In 1998, right after the Asian recession,we saw fortunes collapsing. The whole region plunged into a severe recession, visitor arrivals to the Philippines numbered a mere 1.6 million. If we deduct the recurring “balikbayan” arrivals, defined for this article as Filipinos who have adopted foreign citizenship or opted to be permanent residents of another country, we really had just a little over a million foreign visitors then.
At the time, Vietnam had just about a million visitors. Thailand and Malaysia had foreign visitor arrivals in the 10 million vicinity.
Slowly, our tourism industry recovered such that last year, 28 years after the Asian recession, we had around 5.8-million tourists. But guess what—Vietnam recorded close to seven-million tourist arrivals. And there are very few “balikbayan” Vietnamese in that number.
The “balikbayan” phenomenon, popularized during the early years of martial rule when the fabled Joe Aspiras was Minister of Tourism, became the backbone of our visitor arrivals at a time when many foreigners were quizzical about visiting a country under “military” rule. Then, just getting a million visitors was the golden benchmark.
Today, we still drool with envy over the recorded number of visitor arrivals who exchange their precious dollars, yen or won into the economies of countries in Asean like Thailand, Malaysia, and yes, Vietnam and Cambodia whose visiting tourists have overtaken our numbers.
And we keep measuring the success of our tourism efforts on the basis of such numbers. We have been left so far behind. Six million compared to 20 million, when will we ever catch up?
Maybe it’s time we took a long view.
Maybe it’s time we sat back and assess whether we have, to begin with, the capability to host such huge numbers.
Maybe it’s also time we assessed whether the metric we want to use is the number of visitors, or the amount of dollars or yen or won the tourists spend in our country.
This is not to say that we should totally cast aside the numbers. Nor that we should increase the room rates in our dilapidated resorts and shop-worn hotels, already the complaint of many tourists who expectedly measure their expenditure in terms of value-for-money. We cannot replicate Amanpulo or the high-end El Nido resorts all over the country, or charge Shangri-la prices wherever. Far from it.
Truth is, Bangkok and Phuket are far less expensive than our Metro Manila or Cebu holiday costs. Siem Reap where the fabled Angkor Wat has drawn millions each year still charge much less for a good hotel room than those in our tourist destinations.
It’s not just about cutting costs of travel. It’s about looking at where we are now, and where we want to be in the next decade and beyond. It’s about preserving our natural endowments vis-à-vis the kind of environmental exaction that 1.7-million visitors to Boracay each year has done to our Numero Uno beach attraction.
In the Chinese New Year extended holiday period, common complaints of those who went to Boracay were: (1) they had to line up for food in most restaurants, only to be served food that was not of international cuisine standards; (2) while Filipino staff in hotels and resorts were quite friendly and hospitable, the service wilted under the number of tourists that came on such peak period; and (3) there were hardly any items to buy and bring home (most Orientals love to shop, whether for souvenirs or branded items) other than dried mangoes.
Some were overheard exclaiming in Mandarin Chinese, that many of the souvenir items on sale came from China! From Yiwu to 168 to Bora?
And of course, we all know that wastewater seepage from fly-by-night establishments have brought coliform levels in Boracay sea water up. This despite the fact that the Philippine Tourism Authority put up both freshwater supply and wastewater treatment facilities in that island as far back as 2001. The problem has been one of effective enforcement by the LGU of the need for all establishments to connect to the treatment facility so as to ensure that the surrounding waters off Boracay remain clean and pristine.
Do we really have a Tourism Master Plan? What does it say? What are the targets? How realistic are the targets? What are our strategies, and how do such measure up to the goals set up by the Plan?
What are the priority destinations that we want to sell? Are these properly equipped, infrastructure-wise, both public (as in airports, seaports, roads, internet connectivity, etc.) and private (hotels, resorts, restaurants, shops, etc.), for the targeted number and the types of tourists we want?
Do we have the corresponding promotions budget? How effective have previous campaigns been, and how much more effective will those in our Plan be?
These and many more are subjects that both policy makers in the tourism sector and their private stakeholders in the industry should seriously discuss.
Successful tourism programs in all countries have always been the product of public and private partnerships. In many countries, there isn’t even a ministry or department to handle tourism matters. Tourism authorities are either attached to their ministries of transportation or trade and industry. But their tourism campaigns are successful, and tourism has become a major driver of their economies.
The Tourism Act which Senator Dick Gordon husbanded through Congress way back in 2005 is a very good framework which involves both public and private sectors from planning all the way to implementation.
What we need these days is to take a long view, and thrash patchwork ideas and un-coordinated implementation.
Ours is a beautiful country. Would that many more people from other countries see it, appreciate it, and take back wonderful memories of it.