READERS SPEAK ON TOURISM, ETC.

The Philippine Star
02/09/09

We have a number of readers’ views on various columns, and we would like to share them with you. Some have been shared via The Philippine Star’s discussion threads, and others have been sent directly to my e-mail address. Either way, they’re worth sharing with our other readers.

We received the most number of comments on the state of our tourism sector, a reflection of the still growing number of Filipinos who are now able to travel to other parts of the world and can see how our amenities compare with other developing countries. Other topics touched by readers include the ongoing acquisition mode of the country’s biggest company, San Miguel Corp. and LPG as an automotive fuel.

On tourism

Here are several comments on tourism picked up on The Philippine Star’s discussion thread: “It would also be a good idea if we do improve our gateways to the world: our airports, sea ports and even bus terminals. Imagine coming to the Philippines with an airport/seaport with poor facilities?

“First impressions last. Our airport terminal fee is so high but we couldn't even get our water fountains running? Or even have one (in Cebu airport). Where do these fees go? What are they improving on? Anyway, I think we should benchmark Singapore as well.”

A reader’s reaction to the above-comment: “You are absolutely right about fixing our point of entries first. I readily agree with you on this. On the other hand, I've traveled and visited about 13 countries now, and I would say that our Centennial Airport is not that bad, that is, if we compare it to those airports in the same Third World countries like our own.

“By the way, you do not ask where the (terminal) fees ‘go.’ Rather, you ask ‘whose pocket’ is it where the fees go.”

Another comment, if a bit long: “Many years ago, when I was still an employee of the Department of Tourism, I asked – suggested rather, a friend of mine – an owner of a hotel property, to ‘spruce up’ or renovate his already ‘shabby-looking’ property. He said he cannot, and will not, simply because he felt that no tourists are coming anyway. 

“Tourism is an interesting phenomenon whereby the receiving – or host destination – is at the mercy of the tourist who should be regarded as a ‘consumer’ (from the commercial point of view). If your place does not have a hotel to accommodate him, he either stays very briefly, or otherwise opts not to visit at all.

“There is no point arguing that you don't want to put up a hotel because they're not visiting – or maybe because you just think they're not coming. On the other hand, it is more of a truism that tourists do not come to visit you because there's no place for them to stay. And if they cannot stay, the host destination cannot earn the desired tourist revenue.

“While tourism – by itself, per se, is not, and should not be regarded, as an ‘industry,’ other real industries (such as the hospitality industry, the transport sector industry, etc.) could appreciate the benefits derived from, or provided by, the phenomenon called tourism.”

Another comment shared in the discussion thread: “I think what the Philippines needs are cheap accommodations for the backpacking crowd as well. As for the other accommodations and facilities that you say are lacking, the big companies won't invest a lot of money if they are not sure that the tourists would come.

“It’s the youth that compose the majority of the tourism market and a lot of them can't afford expensive accommodations. That is one reason Thailand is popular, and also because it has a lot to offer culturally and its food is good.”

On our Olympic dreams

Here is a comment picked up on the discussion threads: “Basketball is so huge in the Philippines and Filipinos are so tunneled-vision on this sport which, let's face it, won't and will not ever give the Philippines a much needed medal let alone other sports.

“Other countries heavily invested in their talents so early. We don't even have a sports science center. We don't have sports psychologists that play a crucial role in molding athletes. That's a fact; just ask the British athletes. Yes, we can't afford those, and it sounds rather fancy to the Filipinos' taste, but future Olympians need help and support from the government.

“Basketball shouldn't be given too much of a focus if we want medals.”

A reaction to the above comment: “The Chinese have been screening children as young as five years old. Thus the athletes who end up participating high level sports competitions such as the Olympics are those with ‘gifted’ bodies, i.e., bio-mechanical efficiency, good genetics, etc. These blessed athletes can make tremendous gains even in normal training. They can recover quickly and are less prone to injury.

“Currently, there are many Australians complaining about the performance of their athletes in the Beijing Olympics. They attributed this to the lack of money. UK bested them because they have already invested in a sports program that is worth billions, one that Australia currently lacks despite the number medals that they have won.

“Can we invest billions? Even if we can afford that luxury, we have more important issues to focus on.

“So if there’s no good sports program and adequate funding without harming our country’s well being, how can we find those gifted individuals? They might end up working in an office not knowing that they can make a difference in the Olympics.”

On SMC’s “bold moves”

A reader has a different view about what I described as SMC’s bold investment moves: “SMC's Danding Cojuangco and Ramon Ang have only shown their having common sense and not boldness. By buying into companies that are engaged in selling and providing services – electricity, fuel, communication – that are needed by every part of all markets is being commonsensical.

“The demand for these basic goods and services, aside from food and potable water, will most probably be always on the positive growth side, even in times of financial crises.

“Consumers will need to have electricity, fuel and a way to communicate in order to have decent lives. Thus, the writer is utterly mistaken to praise as a bold move SMC's move to acquire stakes and be involved in the power, fuel and communication industries. At the most, you can call this as being opportunistic but not bold.

“Boldness in business means venturing into economic activities that offer great odds and risks, with conviction and utmost dedication to a well-studied plan. Getting involved in the three industries mentioned, SMC would, at the least, encounter only relatively low risks of losing profitability but not revenues in the short and medium terms.

“I would praise SMC should it go further in investing in construction and real estate. That would be a very bold move that could definitely result to more investments by the other big players, a bold move indeed that could stave effects of the (effects of the) global financial crisis.

“Right now, there is nothing to praise in SMC's moves. Only sighs of boredom of seeing such a big player in a predatory mood.

Here’s a suggestion from a reader: “Ask SMC to finance and construct a natural gas pipeline from Batangas to Manila so we can use CNG in buses, trucks and cars in Manila as the air pollution is taking the lives of young children every day (with) the air quality here worst in the Far East next to China and India.”

Should you wish to share any insights, write me at Link Edge, 25th Floor, 139 Corporate Center, Valero Street, SalcedoVillage, 1227 MakatiCity. Or e-mail me at reydgamboa@yahoo.com. For a compilation of previous articles, visit www.BizlinksPhilippines.net.