Technology delayed is development denied

Since 2001, I have been an aggressive proponent of technology adoption in government and the private sector, particularly in the realm of e-governance and convergence between telecommunications and information technology at government policy level. In too many instances, there has been delay in implementation due to either bureaucratic stalling or lack of political will. And the result has been sluggish growth in technological modernization for our country.

BIR modernization

In my previous columns on technology, I lamented the glacial speed with which BIR has implemented the use of intelligent software like those offered by SAS. The previous BIR Commissioner blatantly disregarded the instructions of Secretary Gary Teves that had been previously endorsed by the President. When she (the BIR chief) failed to meet revenue targets, she was forced to resign. 

Commissioner Sixto Esquivias IV assumed office on November 3, 2008. As the new BIR Commissioner, I must say he was a breath of fresh air. I invited him for a breakfast interview and he readily agreed to a 7:30 meeting. Much to my surprise, he texted me at 6:30 informing that he was waiting for me at the Tower Club. I am told that he often calls for meetings at 5:30 in the morning. His predecessor only reported for work in the afternoon.

Our breakfast lasted two hours. He informed me that during his first meeting with Secretary Teves, he was given specific instructions on what was expected of him. Among the top subjects raised, he was told that the use of technology was an imperative if revenue collections were to be increased. He readily agreed. Moreover, he understood how he must work — “hand in glove” with the boss. Secretary Teves’ command conferences were not to be trivialized and he and his subordinates were to demonstrate performance at all times. As one of his first acts, Esquivias signed the upgrade contract of SAS software, after a deliberate delay of two years by his predecessor. I look forward to the Commissioner availing of other technology products which will enhance revenue collections.     

It would seem that Teves has a new Commissioner who will be a team player rather than an adversary. The Secretary recently told me that his job is a balance between “P” and “G” – “politics” and “governance” – and his success is finding the right balance of these two elements. I think he’s got the formula right. That may also be why he has gained the distinction of Finance Minister of the Year for Asia.

The combined efforts of Esquivias and Teves in the use of technology should make the difference. Commissioner Esquivias also mentioned that the support of Deputy Commissioner Lilia Guillermo will be key to BIR’s success. I happen to agree with his assessment of Ms. Guillermo. I know her as one of the pioneers in e-governance.

Automation of 2010 elections

Much has been written about the automation of the elections next year. But why is there no budget approved by Congress and the President with only 15 months to go before the balloting? Moreover, Comelec has yet to finalize the specifications for a public bid. From a project management standpoint, this is an example of how not to implement a project of this magnitude. There are 250,000 precincts spread throughout the Philippine archipelago. Logistically, I am told some 80,000 to 100,000 machines must be shipped to those precincts. This has never been done in the Philippines.

I would like to bring to the attention of Comelec two points:

Selection of the vendor – The manufacturer selected should be the only one held responsible for its successful implementation. Having been a computer supplier in my previous career, I have often seen instances where there is one manufacturer and another integrator resulting in finger-pointing when a problem arises. To further minimize risk, Comelec should prefer a vendor who has had the experience of conducting various types of elections (overseas absentee voting, national and local elections, etc.) and who has handled an election as close as possible to our 50-million voting population. I understand that there are many potential vendors: American, British, Spanish, Indian and even a Venezuelan company now claiming to be Dutch. Regardless of nationality, I believe it should be only one manufacturer in charge with the requisite track record.

Security of the ballot - I understand that the election law states that the National Printing Office or the Central Bank (BSP) can print the ballots. It would be an understatement to say the NPO has had its fair share of anomalies. I strongly recommend that they avail of the quality and security of the BSP printing plant. However, Comelec must adhere to BSP’s rigid security requirements. Surely, politicians of all parties can trust the BSP.

By law, Comelec is empowered to make the final selection of vendor after due consultation with a Council of Advisors headed by CICT. Both Comelec and the vendors were surprised that the House of Representatives summoned both parties to discuss and demonstrate the system and hardware last Monday, February 16 After two days of delay and endless debates, three selected vendors presented their case on Thursday. Time management is not Congress’ forte. Even as I confirm that Congress has every right to invite the vendors before they approve the budget why do they act at the last minute? The clock is ticking and there is still no budget. My sources in Congress state that there are “murmurings” about an aggressive push for “chacha”.

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that there will be no automated elections in May 2010? Should that happen there will be the devil to pay.

Commission on information and communications technology

I was one of the original proponents of this commission. I believe with many others that there must be convergence of technology at the policy regulation level. CICT was to be the interim solution to a full-fledged department which requires Congressional approval. Regrettably, the bill creating such a department, sponsored by Senator Ed Angara, has been languishing somewhere in the halls of the Senate. It is some consolation, however, that all the technology-related offices will be returned to CICT from the Department of Transportation, a move that reverses an erroneous decision by the President.

Conclusion

We are now in the year of Our Lord (anno domini) 2009, with almost a decade gone in the new century. Unless we adopt 21^st century technology to our way of doing things, giving it the greatest sense of urgency and support, we will never exit from the status of a developing country.