly. That’s an extremely restricted and limiting perspective, according to a recent paper by the Migrant Policy Institute (MPI).

“Whether we see remittances as a development panacea or as a way for states to shift responsibility for solving structural problems to migrants, economics is not the whole story,” wrote the paper’s authors – Peggy Levitt of Wellesley College and Harvard University, and Deepak Lamba-Nieves of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Center for the New Economy.

“Migrants from the developing world bring with them social remittances that shape their encounters with and integration into their host societies,” the pair pointed out.

More significantly, they stressed that migrants “also send back social remittances that promote and impede development in their countries of origin.”

This merely reinforces what many have observed as the richly multi-dimensional qualities of the modern Diaspora.

The authors lament the lack of studies on this aspect of international migration. It could hardly be a stretch to see at least some facets of the recent Philippine election linked to the historic ascension of America’s first African-American president and the message of hope and change that catapulted him to power.

Levitt herself coined the term “social remittances” in 2001 to call attention that dollars is not the only thing overseas workers and expats send home.

She focused on a village in the Dominican Republic and the Jamaica Plain neighborhood in Boston, MA.

She observed that there are at least four types of social remittances – norms, practices, identities and social capital.

Through over a decade of study, Levitt and later Lamba-Nieves, explained the three key concepts of social remittances – that they are circular in nature, they are inclusive and they influence development either by “scaling up to other levels of governance and scaling out to other domains of practices”.

“The ideas and experiences migrants bring with them strongly influence who and what they are exposed to and interact with in the countries where they settle. These circumstances then affect the social remittances migrants send back,” they noted.

They observed for instance, that “when Boca Canesteros (from Dominican Republic) recreated their baseball league in Boston, they not only came into contact with other immigrant and native-born players and fans, they also had to learn to negotiate the municipal park system and to secure permits for hosting fundraising events.”

In turn, the Boston-based Boca Canesteros’ influence in the Dominican Republic was manifested in the way they suddenly demanded that “builders and caterers there sign contracts and stick to deadlines the same way saw food and beverage suppliers are held accountable in the United States.”

With about 10 percent of the Philippine population living and working overseas – about four million of them in the US – it seems evident policy and decision-makers should explore the possibly pervasive effects of social remittances on the 90 percent who’ve stayed behind.

Modern amenities (cellphones, Facebook, Skype, etc.) tend to accelerate the pace of social remittances.

Taking into account a United Nations study that showed dollar remittances are primarily used to pay for basic needs (food, clothes, electricity, etc.), education and health – understanding social remittances could have commercial implications as well.

There are, of course, positive and negative outcomes from social remittances, the study (aptly titled “It’s Not Just About the Economy, Stupid”) pointed out.

That could come in the form of greater emphasis on health and fitness (such as the influence exerted by the Boca Canesteros).

It could also, as political scientist Luis Jimenez discovered in Mexico, “challenge people’s ideas about democracy and the rule of law.”

“Every time a street light went out or the garbage wasn’t collected, Gilberto visited City Hall,” the authors recounted because in the US “that what governments are supposed to do and that citizens should make sure that happens.”

They also observed how professionals and entrepreneurs from Pakistan and India “not only send back new technology and skills but ideas about conducting business. Working in the United States has emboldened some to take chance, think outside the box, and challenge a superior rather than deferring to him”.

Levitt and Lamba-Nieves point out, however, that social remittances help perpetuate the “culture of migration”. Moving, they say, becomes almost inevitable “because people are no longer satisfied by the economic and social opportunities their homelands offer.” Over decades of practice, it can be relegated to a “rite of passage” especially for the youth.

“Social remittances are an understudied, important piece of the migration-development nexus,” the authors wrote, “Their impact on immigrant incorporation and sending-community dynamics is not well understood…They are a potential resource and a potential constraint.”

Social remittances, we found, can be a fascinating subject – not only to better see how and why life back home is changing the way they do from the practices and ideas overseas Filipinos take back home, but also how their adopted countries are changing because of what Filipinos bring on the table.