A lesson from the Asean Summit preparation

It was not difficult for the men in the ancient world to plan their communities. Their names adorned the pages of history. The planners were the leaders themselves like Nebuchadnezzar, whose concept of the hanging gardens of Babylon continues to be considered one of the great wonders of the world. Or, they could be the wise people in the confidence great leaders such as Diogenes, the chief architect of Alexander the Great. What they did, if records were to be believed, was to use vivid imaginations in visualizing how they would want their places to become, or known or their names perpetuated, as the case maybe, and having so planned, to proceed with grim determination to achieve their vision. I could only be awed at the estimates that 100,000 men worked for about 20 years, twenty hours a day, seven days a week, (24/7), to erect the Great Pyramid at Giza.

In the modern era, planning for a community, be it a private corporation or a local government unit, is, like the olden times, a necessity. Growth can be hardly achieved, unless a plan is drawn. Against such plans may the curb of success be identified.

There is, though, a distinct advantage in private business. The brilliant minds of CEO's, or their highly paid corporate planners, continue to adopt the ideas of planning one's work and working one's plan. To them they are inextricably entwined with their jobs. They think of these inseparable concepts most of their waking hours, (sometimes called working hours, what the heck, they are so confused).

This advantage, however, is, on two counts, not so enjoyed by government. First, some of our leaders simply don't have vision. They assume important positions in the political hierarchy not on the strength of their absent plans but on the notion, wrongly of course, that they are just stepping into the footprints of their illustrious ancestors. Second, there are some visionary leaders too. Unfortunately, given the bourgeoning hindrances that now constrict the parameters of government planners, their visions can get clipped by bureaucratic red-tape, dulled by the vicious hands of corruption or waylaid by political bickering.

Cebu City, occupies a strategic position in the country. Its port, enjoying a natural protection against climactic or tidal changes, lies at the hub of the Visayan commercial traffic while its products are happy combinations of what is locally generated and those taken from nearby islands. In all these, our businessmen, known for their inventiveness and industry, plan their work and work their plan. For these and, perhaps, many more reasons, our city continues to earn respect from all over the land.

Yet, our city has not progressed as it could or should have. There is one reason for this failure. Our leadership has failed in the elementary aspect of planning a work. For years, we have not known of a forward development strategy. The city's private sector, who are wiling to roll up their sleeves in cooperation with the government just do not know what is supposed to be accomplished. What happens is that we work in reaction to events. Our outputs are not determined in planned forecasts but are dictated by ever changing circumstances.

A case in point is our preparation for this ASEAN summit. It is not founded on a solidly drawn plan. None was presented to the Cebuanos sufficiently ahead of time for us to help do its outlines. We knew of this event few months back, but what came to us was sketchy. True, there is feverish work done by everybody, what with only few more weeks before the various heads of states converge in our midst. But, as we all observe, our work is in reaction to what we see needs to be done and not on the basis of what is planned.

This case should serve as a good lesson. After all the brouhaha have died down and the seeming scene of interminable work done, we can look back and say, next time, whatever event it shall be, let it be better planned and the plan better worked.