IT IS ONE thing to be "low-tech" out of a personal choice, and quite another if it’s out of being unaware. It might be hard to imagine that there are still people out there who don’t know that the world is well into the Information Age, but it’s a fact. So what’s the big deal about this anyway? Well, my analysis on this is, with a large part of the population that’s ignorant, the country won’t be headed out of the Third World anytime soon.

It’s often been repeated that information is the most valuable and sought-after commodity today. With information, people can make better decisions, and can plan for the future with more certainty. Information also plays a big role in providing people with opportunities for personal advancement. And that’s why this group of people strive to keep abreast of technological developments, so that they can better serve their own need for critical data.

Those without up-to-date information, on the other hand, live on a day-to-day basis, and seem perennially unable to escape their plight. For the underprivileged, the pursuit of information is irrelevant because it is inconsequential. But without it, they remain poor.

As the country will remain poor, shackled by debt and dismal economic growth.

During a conference of the Mindanao Business Council last week, there was a briefing on the sad state of nutrition in the South. The numbers apparently show that there is an alarming decline in our overall dietary health. The speaker then passionately advocated the importance of a well-nourished population for the benefit of the country’s future, and rightly so. And I make the same argument for the Filipinos’ hunger for information.

Access to technology — and therefore to information — and the lack thereof: that, in my opinion, is what the digital divide is all about. What must be done to bridge this gap?

The cloud that was the 1997 Asian financial crisis had a silver lining: it precipitated the telecommunications boom in the country. The relatively infant industry had to survive, what with huge investments already poured in by the telcos. And so the prepaid system was introduced, which saved the telecoms industry. Prepaid cards brought telephony services to the masses. And this is now paving the way — or shall I say, the bridge — towards digital harmony, so to speak.

The mobile phone, with its high availability, is truly the means by which a larger section of the population can become better informed. Today, it is not used only by rich businessmen for the conduct of their affairs, but also by the less fortunate for their own business transactions.

That’s why it is laudable that telcos continue to offer mass-based pricing schemes, which makes it feasible for, say, fish vendors to keep track of prices, for example. The existing telecoms infrastructure now make it possible for all of us to rely on SMS for business, as well as for personal exchange of information.

That’s why it would be a tremendous mistake for the present government to tax SMS. It’s actually appalling to realize that the national leadership could be so tunnel-visioned. If SMS is taxed, mobile telecoms operators would have no choice but to raise text messaging charges. This would in turn cause a negative impact on the accessibility of this technology to those who need it more.

The digital divide could also be thought of in this way: on one side of the divide is private industry, which is already very much IT-enabled these days. (The technologies that can be acquired or produced by Filipino companies are already at par with those in the so-called First World.)

On the other side of the divide is our government, which is still largely in the Dark Ages. Sure, a number of the very visible agencies are already "on-line" with their e-governance initiatives. But why is it that, with all the high-tech tools on hand, corruption is still rampant? Sure, the national government does spend to IT-enable its public services. For example, of the 2004 e-Government Fund’s P4 billion, P1.3 billion was allocated to the Comelec for its election modernization program. Which was never implemented.

Even after the leaps and bounds in technological advances, the private sector still finds it difficult to interface with the government. But, the government isn’t "low tech" due to ignorance. It is well aware of the powers and advantages of technology. Is there resistance to streamlining the bureaucracy, which IT can definitely achieve? Is corruption so entrenched that it is thwarting the efforts of sincere implementors of technological solutions to improve governance?

The digital divide will be bridged finally and effectively only if the government wills itself to become the architect of the bridge. The contractors have just been waiting, manpower can easily be hired, and all the construction materials are already available.