Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Cabaero: Remittance boycott By Nini B. Cabaero Beyond 30
A MESSAGE being passed around by e-mail and through blogs among communities of overseas Filipino workers is one that calls for them to withhold dollar remittances to the Philippines this Nov. 1 and 2.
The purpose of the boycott is to send a signal to the Philippine government that overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are not happy with the so-called “strengthening” of the peso.
As the peso appreciates against the dollar, the amount of money their families get for the dollars they send home becomes smaller. They would either have to send more dollars to keep the amount of assistance to the families the same or their families would just have to cut some expenses.
Boycott advocates are urging OFWs not to send any remittance on Nov. 1 and 2. Whatever they have to send to their families would have to be remitted before or after those dates or sent through alternative means.
Those behind the boycott want some answers to their questions. If the peso is indeed “stronger,” why do prices of fuel products, transportation, medicines and basic commodities continue to rise? Why is the purchasing power of the Filipino getting smaller instead of bigger?
These messages from OFWs are becoming more urgent and harder to ignore.
The exchange rate is down to P44 for every $1 remitted here, and projections show that the rate could reach as low as P40 to a dollar by yearend. Economists say a surplus of dollars in the country is bringing the peso to new levels.
A “stronger” peso can be good and bad, depending on the sector that is affected. But the OFW sector and the welfare of the families they are supporting have points of view that would be foolish for government to ignore.
The Department of Labor and Employment is aware of the boycott campaign and has downplayed the move as one initiated by activists or those belonging to radical leftist organizations. It does not believe the boycott would damage the economy at all, considering that remittances have reached billions of dollars.
It said remittances are personal in nature, meaning they are intended to help families of OFWs, and not political at all.
What this analysis misses is the growing power of OFWs in terms of their capabilities to sway decisions of family members left in the Philippines. The profile of an OFW is someone who is educated, has access to tools that allow him or her to communicate with family members and participate in discussions, is able to express ideas and is highly opinionated.
Online discussions among OFWs are tackling Philippine issues like the peso-dollar exchange rate, the rising costs of fuel products, their impacts on prices of basic commodities, education and health; the controversies hounding the government like the questioned national broadband project, the latest impeachment complaint against President Arroyo, the bribery of legislators and local officials, and the explosion last week at the Glorietta 2 mall in Makati that left 11 persons dead.
Out of these discussions came the question on how OFWs can play a role in pressuring government to act on the people’s plight. The boycott is one move. With little imagination, there could be other ways.
