If you want to make Filipinos laugh, tell them the Marcos administration is putting up “global centers” for overseas Filipino workers. One is already operating in Hong Kong and it boasts of — free coffee.

The Department of Migrant Workers (DWM) sells these centers as “dignified venues,” community spaces where OFWs can rest and engage on the days off and holidays. That’s fine as a concept, but it becomes questionable the moment you locate the centers in the most expensive commercial districts.

Hong Kong’s global center is located at United Center in Admiralty, prime real estate and among the costliest office areas in the territory. The next one planned for Taiwan will reportedly be in the same building housing the MECO in Taipei. Again, not cheap.

Is this a judicious use of public funds?

The government’s logic seems to be: OFWs send trillions home in remittances, therefore, the state is justified in spending more for OFWs abroad. DMW Secretary Hans Leo Cacdac cited P2.2 trillion in remittances in 2024 “to put things in perspective.”

But that is precisely the problem. Remittances are not a justification for careless spending. In fact, the higher the stakes, the higher the standard. If OFWs are sending home P2.2 trillion, then every centavo the government spends in their name must be explainable and defensible.

OFWs do not need posh lounges. They need a government that shows up when they are in distress. They need emergency shelters that actually function, are known, accessible, staffed and ready. They need legal assistance, financial aid, repatriation support, case monitoring, protection from abusive employers, coordination with host-country authorities, and the humane handling of complaints.

Those things cited above are the necessities. A “global center” is not. And when the necessities are questionable, the global centers start looking like distractions.

Consider the Taiwan shelter issue now under public scrutiny.

Cacdac said the government spends P5 million annually for OFW shelters in Taiwan — the MWO shelter in Taipei and NGO-run shelters in Taichung and Kaohsiung. He later posted that Bahay Ugnayan receives $22,000 annually and the Kaohsiung shelter receives $13,000.

At the exchange rate cited in a DAILY TRIBUNE story (P59.29 to $1), those two NGO allocations total about P2.075 million. That leaves roughly P2.92 million for the government-run shelter in Taipei and related operating costs. 

Yet the allegation is that the Taipei facility is barely operational and largely unknown to OFWs. That is the part that should outrage the public.

Here, the government should provide the most basic information. How many distressed OFWs are actually sheltered in Taipei? How many people stay there nightly? What services are provided? Who manages the shelter? How much goes to staff salaries and allowances? How much for food, maintenance, utilities, and operating costs? What is the exact breakdown of the P2.9 million?

That is why Usec. Bernard Olalia’s press conference on Monday and Secretary Cacdac reaching out to DAILY TRIBUNE may sound good, but they still fall short. The public does not need reassurances; it needs data that may be put under the microscope.

For years, support for shelters and migrant centers in Taiwan involved partnerships that had continuity across administrations. Under Marcos, MECO assistance stopped in 2022 starting with Silvestre Bello.

MECO is not under the DMW, sure, but they should operate in cadence, in line with that touted “whole of government approach.” If Cacdac admitted they do not have the expertise to run shelters and take care of distressed OFWs, then logic dictates granting more — not less — support for NGOs and church-led groups that do have the expertise and roots in the community.

This is while money is being poured into global centers and into facilities that, by allegations, are “non-operational.” That is backwards and invites perceptions of corruption.

Finally, there is the property question. If the government is paying high rents year after year, why is it not exploring buying property, especially when rents in premium districts like Neihu could equal the cost of a building over time?

This is why these controversies matter. They reveal a government that has gotten comfortable with vague spending, PR-heavy programs, and a lack of specifics anchored in motherhood statements.