Capacity Development or Costly Junket? The SK Manila Thailand Case

At a time when corruption and misuse of public funds dominate headlines, every government expense is under a microscope. The recent international benchmarking trip of 667 SK leaders from Manila to Thailand has become the latest controversy.

Councilor Juliana Ibay, president of the Manila SK Federation, defended the program, saying it was aligned with the urgent need to address HIV awareness in Manila’s depressed areas. Thailand’s globally recognized success in reducing HIV cases made it the chosen site for learning. According to Ibay, each SK leader will submit a Re-Entry Action Plan (REAP) to replicate Thailand’s best practices, while the federation aims to file ordinances and implement community-based HIV programs upon their return.

No one can deny that HIV is a silent pandemic in the Philippines, especially among the youth. Learning from countries with proven track records is commendable. However, the execution raises valid concerns:

Sheer Scale and Cost – Nearly ₱33,900 per participant plus a ₱6,000 daily allowance for 667 delegates totals hundreds of millions in expenses. Could the same funds have supported free HIV testing kits, educational drives, or local partnerships with NGOs?

Timing and Priorities – Manila is battling urgent issues such as flood control and housing. To many, flying out hundreds of youth leaders at once seems extravagant.

Public Trust Deficit – In a country where corruption is rampant, even legitimate programs are easily dismissed as junkets unless backed by visible, measurable outcomes.

The problem is not the concept of capacity development itself. Benchmarking abroad has value, but it must be strategic, cost-efficient, and impactful. Sending a smaller delegation or arranging hybrid learning with Thai experts might have achieved the same objectives with less backlash.

If the SK Federation wants to silence critics, it must deliver results fast. Re-Entry Action Plans should not remain on paper. Barangay-level HIV campaigns, school-based awareness programs, and local ordinances must be implemented immediately. Transparency is also key — publish all REAPs, budgets, and reports so the public can see where the money went and how the community benefits.

Capacity development should never be dismissed as waste. But when poorly timed, lavishly executed, and lacking immediate results, even the most well-intentioned programs risk being branded as yet another case of public money down the drain.