Mr. John

The recent award given to John Gokongwei by the Management Association of the Philippines was well deserved. Much has been written about him and I will not be repetitive. I write as someone who has been associated with him in business as a vendor of computers and as fellow board member in various companies. Mr. John, as he was affectionately called by his staff and colleagues was renowned as a businessman who did not “suffer fools”. Some would consider him acerbic. That was certainly how I felt at the end of a meeting many years ago, proposing the sale of my computers. He was straight to the point “how much?” as I responded with a rather verbose sales pitch on the added value of the system and the company.  He listened politely and ended with the same question “how much?”.  Regrettably, I was unable to close the deal.  I doubt if he remembers this brief encounter.

Yet, on a social basis, he was courteous and concerned about our well being. To this day, he asks about my health and would remind me that I was overweight.  In this instance, he was guilty of the pot calling the kettle black. During board meetings, I also witnessed that he rarely spoke unless necessary. In a board not related to his enterprises, he spoke up only once on a potential business venture. He commented the company should look for another partner. That venture never happened. 

As he stated in his acceptance speech, it was a common belief that family-run companies would not be competitive. Yet he proved otherwise. His vision to seek markets and products abroad differentiates him from other affluent businessmen who were scared to be small fish in a big pond. He is in seven Asian countries including China. New Zealand and Australia also caught his eye and he acquired snack companies. 

In my opinion, many believe an entrepreneur is one who comes out with a brilliant idea and he is so categorized. Mr. John obviously had brilliant ideas but more than that, he proved the sustainability of his ideas. That is true entrepreneurship.

One last point, Mr. John has planned for the future of the company.  His succession plan was put in place at the same time as his retirement.  Compare this with other family-held companies when the patriarch dies and the siblings go into bitter litigation. 

Mr. John, it has been an honor and privilege to have known you.

ASEAN Leader’s Statement

The Leaders Statement or more accurately the Chairman’s Statement of the 31st ASEAN Summit is 28 pages long and 12720 words. It is long on details but short on drama. It drones on and on about what its various sectoral organs have accomplished. So there are mind-numbing plethora of abbreviations, which I doubt the leaders know – or perhaps care - what they are all about. In contrast, the APEC Leaders Declaration has only 2713 words. The 2017 G7 Communiqué is 4,117 words.

In terms of style, it does not read like a leader- like statement, which should seek to inspire and spur action rather than chronicle what went on during the year. There’s a lot of endorsing outcomes of specific meetings without mentioning what the salient points were. It is probably perfectly understandable for those involved in the process. For the general public, one is left wondering what was so wonderful when for example the statement gushes about appreciating the efforts undertaken by the “ACCC” and relevant ASEAN sectoral bodies in strengthening the implementation arrangements of and socializing the “MPAC”2025  to relevant stakeholders?  

ASEAN’s achievements may be impressive and its coverage wide-ranging, but there must be a better way of conveying this in a manner that the ordinary public – not just the bureaucrats who shuffle from innumerable meetings - can appreciate. Without the public’s buy-in, it would be difficult to generate the political will to tackle more complex issues as ASEAN matures.

Lost among the minutiae are the core messages of the Leaders, which is what the general public is looking for. Perhaps it is just as well because it also hid two glaring non-achievements despite them being cast in a positive light. One is on the resolution of the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea issues and the other is on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

The Code of Conduct (COC) negotiations are fraught with risks for ASEAN. There is no clear provision about the COC being legally binding, absent which it amounts to just a piece of paper.

On the second, the dream of a wider economic community of ASEAN plus China, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand collectively under RCEP – a potential market of population of 3.4 billion people accounting for 40 percent of the world’s GDP – still has a difficult path ahead towards becoming a reality. Those involved in the negotiations I have talked to mentioned India as being difficult,  while others blame TPP members Australia and New Zealand for bringing TPP standard principles into the RCEP negotiations.

Question: Are these statements collegial comments or that of the chairman?  

Random comments

A very affluent and influential businessman was quoted: “the ASEAN Meetings were worthwhile and informative but what did they do the rest of the year?”

Personally, I must commend Joey Concepcion for the organization and substance of ASEAN Business Advisory Council and related meetings.

I just learned Aung San Suu Kyi   has been stripped of an award given by the British city of Oxford, where she went to university.  I wonder if the Nobel Peace Award Committee will follow suit. The hysteria related to having a “selfie” with her at the ABIS luncheon is embarrassing.

Erratum

For the record, in my column last week entitled “That Woman,” voting “No” is a departure from the image that the Philippines has nurtured when it comes to oppressed people: Vietnamese refugees, Spanish Republicans, German Jews and anti-Communist white Russians.