This trip to Manila was short, more of a quick look than a deep visit.
What stayed with me most was not any single attraction, but the contrasts that kept appearing along the way: large factories with relatively low levels of digitalization; people who seemed calm and gentle, while many things moved slowly; food that turned out to be surprisingly good; and a city whose atmosphere always carried a slight sense of tension.
On the way to the factory
On the way to the factory, I got a very immediate impression of the city. The streets were not empty, and there were plenty of motorcycles, but gasoline vehicles still dominated. If you only look at the BGC area, its newer urban surface can remind you a little of Zhujiang New Town in Guangzhou. But once you move even slightly beyond that, the difference in development stage becomes visible again.
You can also see familiar Chinese elements, such as BYD cars on the road. Seeing them there creates a slight sense of dislocation: on one side, a globalized supply chain; on the other, a very local rhythm of life.
A large garment factory, and a less "digital" way of running things
The company we visited was a garment business of considerable scale, but its level of digitalization was not high.
From a domestic Chinese perspective, the first reaction is almost automatic: could they use RFID here? Could sorting, circulation, and inventory counting be made more digital? Is there still a lot of room to improve efficiency?
But after seeing the site, it became clear that things were not that simple.
Local labor costs are low. Many steps that would seem obvious candidates for system replacement in China can still be completed manually there, and the cost may not necessarily be higher. In other words, in this environment, manual sorting is not necessarily more backward than RFID. It may simply be more economical.
That is interesting. Whether a technology is advanced and whether it is worth deploying are often two different questions. If you ignore labor costs, organizational habits, and local industrial conditions, then simply asking whether a system should be introduced can easily become detached from reality.
It is not always a tool problem. Often, it is a work-habit problem.
There was another detail I found interesting.
When we introduced our AI Model tool, I originally expected the other side to respond like domestic teams often do: take screenshots, share a screen, annotate online, or point directly at the interface and discuss what needed to change.
Instead, they printed the content out and circled things by hand.
That made me realize that many so-called AI communication barriers may not really be stuck at the level of model capability. They may be stuck one layer earlier: whether the default ways of working are even the same.
If a team's most natural way to collaborate is still paper-based feedback, then even the newest tool, once introduced, will first be pulled back into the old process. The tool has not changed, but the result can be completely different.
The other side of calmness is that many things are harder to push forward
After interacting with local friends and people at the company, I had another strong impression: many people seemed calm, compliant, and not particularly eager to express many thoughts.
Of course, this cannot be simply generalized into a broad social conclusion. But from the perspective of getting work moving, this kind of atmosphere has both good and bad sides.
The good side is that there is not such intense competitive pressure. Relationships between people feel less tense, and the overall pace is not as "involuted" as in China.
The cost is that many things do move more slowly. You get the sense that not everyone cares that much about growth, optimization, efficiency, or breakthroughs. Accepting the current state of things seems to be a more natural choice.
Looking back at the "high efficiency" we are used to, what exactly is the cost?
Precisely because I saw another kind of state, it became easier to look back at the efficiency logic we have grown used to in China.
We are, of course, already very accustomed to high efficiency, and it is easy to assume that high efficiency is naturally correct. But as efficiency improves, many middle-layer jobs are also being compressed. Work that once required people is continuously replaced by processes, systems, and tools.
Everyone knows who benefits from this. But who ultimately bears the cost is often not discussed seriously.
So my biggest takeaway from this trip was not a simple judgment about who is more advanced or who is more backward. It was a clearer awareness that different societies make very different trade-offs among efficiency, cost, dignity, and a sense of stability.
The food was quite good
A local friend took us to a restaurant with a strong local character.
The fried fish was very good, and so was the pork knuckle. The flavors were local, but not difficult to accept. In fact, they were the kind of dishes most people would probably enjoy even on a first try.
Sometimes the most direct memory from a trip is not some grand conclusion, but a single meal.
Finally, an informal but practical reminder
Before going, I had already heard quite a few reminders about local public security. Overall, it really is better to keep a low profile and not show wealth.
Also, a friend half-jokingly and half-seriously said that if you see a white van, remember to keep some distance.
As for jokes like "so you don't get noticed by your own compatriots," they sound like jokes. But jokes that circulate usually do not come from nowhere.
Overall, Manila is not the kind of city that amazes you at first sight. But it keeps showing you ways of operating outside the systems you are familiar with.
If you are only staying briefly, its greatest value may not be answers, but reference points.