5th Inter-Congress, Pacific Science Association

Keynote Address of President Edgardo J. Angara
at the opening Ceremony of the 5th Inter-Congress, Pacific Science Association,
on 3 February 1985
Rigodon Ballroom, Manila Hotel

I am honored by your kind invitation to address this prestigious gathering. I had just returned from a seminar in Japan and had seen there are marvels achieved in transportation and communication. I realized how much of Japan's astonishing progress was attributable to the efficiency of her transportation and communication systems. These two infrastructures have made possible the highly efficient market decisions and distribution that are the hallmark of the Japanese economic miracle at home and abroad.

I came away with the feelings of admiration and regret that are usual with Third World visitors to that land. I felt as the 19th century Japanese must have felt when the doors of their country were finally opened and they saw what had been achieved in the West. These feelings were heightened by the fact that like Japan my country was also a scattering of islands, but unlike Japan my country was richer in natural bounties. I came away also more convinced than ever that these two systems if infrastructure - transportation and communication - are among the essential preconditions of economic progress and social political growth and stability. But I am going ahead of the main theme of my speech.

Allow me to discuss the subject of transportation and communication from the perspective of my legal training and experience.

Going over the digests of the various papers, I see that the intellectual disciplines dealing with transportation and communications are, like the legal discipline, grounded in theory and reality, each informing and improving the other by turns. And like law, I see that they are just as infused with a moral purpose, regardless of the private motives of the people who study or are engaged in the business of transportation and communication.

The transportation of persons and properties falls clearly within the ambit of the due process clause. The due process clause exists, explicitly or implicitly, in the constitutions of all civilized countries and the issues arising from that single clause have enriched their jurisprudence. No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

There are few things which more closely relate to a person's life than the free disposal of his talent and goods. Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, divined this relationship when he said: "You take my life when you take the means whereby I live." And among the means whereby a man assures his life and livelihood is the ability to transport his goods and talents where there is the most profitable market for them. This is true of whole nations as of individual persons.

Large populations in underdeveloped countries are locked in poverty, not for lack of skill, industry and fertile land, but because they cannot reach the best markets for their goods. This inability to reap the just reward for honest toil soon saps their industry and deprecates their skills. I think we can argue that we have here as clear an example as any of undue deprivation of life, liberty and property.

Whole countries are in the same predicament and may be said to suffer the same injustice now that we realize the critical part played by the export trade in the creation of truly modern economies.

One student of economic development in the Third World say that the "turning point in the history of Third World economies that have graduated to modernity is marked by (a) an acceleration of agricultural output and (b) a rising trade ratio." This ratio relates to agricultural exports. Of thirty countries characterized by export-led growth, twenty-one depended almost entirely on agricultural exports.

This is natural for countries whose predominant economic activity is agriculture. These countries have suffered severe hardships from trying to by-pass agricultural productivity and leap straight into manufacture and export of industrial goods. My country is one of them.

But when you consider the short life and perishableness of agricultural products, it is not surprising that these countries should have opted to produce industrial goods. Adequate transportation systems should have linked their internal markets and connected their economies with the rest of the world. Lacking such systems, these countries had no recourse but to produce less perishable goods.

It was of course the wrong option. A viable export trade rests upon the foundation of a health domestic market, and that, in turn, can only rest upon a vigorous agriculture. The links in that progression of exports, domestic markets and agriculture are furnished by transportation. that is why I say there is a dimension to transportation.

This dimension is even clearer in communication. Here, my reference is to the right of free expression. The right extends beyond the activity of unburdening yourselves of your opinions with the confidence that you speak to some purpose. Because nothing prevent others from hearing you. Of course your audience has the right too not to pay attention to what you are saying. The medium of expression is therefore as important as the act itself. A man who speaks his mind within the four walls of a prison has been denied the right. So also is the man who is denied the instruments to project his message, as when he is denied the use of a public place or loudspeakers.

The protection encompasses not only political opinion but even economic choice. A man is entitled to full information regarding any goods on sale in the market, such as for example the price of drugs. An individual's right of choice would be illusory if he also did not enjoy the unhindered flow of information to make the right choices.

The right to communicate and to know is as important for whole countries as for individuals. I have already noted the high quality of market decisions that the Japanese are able to make as a result of an efficient communication systems. One of the papers in this conference discusses the contrary example of low quality decision-making. A Philippine company tied itself to the transfer of an uneconomic piece of technology. The foreign transferor encouraged the local production of its product only to introduce that product into the Philippine market. The product itself could not be economically produced locally, the foreigner having already achieved economies of scale. It was the lack of information about comparable technologies and perhaps, also of the foreigner's marketing practices that may have led the Philippine manufacturer to buy the technology. Ignorance had vitiated a free economic decision. Communication could have prevented it.

there is a higher purpose, however, that is served by the free expression of intelligent and informed opinions and decisions. I do not subscribe to the view that this freedom serves only the instrumental role of introducing opinions to the marketplace of ideas where competition will eliminate everything else but the truth. For what is ultimately protected is not the truth but the very activity of forming and expressing opinions whether they turn out true or not. It is the unfettered exercise of this activity that gives dignity to a man and establishes his individuality. Freedom of expression was not designed to preserve democracy, but to protect expression because this freedom is an essential part of the kind of lie that is alone consistent with our dignity as men. When you consider the vital part played by communication systems whether print or electronics in the meaningful exercise of this freedom - in your life, work, commerce and politics - you can begin to appreciate the breadth of their moral dimension.

Raising our sights higher, we can also see the important roles that transportation and communication play in the larger stage of international relations.

A political scientist has pointed to the higher incidence of conflicts between closed (authoritarian) societies and open (democratic) societies compared with the incidence of conflicts between democracies. One reason may be the lack of communication between the peoples of authoritarian countries and of democracies. Two democracies can divine each other's purposes well ahead of the time either acts on them. Communications between them are open and quick. One can appeal directly to the population of the other and alert them to what their government is up to. This is difficult, if not impossible, to do when one side has greatly restricted communication with the outside world.

Even between diametrically opposite societies, peace has a better chance when communication is adequate. Consider some recent conflicts - Korea and the Taiwan crisis during the 50s, Vietnam in the 60s and 70s - you will find a breakdown in communication at the root of the conflicts. Without sophisticated hotline between Moscow and Washington, the Cuban missile crisis might have been the last event ion the history of the human race. It is the constant communication among ASEAN countries that has kept them not only at peace with each other but eager to work towards a more harmonious and mutually beneficial relations. It sound trite to say that there can be no peace without understanding, but no one will let down his guard unless he feels confident of the other side's true intention to seek peace. This confidence only communication and knowledge can give.

I hope I have not strained your patience too much by stressing the moral dimension of this conference. I am truly impressed by the deep desire the paper writers - to a man - have shown in understanding the problems and needs of the underdeveloped countries in the areas of transportation and communication and their manifest sincerity to help us find ways to take advantage of these two systems in a manner and form that is within our capabilities.

I wish the conference every success.