There is one thing absolutely indisputible about the plight of the Filipino “Nation”, and that is its absolute lack of any collective achievement of consequence. A recent article that BongV pulled out from somewhere in the Net cites one failure after another over most of Philippine history, each snippet in itself a testament to our inability to take control of our destiny. Each episode reads like a telenovela peewee bleeding heart martyred protagonist vs Big Bad-Ass all-powerful antagonist plot. It’s no wonder we never win our wars and always succumb to our conquerors (both external and internal). The kind of boo-hoo I’m a pathetic victim, please empathise with me emotional hook is prevalent in our society and is reflective of its character. This pathetic sentiment gets propagated in Philippine Cinema and by the over-arching Philippine Media. It is campaign fodder for popular politicians. Whether it is entertaining the Jologs or winning their votes, there is a glaring and highly-effective common message that gets sent and lapped up — that Da Pinoy is not responsible for her chronic failure to launch, but are mere victims. We are victims of the proverbial guava not falling right into our gaping maw as we stare out into the sky in prayer. Malas nga naman talaga.

But see, rather than focusing on actually delivering results Filipinos instead concentrate on suppressing the highlighting of The Truth about the absence of said results. And it is precisely because of this dysfunctional regard for our lack of achievement — that we are victims of mythical “forces” that “prevent” us from succeeding — that we remain imprisoned in a crybaby mindset.

Too often, Filipinos have launched into tantrums of national scale against perceived slights over inconsequential things like that Desperate Housewives episode where some crack was made about Filipino doctors and that Filipino domestic doing an exotic dance routine portrayed on some two-bit BBC program (no producer will probably touch the ethnic Filipino actress who portrayed that character with a ten-foot pole after that debacle!).

A slight breeze toppleth the House of Cards.

Every perceived and over-bandied Filipino “achievement” is followed by a fresh breeze of child-like questions that chip away at each one’s populist appeal to prevailing victim mentalities. The Edsa “Revolution” is one such spectacular example. From being the crowning glory of Filipinos’ status in the global community, it has now become a sad embarrassment.

Back in 2002, Philippine-based consultant Clarence Henderson published a comprehensive take on the renowned onion-skinnedness of Filipinos following his own first-hand experience with Pinoy tontowism (a label we like to use to describe the blanket intellectual bankruptcy of the Philippine National “Debate”). Indeed, some things don’t change. There were Desperate Housewives “debacles” even back then as there are now. Sensationalised national “outrages” were also directed at a few poor sods who were merely pointing out evident truths about Filipinos back then. Among the esteemed and couragous Truth crusaders of that time who were cited were The Probe Team, American Ambassador Frank Riccardione, Claire Danes, and James Fallows.

The moral of the story is that the more we tighten our grip on our fragile sensibilities in the hope of shielding these from the pain of having to stare The Truth squarely in the face, the more such information will slip through our fingers. It is no different from the sort of presumption the Catholic Ayatollahs apply to covering Filipino kids’ virgin ears to the realities of human sexuality — something that Chino explores in brilliant detail in a previous blog.

Ah yes, myths. I for one am tired of being told that thunder is St. Peter bowling in the clouds. I’m tired of parents telling their sons that if they kiss Nene, she will be pregnant. Such myths should be silenced once and for all. Facts should be taught squarely. This is what the RH Bill is trying to solve; leaving children in the dark about sex. This opinion of Fr. Arellano probably reflects an intention of keeping people dumb so that they can be easily manipulated, which the church in the Philippines has historically been accused of.

In the same way, we Filipinos ought to wean ourselves from the warm-and-fuzzy of being constantly told myths about who we are — that we are some sort of a “special” breed of people occupying a “blessed” place in the region destined for some sort of imagined “greatness”. Both our track record and the current reality tell us things that point to a far different scenario. We are a grossly over-populated country that imports a vast chunk of its basic staple and are dependent on non-renewable resources for our national income. We are unsustainably dependent on foreign markets to both employ our people and consume our products (which for the most part consist of bottom-of-the-barrel labour-added-value products and services), and despite The Vote having been available to us for the last two decades are still led by bozos who don’t act in the interests of their constituents.

In the same way that an open discussion about sex at an early age helps assure one a healthy adult life properly equipped to deal with the reality of human sexuality, an open discussion about Filipino Dysfunction equips us with the right information to deal with the reality of cutthroat global competition. Both sex and Pinoy dysfunction are made out to be “dirty” and “offensive” topics by our revered “elders” and self-described guardians of “Filipino sensibilities”. Unfortunately history has been quite clear on one thing: far more damage has been done to humanity by those who suppress information than by those who wield it skillfully.

We don’t need PhD’s and MBA’s to take our place in the vast technology-enabled free market of ideas. All we need is the mind of a child to ask the good and the hard questions as is so well demonstrated by the author of what I consider to be the best fan letter I had received over the last ten years:

we filipinos are so hypocrete. we live on lies and half truth.

when I was a kid (am now 40 [years old]) our elders never give us straight answer. one day while playing to my female friend, we were both taking a bath (nude and I was 5 [years old]) I shout “ay pepe” [and] my aunt scolded me for saying bad words.

another was, when I ask my aunt again how did I come out in this world. and without hesitation she said “galing ka sa puwet”.

there’s alot more lies and half truth i learn from my elders, when we went to US at my age of 10 [years old], I was so surprised how ordinary folks explain everything as if am talking to them as the same age as mine. up to now am still wandering why we filipinos doesnt treat kids as intellectual and the future of our country, in the philippines, youth are deprive of ideas what is better for them. look who’s the one talking and explaining everything on tv,radios or in press con. FVR 78 [years old], DOJ Gonzales 78 [years old], Ex Gen Abat 80 [years old], Sec Ermita and other’s who as if t[h]ey will still live by hundred years and cannot accept that their ideas are already “kalawang”. please you oldies, give the youth what is best for the country and for them.

now I know if only I was around when Pres Quezon said “I would rather see the Philippines [run] like hell by filipinos than run like heaven by the americans”, I will be the one to say you dont know what youre saying. suppose we held a referendum and ask every filipinos if they want the Philippines to be part of USA as one of his member in State? [I] am sure it will get a landslide vote of yes. yes to be a member of United State of America.

And that is as real as it gets.

As the election season heats up, rhetoric heats up and clashes are bound to occur. Clashes can be good as they cause sparks of brilliance – or it can succumb to the forces of entropy and degenerate into profiling and stereotyping. That need not be the case. Strawmen arguments and red herrings will abound – and if you speak your truth too clearly, you can be accused of hateful speech. So, I thought it will be a good topic for introspection and discovery.

What is this thing called hate speech? What has this got to do with political correctness, dissent and freedom of expression.

What is Hate Speech?

Wikipedia defines hate speech as:

speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group,[1] such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport’s scale which measures prejudice in a society.

In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

Critics have claimed that the term “Hate Speech” is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.

What is to disparage?

Wikitionary defines disparage as:

1. To match unequally; to degrade or dishonor.
2. To dishonor by a comparison with what is inferior; to lower in rank or estimation by actions or words; to speak slightingly of; to depreciate; to undervalue.
3. To ridicule, mock, discredit.

What are the basis for social or ethnic groupings?

As prevously defined, the groupings are:

1. race,
2. gender
3. age
4. ethnicity
5. nationality
6. religion
7. sexual orientation
8. gender identity
9. disability
10. language ability
11. ideology
12. social class
13. occupation
14. appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.)
15. mental capacity,
16. and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability

Provide (an) example(s) of hate speech

Based on the above definitions, hate speech consists of the following elements:

• A – disparaging remark – idiot, moron, stupid,ignorant, traitor
• B – person or group of persons you, me (I), sila
• C – based on grouping (refer to items 1-16) – pinoy, muslim, promdi,

Combining ABC, are at least 9 arrangements which can be considered hate speech, I will try to come up with four:

• ABC – ignorant, sila, dahil promdi
• CAB – pinoys kasi, kaya pasaway sila
• ACB – stupid promdi, that’s you
• BCA – promdi sila kaya ignorant

From here, you can quickly expand to.

• He does not know how to fall in line because he is Filipino.
• He is stupid because he is Noynoyista.
• He is arrogant because he is pro-Gordon.
• He is evil because he is pro-Villar.
• He is ignorant because he is pro-Erap.
• He is a loony because he is for de los Reyes.
• He is a neocon/pro-American therefore he is evil/sellout/etc.

So on and so forth.

When is it not hate speech? Include examples

Do not quote me on this  – but I’d rather let the world’s most litiguous country, the US, to discuss it -

In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah’s witness who addressed a police officer as a “God dammed racketeer” and “a damned facist” (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire).  The Court’s opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or “fighting words,” that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury” and which “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”

In 1988, the Supreme Court considered a jury award of damages against Hustler Magazine for publishing a malicious and untrue story about Rev. Jerry Falwell.  The piece, labeled in small print “a parody,” stated that Falwell’s first sexual encounter was with his mother while drunk in an outhouse.  A Virginia jury concluded that the Hustler piece constituted “intentional infliction of emotional distress” and awarded $150,000 to Falwell.  The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the award, saying that it saw no principled basis for distinguishing the Hustler article from hard-hitting political cartoons and other speech clearly worthy of First Amendment protection.  The Court distinguished the sort of character assassination practiced by Hustler from the face-to-face insult threatening an immediate breach of the peace that was in issue in Chaplinsky.

American Booksellers involved a First Amendment challenge to an Indianapolis civil rights ordinance that made it a crime to distribute materials that depicted women as “sexual objects for domination, conquest, or use.”  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the ordinance calling it “thought control.”  The Court ruled that the First Amendment gives government no power to establish “approved views” of various subgroups of the population.

R. A. V. considered a challenge to a St. Paul ordinance punishing the placement of certain symbols that were “likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender.”  Robert Victoria, a teenager, had been convicted of violating the ordinance after having been found to have burned a cross on the yard of a black family. The Court, in an an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed R. A. V.’s conviction on the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized some hurtful expression (specifically that aimed at racial and religious minorites) and not other hurtful expression (that aimed at other unprotected groups) based on the political preferences of legislators.  Scalia makes clear that “fighting words” is not, as Chaplinsky had suggested, a category of speech that is wholly outside of First Amendment protection.

A year after R. A. V., the Supreme Court unanimously upheld, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a statute that imposed stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults than for other types of assaults.  The Court reasoned that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because it was aimed primarily at regulating conduct, not speech.

In Virginia v Black (2003), the Court divided on the question of whether a state could prohibit cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate.  A majority of the Court concluded that, because cross-burning has a history as a “particularly virulent form of intimidation,” Virginia could prohibit that form of expression while not prohibiting other types of intimidating expression.  Thus, the majority found the cross-burning statute to fall within one of R. A. V.’s exceptions to the general rule that content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment.  Nonetheless, the Court reversed the Virginia cross-burner’s conviction because of a jury instruction that might produce convictions of cross-burners whose motivation was ideological–and not an attempt to arouse fear.  Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that cross-burning is conduct, not expression, and therefore its suppression does not raise serious First Amendment issues.

From these instances, the ignorant layman that I am would conclude that if I say the following – I am creatively expressing my disagreement with certain behaviors that restrict our progress as a nation. 

• Einstein once described insanity as doing the same things and expecting the same results. A lot of Pinoys keep on doing the same things and expect different results, that’s insanity. We cannot keep on using winnability as a criteria and expect different results, that’s insanity – Noynoy’s supporters are insane because they behaved insanely in using the same criteria – winnability. Is that hateful? Did I disparage a group of people or did I disparage a behavior? I assert I disagreed with a behavior, and not a group of people, and expressed my disagreement towards such behavior – using winnability as a criteria.
• We complain about government being corrupt. And yet, we elect candidates who are corrupt. Then we go back to the streets and rally that the government is full of crooks. Ahem ahem – didn’t we ALL vote for these folks with the a priori knowledge that they were crooks but happened to be the lesser evil- because the candidate was our SOB – easily accessible through the councilor, kagawad, etcetera and who can provide a basketball court?

Shall we just cast a blind eye about this and speak Newspeak?

Newspeak and Political Correctness

For those not familiar with 1984:

Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term was also used to discuss Soviet phraseology. [1] In the novel by Orwell, it is described as being “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year”. Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[2] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—”thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink” in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

Another child of the 80s is Political Correctness – Philip Atkinson provides an interesting read. Wikipedia describes Political Correctness as

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts.

In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting “intolerant” and “intolerance” [1][2] whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description.

Haven’t you bothered to ask which is better to ask a person up front or to talk a person behind their back – tsismis, gossip, intrigue. Worse, to put a plaster on someone’s mouth so he can’t speak – then chain you to a chair – and you just do the listening – that’s what it feels to be moderated. It’s funny that people who talk so much about upholding human rights and all whatever rights – are the very first ones to trample it.  It’s an Orwellian after all.

Dissent, Censorship and Freedom of Expression

Dissent plays a critical role in refreshing and renewing society.  A study was done by Cornell University on how initial minority views come to prevail. The study considered “how” they exercise influence in terms of the choreography of their verbal and nonverbal persuasive styles. For the past two decades however, focus was on the value of dissent for cognition and decision making. In general, the study found that dissent stimulates thought that is broader, that takes in more information and that, on balance, leads to better decisions and more creative solutions. A related line of research has investigated the devil’s advocate technique. In general, no role playing technique stimulates divergent thinking as does authentic dissent.

It seems to me that dissent is a taboo in Philippine society because it is considered an affront to the collective knowledge of the community, no matter if the collective knowledge is severely flawed. Much has also been said about dissent.

Archibald Macleish: The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.

Barbara Ehrenreich: No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

David Ogilvy: Talent … is most likely to be found among non-conformists, dissenters, and rebels.

Edward R. Murrow: We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Eleanor Holmes Norton: The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.

Eric Hoffer: The beginning of thought is in disagreement — not only with others but also with ourselves.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (paraphrasing Voltaire)

Florynce Kennedy: You’ve got to rattle your cage door. You’ve got to let them know that you’re in there, and that you want out. Make noise. Cause trouble. You may not win right away, but you’ll sure have a lot more fun.

George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Harry S Truman: Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

J. William Fulbright: In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith.

James Luther Adams: Nothing is complete and thus nothing is exempt from criticism.

John F. Kennedy: Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive

John L. Lewis: We live in a country where we’re supposed to have freedom of the press and religious freedom, but I think to some degree, there’s a sense of fear in America today, that if you say the wrong thing, what some people will consider what is wrong, if you step out of line, if you dissent, whether you be an entertainer, that somehow and some way this government or the forces to be will come down on you.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

Mohandas K. Gandhi: Non-cooperation is a measure of discipline and sacrifice, and it demands respect for the opposite views.

Thomas Jefferson: The people cannot be all, and always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

Vaclav Havel: You do not become a “dissident” just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.

William O. Douglas: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

One bright guy commented – they allow people of all sorts to comment on AP – kahit kanto boy – anything to get hits .  AP has never been about “hits” – AP is and remains a voice in the wilderness – a voice that many attempt to silence because they can’t handle the truth. -We have much work to do as a nation and the earlier we snap out of our collective delusion and get down to brass tacks the better it is for us. Our first task is strengthen ourselves by shedding off our weaknesses so we can focus on harnessing our core strengths and focus on the tasks of nation building.  One thing I learned as an athlete – no pain, no gain, no guts, no glory – there are no short cuts, you want six-pack abs – you have to work out.

But beyond that is AP is an advocate of free speech, respects dissent, respect that everyone’s voice should be heard – yes, you, including the kanto boy – your voice my friend, deserves to be heard, not just the educated journalist who speaks better English than you – magpatuo-tuo gani ba.  Why? because – the truth sets us free. Why should we discriminate/censor/moderate against someone just because they don’t use the “prescribed language”, I guess I must have dozed off when Philippines turned Orwellian and introduced Newspeak, better yet, Philippines may have actually tutored George Orwell!  How about that?.

But I digress, what I meant to say is that free speech comes from a long tradition, from one that was blazed and is still being made by seekers of the truth. Through the centuries, they speak to us – what if they were censored/banned/moderated in their time – then we wouldn’t have come across such lines as:

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.  ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.  ~Henry Steele Commager

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.  ~Tommy Smothers

Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself.  It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.  ~Potter Stewart

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.  ~Voltaire

I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech.  ~Nancie J. Carmody

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:  if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Books won’t stay banned.  They won’t burn.  Ideas won’t go to jail.  In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.  The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.  ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, “Do You Belong in Journalism?” New Yorker, 4 May 1960

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad.  ~Albert Camus

Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.  ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

What progress we are making.  In the Middle Ages they would have burned me.  Now they are content with burning my books.  ~Sigmund Freud, 1933

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.  ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

Every burned book enlightens the world.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture.  ~Theodore Schroeder

And one really bright guy wants Antipinoy.com to stop blogging because it is hateful and makes Pinoys look bad? There is a big chasm that separates the person performing the asinine behavior (i.e. following an unlawful order of a superior officer) and the person expressing disagreement with the idiotic behavior. If there is no behavior, there is nothing to describe. Capicce?

If expressing disapproval of asinine behavior is hateful it makes me wonder what this country really loves – corruption, mediocrity, poverty escapist fare. Oh by golly, brace ourselves for harder times – apparently, we, Pinoy’s can’t have enough of misery - living the telenovela life is bliss, Ondoy be damned.

I got this from a Brits In Philippines group who got it from somewhere else. Seems worth a read to me. Sorry, it is rather an endurance test:

This brief history of the Philippines, told by a philosopher of the streets, is probably closest to the truth about ourselves.

Pre-Hispanic Philippines

WHAT’S the big deal when Lapu-Lapu killed Magellan in 1521? Nothing much really. During Lapu-Lapu’s time, Mactan was strictly tribal. Think small, gid. There were no big ideas such as nationalism or geopolitics.

Lapu-Lapu was simply, the local siga-siga and Magellan was the culture-shocked Westerner, a native first-timer in the exotic east. We lionize Lapu-Lapu as a hero and nationalist. Ang totoo, mayabang lang si Lapu-Lapu. But this defeat of a foreign invader, did not make a Filipino nation. The timing was wrong. And don’t you believe that bull that Spanish explorers came to find spices of the East to improve the taste of their bland cuisine. Their hidden agenda was to spread their kingdom through colonization, the euphemism for land grabbing.

Hispanic Colonial Philippines

During the 333 years of Spanish rule (1565-1898), hundreds of rebellions were waged by native firebrands in many parts of the archipelago. Not one succeeded. Our rebels were either caught, garotted, or simply ignored by the Commandante as nuisances. Puro malas!

The execution of Rizal in 1896 was a traumatic experience for Filipinos. Those who read Rizal’s Fili and Noli were incensed by the abuses of the church and state regime of the Spaniards. Emotions ran high, from Aparri to Jolo. The critical mass needed for nationhood was formed. At last we could rebel as a people, as anation.

The Katipunan did their battle heroics, originally led by the firebrand Bonifacio and later on by the crafty Aguinaldo. With more Katipunan charges (Sugod mga Kapatid), freedom seemed possible. Between 1897 and 1899, stealth, betrayal, and skullduggery bedeviled our prospect for independence. The Aguinaldo and Bonifacio factions engaged in an ugly infighting (the talangka mentality) resulting in the execution of Bonifacio.

American Colonial Philippines

Meantime, an American Admiral named Dewey entered Manila Bay and defeated a luckluster Spanish navy. Aguinaldo reneged on the pact of Biak na bato. He resumed the revolution by proclaiming the Philippine Independence in Kawit. June 12. From whom? We are still under the Americans & Spaniards at that time.

Meanwhile, American and Spanish soldiers held a “moromoro” battle in Intramuros with the Spaniards surrendering. Aguinaldo’s republic and his KKK patriots were left out and ignored. Naisahan tayo… Minalas na naman.

The Filipino-American War broke out. Tall American soldiers looking like Clark Gable chased and battled the outlawed Filipino revolutionaries, ending in thecapture of Aguinaldo in Isabela. Thanks to the mercenaries from Macabebe. This is the second time those Macabebe turn in their own kind first with theSpaniards. This was the mother of all kamalasan..

At that time, our population was 8 million. The gap between the rich and the poor was estimated at 30% middle-class and rich, 70% low-class and rural poor.

During the Commonwealth period (1901-1941), which followed, there were lots of learning on democratic principles, its structure and governance. Technology transfers were done on Constitutional Rights, Public Education, Transportation, Health, International Trade and Industrialization. The Americans turned out to be good tutors. Filipinos also went crazy over American brand products like Libby’s corned beef and Portola sardines, Hershey’s Kisses and Wrigley’s chewing gum, Camel cigarettes and Model T Ford for the hacienderos of Pampanga and Iloilo.

Hollywood films made Pinoy males fantasize on Jean Harlow, Betty Grable, and Mae West. Thus, Filipino colonial mentality began. We fondly called this period Peace Time. By the way, American troops massacred innocent people in Balangiga. Mga hayop din pala!

Japanese-Occupied Philippines

1941. Disaster! World War II! After attacking Pearl Harbor , the Japanese army invaded our country defeating the combined American and Filipino forces (USAFFE). General McArthur, the proud and handsome Army chief, fled to Australia at the height of the battle. Then the Filipinos march to Bataan as the prisoner in the Death March.

For four miserable years we suffered the sadism of the Japanese militarists rule. Torture, famine, and death were for us, the order of the day.. Kawawa. Malas na malas!

Post Word War II Philippines

The American forces returned in 1945 to liberate the country. McArthur, General superiority complex himself, sporting Ray Ban sunglassesd corncob pipe swaggered back to Manila . Piqued at his humiliation in 1941, McArthur ordered the bombing and shelling of Manila till kingdom come. So he can get back at Japs for wrecking his R&R place in Asia. Malas na naman.

The whole-wide expanse South of Pasig – from Post Office to Vito Cruz, including all of Intramuros – was pulverized. Manila was the most destroyed city of World War II next to Tokyo. Our culture, our heritage, and historical assets (seven beautiful churches in Intramuros, hundreds of elegant Art Deco and neo-classical architecture in Paco) were sacrificed recklessly and completely erased from the face of the earth. Sayang na sayang!

Philippines Run Like Hell By the Filipino Oligarchs

In 1946, we gained our Independence from the Americans. We were a free nation at last! A true Independence day for us, July 4th 1946 not the June 12th that Aguinaldo declared and Marcos celebrated. We had enough exposure and lessons on how to govern a democratic country, the first in Asia . Our population was 17 million. The dollar exchange was US$1 to P2.

But there was still no peace from 1947 to 1966. A widespread communist rebellion led by Taruc, the Lava brothers, and its armed guerillas called Hukbalahap (Supposed to be Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon) wage bloody war with government troops and turn out to be nothing but bandits
in disguise. Filipinos killed kapwa Filipinos. Malas na naman!

Our politicians and bureaucrats learned to engage in graft and corruption (What are we in power for?) – such as the war surplus bribery, the Tambobong wheeler-dealing and the Namarco scam. Talo nanaman!

Six presidents were elected to manage the country from 1947 to 1972, under the democratic system. They were Presidents Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal, and Marcos.

Economists looked back to the decades of the 50s and 60s as the best years of the Philippine economy, surpassing Asian countries. The nostalgia was naiveté, a useless ego-tripping. The gap between the rich and the poor remained big. 30% middle-class and rich, 70% low- class, rural and urban poor. We were 27 million people. US$1 was to P4.

Martial Law

During the late 60’s, the Maoist communists led by Commander Dante intensified its drive to overthrow the government.. Marcos added fuel to the fire by creating a communist spook. Violence and mayhem rule the streets. The youth went up in arms! Martial Law was declared in 1972 and Marcos became dictator. Freedomof assembly and expression went out of the window..

What followed were years of dictatorial abuse, crony capitalism, shackled free enterprise, near economic collapse and a demoralized middle
class. The gap between the rich (30%) and poor (70%) remained in a quagmire. Pareho rin pala ang situation.

Our population was 40 million. Exchange rate was US$1 to P7.. Kawawang kawawa! Malas na malas! In 1983, Ninoy Aquino, Marcos’ exiled arch rival, was assassinated upon his return. Push came to shove. Cardinal Sin engaged on the people on to protest. Outrage, self- pity, shame and fury raged and rumbled like a tidal wave, culminating in the incredible People Power Revolution. The very sick and obstinate Marcos fled (hijacked by Americans from Clark) to Hawaii (sounds like Paoay) where he died. His alleged millions of stolen dollars intact and unresolved.. Up to now… Peso to dollar exchange is now US$1 to P20.

EDSA People Power and Incompetent Cory Aquino

But People Power was our shining glory! The whole world applauded our saintly courage, our dignified defiance, our bloodless solution to expel a dictator. We were the toast of all freedom-loving countries, the envy of all oppressed people. In 1986, we placed Cory Aquino, Ninoy’s widow, in Malacañang. She was virtuous, sincere and full of good intentions for the country. But what happens under Cory?

An endless brown out and living in a portable generators is a must and monopolized by Cory’s relatives who threw out her Energy Department down the Pasig River. The land reform she professed and promised was going good at first, but after she found out her Hacienda Luisita will be greatly affected, that program went down the Pasig River too!. No wonder that river is so polluted.

Coup attempts by Honasan, power struggle, political squabbles, and the infighting for juicy deals harassed the amateur Cory presidency. So nothing happened. No progress took place. The economy was still bad. The poor suffered more and more. Sure we got democracy back on its feet. But the Filipino resolve didn’t happen. People Power pala was “ningas cogon” power.

Sayang na sayang! Tha gap between the rich and the poor remained at 30% (middle-class and rich), 70% (lower-class and rural/urban poor). Exchange rate was US$1 to P25. We were 55 million people.

FVR – A Brief Respite from Bad luck, till the Asian Bubble Hit

In 1992, Cory’s choice, Fidel Ramos, West Pointer, soldier, and hero of the People Power won the presidency. He had the bearing, the single-mindedness and the vision to bring the country to a tiger economy status.. Ramos was a terrific salesman of the Philippines to the world. He was able to hype a climate of an economic ground. He removed barriers to progress. He was an apostle of privatization. His mantra was, less government, more private sector! Fidel hit the right note and the economy went on a roll. Fidel wanted to run for reelection but failed to swing the cha-cha (an idiotic acronym for Constitutional Change) so he could run again.

In 1997, the Asian economic crises struck, triggered by a balloon burst of the hyper-speculative Bangkok economy. The financial debacle created a disastrous effects in the investment institutions of Manila, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Taiwan. All the Ramos gains evaporated into thin air. Malas na naman! The poor, specially Mang Pandoy, were poorer than ever.

Erap – Hell yeah

1998 was showbiz time! The Erap para sa mahirap show opened to the chagrin of Makati Business Club.. Pasensya na po kayo, mga elitists. Democracy is also weird. The choice of the masa must be respected.

Catastrophe! Chavit Singson exploded jueteng bombs! For days on end, a nation sick in the stomach, sat through primetime TV aghast at watching the bizarre drama of alleged bribery, gambling, drunkenness, womanizing, deceit, and corruption. A lantern-jawed witness and a sexy intelligence “asset” hogged the witness stand.

Viewing the scandals on TV was like watching dogs mating in the public square. It’s embarrassing but you can’t take your eyes of them.

The impeachment trial serialized on TV was riveting. The defense lawyers, some wearing a canine sneer (ngiting aso) insulted our intelligence often. (Lokohin n’yo ang lelang n’yo). The whole country was stinking to high heavens.. The prosecution produced its own witnesses – Clarissa Ocampo, Emma Lim, Carmencita Itchon and many others.

Idols with feet of clay fell crashing into the dust. Those who voted against opening the enveloped were legalese, procedural, and sounding intellectually brilliant. Also heartless and thick-skinned. They couldn’t fathom the heartbeat of the nation. Cardinal Sin, aging and sickly, called the people again.. It was People Power II!

Same humongous and collective umbrage, same brinkmanship, and same staccato prayers! Generals Reyes and Villanueva simply joined the mammoth EDSA crowd. No US jets from Clark this time. Erap was out! Gloria was in!

Gloria, Garci, Guns, Goons, Gold

Hope springs eternal. Malacañang regained its honor and dignity. Protocol was observed. Absurdity was gone. Grammatical English was back. Now the first gentleman should have been named Mr. Pakyao, he has the monopoly of the graft behind Gloria’s back.

2001. More catastrophies! The peso plummeted to a horrifying US$1 to P51. The Abu Sayyaf (extremist ideologues? Or mindless barbarians) were into kidnapping and terrorism, gaining worldwide notoriety.. Businesses are still closing shop. Thousands of workers are being retrenched. Prices of food and gasoline are very high. (Galunggong is P80 per kilo!) Our streets became permanent garbage dumps. Maggots multiply to spread disease. Our communities stink.

Again, the whole nation was witnessing sickening crimes attributed to people in the government. Talo na naman! We are now 75 million people but the gap between the rich, 30% (middle-class and rich), 70% (lower-class and rural/urban poor) remains the same for one century.

When will this end? It’s been more than 350 years since Lapu’s- Lapu’s victory, 100 years since Rizal martyrdom and we’re nowhere as a people, as a nation. Malas pa rin!

Some wise guy said the Filipino is a damaged culture. Bully! And what do you call other foreigners. They used slaves in their plantations, and landgrabbed from the natives! What should we call such culture? Predatory Culture? Bully Culture? What about another country? How many countries did it put under the barrel of its gunships, so they could gloat that the sun never sets on their empire?” What shall we call this culture? Sahib culture? Gunga Din culture? C’mon, give us a break!

Damaged Culture or Plain Malas?

We Filipinos have strengths and endearing values. We are Christians, God-fearing, and peace-loving. We are patient and tolerant (matiisin to a fault). We are musical. We sing our blues away. We have a sense of humor. (We concoct and text Imelda hyperboles and Erap malapropism) . We learn fast because we are bilingual and highly educated.. We’ve got thousands of MBA’s and PhD’s in economics and management from AIM, WHARTON, HARVARD, UCLA, etc (most of them now overseas).

We’ve got a surplus of technocrats for nation-building. . We want to work if there are vacancies. We want to go into business if we have the capital. We want to obey the law if the law is being enforced. We want to live and die here, if there is peace and order.

But, but, and but. We have many shortcomings. We are immature in our politics. Given a choice on whom to elect: a handsome pabling movie star or an honest and brilliant political scientist, we’ll vote for the movie star.

No brainer tayo dito. Talo! We have many stupidities. Like dogs, we pee (Bawal umihi dito) on walls and tires. Our driving is suicidal. Our service quality is inferior.

Clerks at City Hall act arrogant. Sales ladies at department stores don’t know their product features. No exchange No return even if it is defective, you have to argue for it. Tourists get mugged by thugs in uniform. Police lay traps so they can catch you and ask for bribe. What’s wrong with us? We don’t have a great leader. And good governance. (In Singapore, Lee Kwan Yu did it. The constituency profile is similar to Filipinos). Admittedly, this country is impossible, tiresome, and frustrating.

But it’s the only country we’ve got. We live and die here.. Will we ever see the dawn?

Dios na mahabagin, Kailan pa kaya? Ubos na ang aming luha. Katog na ang aming mga tuhod. Tuyot na ang aming utak. Hingal na ang aming puso.
Dios na mahabagin, isalba Mo po kami. Hindi po kami talunan. At lalo pong hindi kami tanga. Sunod-sunod lang po ang malas.

NOTE:
Dati Kastila, Amerikano, Insik, Hapon at ngayon may Koreano pa.

Mahabagin Diyos, Nasaan Ka PINOY ??”

******

What will the next step in the evolution of the Pinoy political mammal look like?

I’ve been wanting to compare the substance of the platforms of Aquino, Gordon, Villar, Perlas, and Obama. This enough I can say – Nick Perlas is the gold standard in platforms. Aquino and Villar are fluffy talk without the specifics. Gordon is a slacker when it comes to platforms – good for him he’s got Subic but it’s no excuse not to have a platform.

Aquino, Perlas and Villar will retain the protectionist regime that benefits the oligarchs – Gordon is silent.

When it comes to the platform section on governance and the economy – Perlas whips Aquino, Villar, Gordon, and Obama!

How did I get to this conclusion, I’ll show you how. Please see below, mind map generated by mind meister on the approach.

The comparison is available as a PDF – and you can preview it below:

Download (PDF, 987.97KB)

What does the comparison imply?

The platforms presented by the Aquino, Villar, and Gordon seems to think that we, Filipinos are idiots who cannot see through the fluff. We, Filipinos ought to be insulted with the low standards provided by these candidates. As the elections get closer to the home stretch, ask and demand that your candidate substantiate their platform.

Do not settle for motherhood statements. Demand. Assert. Require.

If we are to hand the reins of power and governance to a candidate shouldn’t we see a detailed blueprint of how exactly is he going to wield that power instead of a one-page brochure?

Based on platforms only, Nick Perlas knows exactly what to do – a lot more than Aquino, Gordon, and Villar.

Unsolicited advice to Gordon on platforms – Bawal ang Tamad!

I’ve recently come across a few bright boys who presume to tell us who has — or who doesn’t possess — the “right” to write brilliant commentary on the sad “internal affairs” of the Philippines. And here I am thinking: well now isn’t that just classy. It’s days like these that remind me to keep my feet on the ground and do an occasional mental pilgrimage back to a string of so unintentionally prophetic words coming from one of our most revered statesmen:

I would rather have a Philippines run like hell by Filipinos than a Philippines run like heaven by the Americans.

But see, revisiting the above words is the easy part — which is why I did so above. However they are not the point of this article. The point I want to make here lies in two questions currently swirling in my vast mind. Here is The First one:

What is a “Filipino” and what does the “Filpino” stand for?

The challenge to the Philippine “intelligentsia” to step up to providing a convincing response to the above question was something I issued way back and was noted by the eminent blogger Rom Sedona who provided an initial stab at the challenge, thus…

It’s actually a very simple question with a very simple answer: Filipino stands for parochial.

Parochial means – insular: narrowly restricted in outlook or scope; being provincial, being narrow in scope, or considering only small sections of an issue; narrow-minded. Ever heard a more concise description of a Filipino?

… but then on taking on board further clarification issued the following more refined take on the concept:

Tackling the question as [benign0 clarifies] it now, my answer will only be slightly different. what does the Filipino stand for then? The Filipino stands for survival at any cost.

If you were hoping for some lofty ideal – like truth and justice – you’d be disappointed. Filipinos like to think that that’s what we’re about, but in practice, we’re more about enlightened self-interest than anything else.

Aside from my own treatise on what I believe the Filipino stands for, there is not much out there beyond Rom’s own succinct take on the matter that comes across as coherent and therefore convincing — at least to the sorts of people who think. Certainly there is none coming from them traditional emo “experts” on all things “Filipino” to contribute to gaining any further clarity to this enduring mystery. Perhaps it is because all the mediocre mind could come up with to prop up our global “identity” is a “flag” and this nebulous concept of “one nation” — a “nation” which, I might remind, goes by the name of a Spanish king who presided over that charming period in our history as a species known as The Inquisition.

Hey isn’t that the same kind of mentality that predisposes the same meeting of minds of the sort that goes on to latch onto “L” signs, yellow colours, and no-results and no-insight politicians? There you go. You, reader, are in the midst of a groundbreaking convergence in the analysis of what fundamentally underpins the mediocrity of Filipino thinking — Spanish Kings of the Inquisition and Noynoy Aquino.

But, see, I digress.

What an understanding of the above comments ultimately leads us to as far as this article is concerned is a robust context to regarding my Second Question:

Who ultimately possesses the authority to issue edicts on who is and who isn’t a “Filipino”?

I hereby assert, for example, that I am Filipino enough to write about Filipino affairs — wherever those affairs may transpire. Who’s gonna dispute that assertion? Perhaps I might take on board the views of someone who has a clear enough grasp of what it means to be “Filipino” to begin with. In short — Go To Question One First.

Too bad the small and therefore the average (following the Pinoy bell curve) mind consistently fails to answer Question One. If Da Pinoy where a bit more cluey as far as his own identity is concerned, he’d be in a better position to tell “foreign” commentators (many of whom find it personally rewarding to focus their energies on the renowned dysfunction of all things Filipino) to butt out.

Butt out? Well, the short answer is this:

Tough luck.

No sooner had the ink ran dry on the creation of the Mindanao Development Authority when I spotted a seemingly harmless news item on Inquirer. Here we are talking about the culture of impunity and what can be done to instill integrity. Then, bam, I get a whiff of something that stinks – the smell of delicadeza being placed under a bus and ran over without batting an eyelash and with a wide grin.

I was going through the Inquirer headlines when I spotted

Dureza heads Mindanao development body
By Jeoffrey Maitem, Dennis Jay Santos
Inquirer Mindanao
First Posted 20:17:00 03/09/2010

Filed Under: Government, Mindanao peace process, Poverty

COTABATO CITY, Philippines—Presidential Assistant Jesus Dureza has been named head of the newly created Mindanao Development Authority (Minda).

Dureza said by text message that he will lead Minda, which was created to consolidate all development efforts for Mindanao, during the next six years.

Minda was created through Republic Act 9996 and will replace the Mindanao Economic Development Council (Medco).

The creation of the agency, which will operate under Malacañang’s tutelage, was welcomed by Mindanao officials.

“It is important to address the need for a coordinated and integrated approach in the formulation and implementation of various Mindanao wide inter-regional development plans, programs and projects,” Undersecretary Virgilio Leyretana, who chaired Medco, said when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the bill that created Minda on February 17.

The new body will consolidate peace efforts and the development of the agribusiness sector in Mindanao, he said.

Minda will put up its main office in Maramag, Bukidnon but management offices will also be established in various parts of the island.

Seagull Resort, Maramag, Bukidnon

I was about to comment how noble of Manoy Jess, moving the Minda office to the hinterlands of Central Mindanao, to be in the geographical heart of Mindanao.

Maramag, Bukidnon, Mindanao, Philippines

However, upon a closer look. If one were to superimpose the Mindanao road network, my take took a different turn.

Maramag, Bukidnon, Mindanao, Road Network

Though it makes me ask, for official business, do you really want to make that daunting trip to Maramag? It’s on the border of Davao and Bukidnon, it is so remote – although I admit, it is very scenic. It just does not add up.

Then I remembered what Maramag  is all about – that’s where Jess Dureza’s Mountain Resort – Seagull in the Sky is located.

Hit the Ground Running with Impunity

I am so tempted to pick up the phone and call Manong Jess – after all he’s the ninong of my two sisters, noy balato naman dyan. But, been there done that – was an anti-pinoy, too, once upon a time.

It seems Malacañang’s tutelage of MindA is now in full swing – first lesson, “How to be in Denial about Conflict of Interest“.

This enough I can say, if Mindanaoans know any better, they should demand the following from Minda and from Jess Dureza:

• Provide a list of ALL suppliers to the Minda on the Web – for each supplier list the owners, addresses, and phone numbers of the suppliers of anything. I just have this feeling that a lot of this meetings will be in conducted in – tada… Seagull in the Sky – which is owned by Manong Jess Dureza.

• Provide a list of ALL biddings of Minda on the Web. Who the bidders are, names of companies, incorporators, key executives. Make it as transparent and comprehensive as possible, something similar to the Google Finance site. Just making sure that there are no midnight-bids and that the bidders are not related in one way or another to Jess Dureza or his relatives or relatives of his relatives or any of his staff that will front for him.

• List all scheduled meetings of the Pre-Qualification, Bidding,  Canvassing, and Awards meeting. The presence of media is a must, deliberations must be aired on a government funded AM radio channel. Ensure that taxpayers and a citizens watchdog committee representative is present in these biddings. If you have to drag a priest, do it – baka may natitira pang kunsensya.

I have a bad feeling about this, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I have a feeling that only roads leading to Maramag will be paved – leaving other areas that are unfortunate not to be called Maramag – in the dust. We have been on this road before, when are we going to ever learn.

Paano ba yan, pakapalan na naman ng mukha?

Religion and darkness... do they sometimes mix?

House Bill No. 5043, also called the RH or Reproductive Health Bill, is probably the first bill to address the overpopulation problem of the Philippines. It requires the provision of sex education as well as reproductive health services to the general populace. While this response may be a bit late, and the RH Bill is not prominent on the controversy radar, it is still relevant as the bill has not yet been passed and it continues to raise a storm of controversy, especially from the Catholic church.

I will focus on one prominent response from a Catholic entity because of how it alarmed me. Fr. Bing Arellano, spiritual director of the Alliance of the Holy Family International, posted a video response on Youtube stating why the RH Bill should be opposed. The video can be found here:

Fr. Arellano on the RH Bill

I believe each point he made deserved strong refutation, because those points are based on biased, poorly informed views and could do harm, despite the good intentions.

First, Fr. Arellano refutes the RH Bill’s two-child policy. He says the ideal family is from 5 to 7 children. Now this is only an opinion of a person, and for the church to dictate the ideal size of a family reflects an imperialistic attitude. Looking at it factually, 5 to 7 children is hardly ideal; it is more likely to put more children into poverty, given the economic condition of many families today. But the killer is this; nowhere does the RH Bill enforce a 2-child policy! It encourages two children, but “attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory.” Fr. Arellano most likely depended on hearsay and did not read the bill. And hey, if parents today actually stick to two children maximum at this time, that would be better for the country.

Next, he slammed sex education at Grade 2. And again, there is more misinformation. The text of the bill indicates Grade 5 as the real target, not Grade 2.

Fr. Arellano’s condemnation of sex education as pornography deserves treatment here. This is the reaction of a medieval mind that rejects modern reason and logic. Teaching the children about sex at an early age will nourish them on facts and correct data. Pornography is meant to be anything but educational, and it can clearly be distinguished from sex education. Sex education does not ruin the conscience of the children. Delivered properly, it can prepare them and liberate them from myths for their adolescent life.

Ah yes, myths. I for one am tired of being told that thunder is St. Peter bowling in the clouds. I’m tired of parents telling their sons that if they kiss Nene, she will be pregnant. Such myths should be silenced once and for all. Facts should be taught squarely. This is what the RH Bill is trying to solve; leaving children in the dark about sex. This opinion of Fr. Arellano probably reflects an intention of keeping people dumb so that they can be easily manipulated, which the church in the Philippines has historically been accused of.

The urgency of proper sex education is reflected by high numbers of women who don’t know what their own body parts are! A recent survey showed that a significant number of Filipinas (23-30% if I’m not mistaken) believe that the hymen is a male organ, because it has “men” in the name! These Filipinas, ages 15-24, are the real target of the RH Bill’s sex education drive. And based on what has been shown above, this is sorely needed. It’s time to teach the kids right.

Now one of the most shocking things that I heard in Fr. Arellano’s response that many children means more labor going abroad… and he says that it is good! Filipinos leaving the country and becoming laborers abroad has long been recognized as a big problem. But Fr. Arellano says that it is not a problem!

Now this is a very cruel view. It says that many children should be born so they can be sent abroad as labor. It’s like slave manufacture. But the fact is that the overwhelming number of children contributes to poverty in the Philippines. It will strain the families who have more mouths to feed. The children may not even become successful laborers when they grow up because of their poverty. Fr. Arellano’s approach is to deny the problem, and to continue pushing out our people to other countries. This further demonstrates the local Catholic Church’s tendency to turn people into slaves, something that it has been doing since Spanish times.

And come to think of it, when laborers go abroad, they deprive the local economy of would-be human capital that could have helped develop local business. By pushing masses of people to go abroad, would not this sabotage the local economy? If so, the Catholic Church may be contributing to economic sabotage! A daring view, but when I connect the dots, I can’t help but reach this conclusion.

And if ever they do become laborers and get married, the laborers who go abroad tend to have extramarital affairs. Stories like these are too common for comfort. But Fr. Arellano still wants such people sent abroad, and thus the risk of extramarital affairs because of separation of spouses and family members exists. Oh wait… this… and the separation of family members! I thought the church and Fr. Arellano’s organization are family-oriented! But it encourages separating family members by sending people abroad, without considering the risk of exposing them to this risk of extramarital affairs! So the church is contradicting itself on family beliefs!

A very laughable notion is that the Philippines is the conscience of the region. Unfortunately, this is hard to prove, too easy to disprove. A country that has elected a known gambler, drunkard, womanizer and certified crime lord to the presidency could hardly be called the conscience of the region. Filipinos all over the world are notorious for shoplifting, scamming and fraud. There are stores that bar Filipinos for fear of shoplifting, and websites that do not accept credit card orders from the Philippines because of fraud. This is because Filipinos actually do these things! Moral conscience indeed!

Perhaps this is another way of saying that the Catholic Church wants to keep a strong presence in the region, because they’re trying to compete with the predominantly Muslim countries around us that are much more prosperous than we are. The church is probably scared of such countries, and like George Bush, considers all Muslims terrorists. But sorry, this is far from being a “conscience” in the region.

Fr. Arellano also believes that the RH Bill will lead to genocide. Again, this is an unthinking assertion, pure emo. Many countries have already legalized abortion, and it has not become a Holocaust like what the Nazis did in World War II. A holocaust is when so many people have been killed in one single time, like in thousands and millions. Now, would abortion in the Philippines reach that point? For me, it would be a greater holocaust to see so many children going hungry because their parents just wanted sex and didn’t care how many children they’d make from it.

There are valid arguments against the RH Bill, such as punishments when a company refuses to provide reproductive health services. This has been stated to be an attack on free enterprise, because it dictates how a company should conduct its business. I would agree that this is a part of the bill to work on. Yet I would rather let the bill pass, and the lawmakers can fix this clause later. But if you want to oppose the RH Bill, Fr. Arellano’s arguments are not the way to go.

Fr. Arellano says, “the real issue is about life.” I agree with that. But part of this real issue is to uplift the dignity of life. When children are born and left alive to be forced to suffer, their dignity is reduced. And this is equivalent to being dead. Children never asked to be born. While just not bearing children is the best choice for the couple, the problem is that Filipinos are hard-headed. They will engage in sex to enjoy themselves and forget problems even if it would lead to more problems later on because of the load of children. They even like sex with non-spouses! Thus, providing birth control measures is admittedly a stopgap solution, but it is a needed stopgap, and it will help avoid degradations of the dignity of life.

I don’t think people should worry about the RH Bill an as “abortion machine,” because it does not enforce nor require abortion. Rather, it just provides the environment for the service to be possible. In the end, the use of abortion is a personal choice that weighs on the personal conscience, not on the law.

Fr. Arellano’s response to the RH Bill is appalling. If it is the Catholic stance, it would do serious harm. It is possible that he made the response on impulse, and I do not know if he maintains the same stance today. But the impact of those ideas remains the same today; the idea that sending more people abroad is good (thus exposing the families further to separations of members) contradicts the Catholic Church’s claim to being a family-oriented church. These opinions also deny the population problem and other issues that are so clear for all to see, and will actually contribute to making people poorer.

Make no mistake, though. I am a Christian. But I doubt that Fr. Arellano’s opinions are Christ-inspired, because they only care about upholding certain “principles” at the cost of the people’s welfare. Opposing the RH Bill is not in itself wrong for me, but Fr. Arellano is certainly using the wrong reasons. If the Catholic Church supports these reasons, it is a significant contributor to the “damaged culture” of the Philippines and is one of the causes of why the country lags behind in comparison to the rest of the world. Clearly, the opinion of Fr. Arellano demonstrates how the people are kept in spiritual backwardness.

I think each one of us should make our own individual opinion and shake off the shackles of organized religion from our thinking in order to make a better decision and opinion. There are after all Catholics who support the RH Bill, and have no sear on their conscience because of it.

Informative Links:

A Catholic view saying that one can support the RH Bill with a clean conscience

Another opinion refuting Fr. Arellano’s statement

The complete text of the RH Bill

As a nation, we all agree that we want to soar. The question is do we have the wings to soar? How do we grow our wings so that we may soar? Otherwise, we will be in the too-familiar “failure-to-launch” syndrome. From time to time, we need to reexamine what we are doing and determine if we should still continue to be doing it. This examination allows us to have a clearer understanding of what our core aspirations are and what actions we are or must be taking to make our aspirations come true. As Stephen Covey’s observes (rightfully or wrongly) and to which I agree -- “Public behavior is merely private character writ large”. We need to remember that a sense of achievement -- or what we often refer to as pride springs from the day-to-day actions we take and the choices we make.

What achievements do we have to show for as a nation? Asia’s Laggard, The Sick Man of Asia, A Nation of Servants, One of the Most Corrupt ASEAN Countries, The Deadliest Country For Journalists -- Do you really want to kumbaya or do you want to get out of this slippery slope we are on? We were not hit by the recession -- with good reason -- because there was nothing to hit in the first place! The Philippine economy is at rock bottom. Yes, the economy is be growing, from the bottom of the barrel to just slightly above the bottom of the barrel. Yes, the economy is growing but the population is growing at rate higher than we can provide jobs, schools, and infrastructure. We want investors to come and yet we have a protectionist constitution. We want to present ourselves as a modern nation yet we manage and develop our public infrastructure incompetently. We want peak performance and we elect slackers.

What gives? What’s going on? Someone has to step on the brakes and say… HOLD IT.. STOP IT.. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! WE ARE HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION -- WE ARE DOING THE SAME THINGS AND EXPECTING THE SAME RESULTS. How many times have I seen a friend or family member in a disastrous relationship -- emotional, business, personal which led them to losing their house, losing their savings, being stuck in debt. I as a friend, believe have the obligation to tell my friend the truth nasty as it may sound -- for one purpose, to snap out of the destructive behavior and move on, otherwise I wouldn’t be a friend. But, as you and I know -- that’s easier said than done. I  have to be there, I have to catch my friend when he/she falls, I have to cheer them on in their moments of triumph, and when they need it -- a reality check. And when they are in denial, intervention, even. I know my friend will do the same for me -- otherwise, he/she is not being a true friend to me.

What is Denial?

Changingminds.org provides a concise summary of denial

Denial is simply refusing to acknowledge that an event has occurred. The person affected simply acts as if nothing has happened, behaving in ways that others may see as bizarre.

In its full form, it is totally subconscious, and sufferers may be as mystified by the behavior of people around them as those people are by the behavior of the sufferers. It may also have a significant conscious element, where the sufferer is simply ‘turning a blind eye’ to an uncomfortable situation.

Example

• A man hears that his wife has been killed, and yet refuses to believe it, still setting the table for her and keeping her clothes and other accoutrements in the bedroom.
• A person having an affair does not think about pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.
• People take credit for their successes and find ‘good reason’ for their failures, blaming the situation, other people, etc.
• Alcoholics vigorously deny that they have a problem.
• Optimists deny that things may go wrong. Pessimists deny they may succeed.

Discussion

Denial is a form of repression, where stressful thoughts are banned from memory. If I do not think about it, then I do not suffer the associated stress have to deal with it. However, people engaging in Denial can pay a high cost in terms of the psychic energy needed to maintain the denial state.  Repression and Denial are two primary defense mechanisms which everybody uses.
Children find denial easier, as with age, the ego matures and understands more about the “objective reality” it must operate within.  Denial is one of Freud’s original defense mechanisms.

So what?

When you appear to deny a situation, then the other person may join you in the denial or may have to handle it in a way that is not as direct as they otherwise might.

How is Denial Handled?

I am not a certified psychologist, so I would rather have a licensed professional provide a professional opinion. The author -- James J Messina, PhD, is a licensed psychologist with more than 35 years of experience counseling individuals and families. Messina, who specializes in adult and children psychotherapy, serves as Director of Psychological Services at St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital in Tampa, Fla. He has a private practice in Tampa and is also a member of the American Psychological Association. Here’s what he wrote:

What is denial?

* Being unwilling to face problems on either a conscious or subconscious level.
* Acting as if there are no problems to face.
* A defensive response; protection from pain, hurt or suffering.
* A mask to hide feelings or emotions behind.
* A way to avoid conflict, disagreements or disapproval from others.
* A way to avoid facing the negative consequences of reality.
* A way of retaining our sanity when experiencing unbearable pain.
* A way to repress the truth of our loss, a way to continue to function in “normally.”
* A pattern of life for individuals who are compulsively driven to “look good.”
* A way to avoid the risk of change as a result of problems or loss.

How does denial look to others?

Persons in denial:
* Appear to be irrational to those who know the problems and losses they have suffered.
* Appear to be calm and relaxed to those who do not know the problems and losses they have suffered.
* Are a cause of frustration to those who want them to confront the truth of the problem or loss honestly.
* Appear to be unemotional, apathetic or indifferent in the face of loss.
* Are considered pathetic and pitiable by those who have tried to confront them with the denial and have failed.
* Appear to be caught up in magical thinking about the loss involved.
* Appear to be excessively involved in fantasy thinking about the loss or problem.
* Appear to be childlike, very dependent on others to nurture them and reassure them that everything will be all right.
* Appear to be running away from the truth concerning their problems or loss.
* Appear to be avoiding or rejecting those who are intent on confronting them with their problems.
What are the negative consequences of unresolved denial?

Unresolved denial can result in:
* Delusional thinking, leading to a feeling that everything is OK, even when it is not.
* Greater conflict between the deniers and the non-deniers.
* Fantasy or magical thinking, allowing distorted thinking to become a habit.
* Poor problem-solving and decision-making abilities for the denier.
* The denier totally avoiding or withdrawing from everyone who knows of the loss or problem.
* The denier becoming a social recluse.
* Others avoiding the denier to avoid upsetting him with their concern, questions or reassurance.
* Frustration for those who want to help the denier.
* A maladaptive pattern of coping with the loss or problem for the denier.
* Everyone involved in the life of the denier joining the denial; the problem is not confronted honestly by those who can do something about it.
* Resentment by the denier of those who are confronting him about the problems or loss.
* Prolonging the time before the denier must confront the pain, hurt and suffering involved in the loss or problem.
* The denier projecting the problem or the results of the loss onto others.
* The denier’s use of rationalization to explain away the problem or loss.
* Exacerbation of the very problems being denied.

How can we confront denial in ourselves?

We can confront denial by:
* Asking ourselves honestly why we are in denial.
* Asking ourselves what are the benefits to be gained by our denial.
* Asking ourselves what is too painful to face.
* Recognizing when we are caught up in magical or fantasy thinking about our problem or loss.
* Recognizing the negative consequences that result from our denial behavior.
* Not allowing ourselves to fall back into a safe emotional zone, but to keep our emotional response open and honest.
* Recognizing when we are hiding behind a “nice” mask when discussing our loss or problems.
* Allowing ourselves to express negative or embarrassing emotions as we confront our problems (e.g., crying, feeling lost, feeling confused or feeling scared).
* Allowing ourselves to admit to being out of control.
* Trusting others to help us with our problem.
* Admitting our vulnerability and our need for assistance.
* Risking the loss of acceptance or approval by those who may be unable to handle our open, honest admission of our problem.
* Recognizing the negative behavior scripts that impede our ability to deal openly with problems.
* Recognizing that it is human to have problems and to experience loss; it is not a sign of our lack of value or worth.
* Refuting the irrational beliefs that block our acceptance of the loss or problems.
* Asking others to not allow us to deny or avoid the truth about our loss or problems.
* Recognizing that denial is a natural stage in the loss/grief response.
* Maintaining our sense of perspective, allowing ourselves to go through the problems as a growth experience.
* Believing that out of failure comes success; accepting the failure as a chance for personal growth.
* Accepting the help of others in the aftermath of our loss.

How can we cope with denial in others?

In coping with denial in others, we need to:
* Have a great deal of patience in order to allow them the time it takes to finally confront their loss or problems.
* Be accepting of the denial as a psychological defense that is a vehicle for them to retain their sanity.
* Be careful in confronting them so that they don’t run away or withdraw from reality even more.
* Be ready for their resistance in dealing with the truth about their loss and problems.
* Freely offer them our support and understanding.
* Accept them as they are, waiting to deal with the loss or problem until they are ready.
* Be ready with a rational perspective to help them refute their current irrational beliefs.
* Resist solving their problems for them; resist the desire to continue sheltering or protecting them from their loss or problems.
* Continue to let them know that there is support for them in dealing with the loss or problems. Let them face the existence of the loss or problem gently but continuously.
* Provide them with subtle means to face the problem by giving them magazine or newspaper articles, pamphlets or books on the subject; suggesting TV and radio programs on the subject, or proposing professional help.
* Recognize that if they are locked into a chronic state of denial, which is debilitating to their mental health, that a denial intervention may be necessary.

A denial intervention model

If a person close to you is using a chronic behavior pattern of denial injurious to his mental health, then the following intervention model may be useful in helping him break through this debilitating denial.

Step 1. Prepare a written script of incidents characteristic of the target person’s denial pattern of behavior. For each incident, list the following:
* The incidents where denial was used.
* When it occurred.
* What loss or problem was involved.
* What the negative consequences of the denial were.
* What could have happened if denial had not been used to resolve the problem or loss.
* Why and how this incident of denial has affected you personally.

Step 2. Seek out other people who are closely related to the target person. Ask these people to prepare a written script, as in Step 1, for incidents of denial with which they know the target person has been involved.

Step 3. Seek out the assistance of a counselor or mental health professional, if you believe the aftermath of a denial intervention with the target person may result in that person needing to get ongoing help

This is ANTIPINOY.COM. You are undergoing intervention -- do not change the channel. LOL!

Nah, you are a free person, if you don’t like what you read here, you are free to leave. I believe  in censorship, with the qualification that I believe that each of us are the ultimate censors of what we want or do not want to see.

As Morpheus quipt to Neo, all I am promising you is the truth -- nothing else.  After all, the truth, will set Filipinos free -- free from destructive behavior, free from destructive memes, free from the mental cages that surrounded themselves since the time they were born. Without that truth, Filipinos will always be economic slaves of the oligarchs -- they will be colonized by their very own elite. Freeing people from the mindset which has kept them reliant on the opinions of others solely, instead of listening to a variety of opinions and deciding for themselves is not an easy task. You are considered an enemy by the very people whose minds you are trying to awaken, to get unwired from the mob.

I admit the rawness of my words, I mean Rabindaranath Tagore’s version of what I said is definitely more profound -

My Country Awake

Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

Snapping out of Denial is a crucial step in Self-Mastery

When each Filipino is truly empowered, rational, realistic having snapped out of denial, I will be singing hossanahs weaved from the words of the ancient sages.

He who rules his spirit has won a greater victory than the taking of a city, Proverbs, 16:32

He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still, Lao-tzu

Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power, Lao-tzu

One can have no smaller or greater mastery than mastery of oneself., Leonardo da Vinci

It doesn’t matter how one was brought up. What determines the way one does anything is personal power. Carlos Castaneda quotes from Journey to Ixtlan

One who conquers himself is greater than another who conquers a thousand times a thousand on the battlefield.  Buddha quotes from The Dhammapada

The intelligent want self-control; children want candy. Mevlana Rumi quotes from Rumi Daylight: A Daybook of Spiritual Guidance

The lion who breaks the enemy’s ranks is a minor hero compared to the lion who overcomes himself. ~ Mevlana Rumi quotes from Rumi Daylight: A Daybook of Spiritual Guidance

So much so that when our self-mastery is embedded in our psyche and our private behavior is writ large, it will be that of a nation that has mastered itself. Do not put the cart before the horse, we are not there, yet. Till then, ANTIPINOY.COM will remain a voice in the wilderness, a wild man whose head is wanted on a silver platter. A wild man that keeps on howling GET REAL PHILIPPINES!!! Tandaan -- nation-building is a marathon, not a 100 meter dash.

Tame your inner anti-pinoy in ANTIPINOY.COM -- the antidote to Da Pinoy Dysfunction.

Maganding gabi/tanghali/hapon/gabi po sa inyong lahat, maayong buntag/udto/hapon/gabii-i sa inyong tanan -- suking tigbasa.

Bong V.

Like the civic-minded Filipino, the astute lawyer, and the obedient cleric that he is, the good Fr Joaquin Bernas goes out and throws the books of State and Church Law at us in an effort to “clarify” the “fundamental of Church-and-state relations“. Really now, Fr Bernas, this article of yours comes across as just your most recent bid to excuse (a) the meddling of the Church hierarchy in State and personal issues (such as reproductive health), and (b) the participation of our army of men-in-robes in politics and political exercises among others.

To be fair, the principal argument used by those who criticise the above two initiatives that the Church as an organisation is racheting up, emanates from that misunderstood writ of “separation of Church and state”. And Bernas makes like a lawyer and begins by invoking the following to the letter:

* * *

The Constitution

Bernas highlights the two principles of the Constitution related to the place of religion in Philippine society, the first being that no one or set of religions will enjoy any endorsement or prescription as an established belief system coming from the State…

The constitutional command says: “No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion …” Immediately it can be seen that the command is addressed not to the church but to the state. It is the state, after all, which passes laws.

The fundamental meaning of the clause is the prohibition imposed on the state not to establish any religion as the official state religion.

The second one has to do with emphasising that all religions are pretty much on their own on a playing field that the State will ensure is kept level as far as the competition for indoctrination of hearts and minds (perhaps to a lesser degree for the latter) goes…

The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

That is the “separation part” of the constitutional command. The other part is the “free exercise clause.” Both are embodied in one sentence which says: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In effect, Atty Bernas highlights loopholes in the Law that renders the separation-of-Church-and-state principle ineffective as an argument for criticising the Ayatollah wannabes that currently infest Philippine politics. Specifically he quotes again from the Constitution how “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights”, which means being a priest does not exclude one from any civil activities.

Catholic Doctrine and Edict

Atty Bernas then goes on to cite his client’s plea that buried deep within its catacombs lies an obscure document that describes a resolution in the Third General Synod of Bishops in 1971 which explicitly emphasises a directive for clerics to focus on their ministry and discourages them from participating in politics or any form of militancy.

Too good to be true? Indeed it is, when one considers the caveat in that doctrine which jumps off the above and goes on to stress that this discouragement of clerics’ participation in politics and militancy is in effect unless…

[...] in concrete extraordinary circumstances, this is really demanded by the good of the community, and it has the consent of the bishop after consultation with the priests’ council.

Bernas stops short on further enlightening us with his two cents as to whether or not he’d personally consider (1) the current times as being of “extraordinary” circumstance, and (2) whether it is indeed the “good of the community” that is behind whatever is motivating the Ayatollic posturings of some Filipino clerics.

* * *

In both of the above citations, Atty Bernas does a Pontius Pilate and conveniently excuses himself (considering he is one of them revered thought leaders in our sad society) of any need to take a clear position on Catholic Ayatollahs running around playing Pinoy-style politics. Instead he misses the whole point of the debate and like the good soldier applies his legal mind to what is really nothing more than an act of deference to both the letter of the Law and the edicts of his Roman masters.

This is where I step up and come to fill that intellectual void left by an otherwise intelligent man:

I believe that, at its most fundamental, a religious organisation and its minions is engaged in persuading people to subscribe in “heart” and (arguably) in “mind” to its belief system with the goal of seeing to it that actions that subsequently originate from these poor sods’ respective individual wills reflect said subscription.

In other words if, say, one of the “commandments” of a religion is that one shalt not kill another human being, and we then observe that the adherents of said religion do in fact generally refrain from killing people, then we can conclude that said religion succeeded in its ministry as far as that aspect of the belief system it prescribes. What then could be concluded about priests who go on to seek actual political power (which, I might remind, includes access to options to apply state-sanctioned threats of violence and incarceration against citizens)? Quite simply that they represent symptoms of an overarching failure on the part of their religious organisation to effect change within their adherents.

Bernas, the good attourney, offers his client plausible recourse by citing the caveat of “extraordinary circumstance” to excuse the loose cannons amongst their officers. But, really, what this is really all about is a downplay of the fundamental failure on the part of the Church in their mission to make “good” people out of “sinners”. “Extraordinary circumstance” and “evil” — sounds like the same banana to me. Both are convenient and seductive excuses that the Church routinely invoked to justify a reversion to old-fashioned politics (and often military action and the application of state-sanctioned violence) seen many times over its 2000-year history.

I admit we have all been tied up with the Presidential elections and have neglected to look at what’s looming in the Senatorial races. Will the next Philippine Senate be composed of the same suspects – movie celebrities, tradpols, and dynasts? You know what happens when you have that mixture right? You have endless investigations in aid of legislation, all the fanfare, – and NO LEGISLATION.

What exactly is this political animal called “The Philippine Senate”?

A concise summary is provided by the Philippine E-legal Forum:

The legislative branch, which has the authority to make, alter or repeal laws (see also the definition of “legislative power“), is the Congress. “Congress is vested with the tremendous power of the purse, traditionally recognized in the constitutional provision that ‘no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.’ It comprehends both the power to generate money by taxation (the power to tax) and the power to spend it (the power to appropriate). The power to appropriate carries with it the power to specify the amount that may be spent and the purpose for which it may be spent.

Under a bicameral system, the Congress is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Senate is composed of twenty-four (24) Senators, who are elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines. The term of office of the Senators is six (6) years.

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is composed of not more than two hundred and fifty (250) members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who are elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area, and those who are elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. The term of office of members of the House of Representatives, also called “Congressmen,” is three (3) years.

It seems to be public knowledge that the Senate is where you go to bury legislation – as a body, it is the ultimate practitioner of the Filipino practice of “fiscalization”. Beyond the pathetic excuse for public service called “fiscalization”, what else is the Philippine Senate supposed to do? The 1987 Constitution provides the following roles:

Article XI-Legislative Department:

Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law..

Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law.

Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.

Section 28. (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

The constitutional provisions are quite clear on the power of the purse exercised by the House and Senate. In layman’s terms the power of the purse is

the ability of one group to manipulate and control the actions of another group by withholding funding, or putting stipulations on the use of funds. The power of the purse can be used to save their money and positively (e.g. awarding extra funding to programs that reach certain benchmarks) or negatively (e.g. removing funding for a department or program, effectively eliminating it). The power of the purse is most often utilized by forces within a government that do not have direct executive power but have control over budgets and taxation.

Article VII – The Executive Department contains the sections where Congress exercises the power of the purse on the President

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Section 21 of Article 7, also mandates that

Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Bicameralism and the Philippine Senate

As a bicameral body, the Philippine Senate is the product of a long tradition, which according to Wikipedia dates back to

Ancient Sumer, and later ancient Greece, ancient India, and Rome, recognizable bicameral institutions first arose in medieval Europe where they were associated with separate representation of different estates of the realm. For example, one house would represent the aristocracy, and the other would represent the commoners. The Founding Fathers of the United States also favored a bicameral legislature. The idea was to have the Senate be wealthier, and (apparently) wiser. The Senate was created to be a stabilizing force, elected not by mass electors, but selected by the State legislators. Senators would be more knowledgeable and more deliberate—a sort of republican nobility—and a counter to what Madison saw as the `fickleness and passion’ that could absorb the House. He noted further, “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” Madison’s argument led the Framers to grant the Senate prerogatives in foreign policy, an area where steadiness, discretion, and caution were deemed especially important”.[1] The Senate was chosen by state legislators, and had to possess a significant amount of property in order to be deemed worthy and sensible enough for the position. In fact, it was not until the year 1913 that the 17th Amendment was passed, which “mandated that Senators would be elected by popular vote rather than chosen by the State legislatures”.[2]

In government, bicameralism (bi + Latin camera, chamber) is the practice of having two legislative or parliamentary chambers. Thus, a bicameral parliament or bicameral legislature is a legislature which consists of two chambers or houses. Bicameralism is an essential and defining feature of the classical notion of mixed government. Bicameral legislatures tend to require a concurrent majority to pass legislation.

Many bicameral systems are not connected with either federalism or an aristocracy, however. Japan, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Ireland and Romania are examples of bicameral systems existing in unitary states. In countries such as these, the upper house generally exists solely for the purpose of scrutinising and possibly vetoing the decisions of the lower house.

In a few countries, bicameralism involves the juxtaposition of democratic and aristocratic elements.

The best known example is the British House of Lords, which includes a number of hereditary peers. The House of Lords represents a vestige of the aristocratic system which once predominated in British politics, while the other house, the House of Commons, is entirely elected.  (BongV: Oftentimes, the Philippine Senate looks like the chamber of oligarchs with a nationwide base, and the Philippine House of Representatives is a chamber of local oligarchs.)

The Senate Race – SWS Survey of January 2010

I read the results of the SWS Survey on the Senatoriables in Business World.

AN ADMINISTRATION ally and two opposition bets are currently the voters’ top picks among an extensive list of aspirants vying for Senate seats in the upcoming May 10 elections.

A Jan. 21-24 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey done for BusinessWorld, the results of which were released before the offical campaign period starts next week, put re-electionist Ramon B. Revilla Jr. of the administration party Lakas-Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-Kampi-CMD) on top with the support of 58% of the respondents.

Following close behind were Pilar Juliana “Pia” S. Cayetano of the Nacionalista Party (NP) and Jose “Jinggoy” E. Estrada of the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP). Both got a 57% rating.

People’s Reform Party bet Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who came first in the previous BW-SWS Pre-election Survey last Dec. 5-10, slipped to third with five-point drop to 50%.

Comprising the lineup of those likely to win Senate seats, the SWS said, are:
• former Senate president Franklin M. Drilon (Liberal Party or LP), 47%;
• Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ( PMP), 42%;
• former senator Vicente “Tito” C. Sotto III (Nationalist People’s Coalition), 41%
• former senator Ralph G. Recto (LP), 40%;
• Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr. (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan), 39%;
• former senator Sergio “Serge” D. Osmena III (independent), 38%;
• Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto “TG” L. Guingona III (LP), 31%;
• businessman Jose P. De Venecia III, son of former House Speaker Jose C. De Venecia, Jr. (PMP), 30%;
• and Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid (Lakas-Kampi-CMD), 28%.
With statistical chances of making it were Gwendolyn C. Pimentel-Gana (Partido Demokratikong Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan), the daughter of Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. who scored 23%.

after reading through the results of the survey – I had this gut-wrenching feeling in my stomach – that somehow, it will be more of the same.

Click on the image to open the full-size table.

It’s like we get tired of old bozos, we tell them to chill, we put in recycled bozos – thinking they will do new stuff. Old or new – still a bozo, what the eff are Pinoys thinking?

You can already see it – grandstanding, “fiscalization”, “investigation”, pork barrel spending, and NO SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION – and if there were it’s one that reinforces the pinoy dysfunction – it will be business as usual – damnation for the Filipino nation – and you know what, we, the voters claim absolution about how our expectations are being let down. And we take offense when we are told that when it comes to politics and governance Filipinos behave like idiots?

Of the 12 vacant spots – 6 are practically locked in by the incumbent. Only the remaining 6 are up for grabs. And the ones who are most likely to get it  are the people we replaced once upon a time for nonperformance. And now we are putting them back in and expect that by some miracle these candidates have morphed into peak performers. I dunno, I have a bad feeling about this.

Government of idiots, by idiots, for idiots  – Pinoys get the government they deserve.

A word or a sentence from someone can dramatically change our life; that is, if we are strong enough to take it in stride. Let’s take a slice from history and use Alexander the Great as an example. His tutor was no less than the famous philosopher, Aristotle. Surely what Alexander got from one of mankind’s greatest teachers helped lift his tactical faculties and conquest abilities. However, it was another less famous philosopher that moved him to go on to become one of the greatest conquerors in history.

Before he was given the title “the Great” and shortly after having inherited rule over the whole of Greece along with his native Macedonia, Alexander was accustomed to warm greetings and receiving lavish compliments from Greek leaders in Corinth. One day he noticed that, among the crowd that gave him attention, there was one that did not. He was the philosopher named Diogenes. Diogenes had views not so different from Buddha. He had given all his possessions away and lived free from all material distractions that he thought got in the way of the simple pleasures of life. Diogenes usually just sat in the market square clothed only in the bare essentials. History books describe him as someone who lived free as a stray dog.

Human nature got the better of Alexander and despite all the honour he got from the rest of the court, he was curious to know why Diogenes couldn’t care less about him. He went up to where Diogenes was sitting and said “I like you. Let me know your wish and I shall grant it.” Diogenes, the philosopher replied: “Indeed Sire. I have a wish. Your shadow has fallen over me. Stand a little less between me and the sun.” Alexander, instead of being insulted was said to have been profoundly struck by Diogenes’s simple wish and decided that he wanted to become just like Diogenes, free from all the trappings of material things.

Although he did not live exactly like Diogenes, Alexander gave all his material possessions away to his friends and went on to conquer more kingdoms, not just simply to extend his empire but more because he wanted to spread Greek knowledge and culture to the “rest of the world”. Although his untimely death brought this grand initiative to a halt, he succeeded in pushing the greatest intellectual force there had ever been in history into the empires of Persia, India and China.

The truth is there for the taking

Anyone who seeks the truth shall find it. Anyone who denies the truth shall continue to live a lie. One of the ironies in life is that we do not really learn much from people who agree with us, but we get the greatest lessons in life from people who object to our opinions and beliefs. Sadly it is the latter sorts of people in our lives — the ones who beg to differ to us — that we tend to shut out. Often we do so without even taking a small effort to listen. When a person refuses to listen or rejects another’s viewpoint without understanding it, the person’s growth gets stunted. A person who only seeks approval and nods of agreement becomes highly immature and misguided, always thinking that his or her perspective is the only right one.

We can apply what I’ve said above to Filipinos. A lot of Filipinos in Philippine society are misguided in their thinking that other people, particularly those who have less standing in social class than them, have no right to disagree with their views. In reality, it doesn’t really matter whether a Filipino received an education from a top-notch school overseas or just a local education in the Philippines. Many in the “elite” continue to think the way they do because they were raised to believe that having more money or being better-educated gives them license to act like they already know everything. A Filipino who received a high level of education and those who have lived a sheltered existence are the ones who refuse to learn from the people who have fewer credentials but have lived a more practical life.

Filipinos are fixated on material possessions as a measure of social status. Majority are more concerned with the person’s social standing in Philippine society than what the person is actually saying. Filipinos are also very degree or diploma orientated. They let their accumulated degrees and titles get in the way of learning the harsh realities of life from those who know about it. An example of what I’m saying is the ruling political and social elite in Philippine society. If a person is not part of the upper class social circle in the Philippines, people tend to think that he or she is insignificant and that their views are not to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, this behaviour can be observed from the upper classes down to the lower classes of our society. Indeed, the lower classes also tend to think that only those with money and better education know what they are talking about. Hence, it is not very difficult for the lower class members of Philippine society to be taken for a ride or be tricked.

It is very easy for some Filipinos to assume that, just because they have received a more scholarly education, they are more knowledgeable than the average person. Our society has allowed this culture of deluded self-importance to prevail for hundreds of years. What Filipinos don’t realise is that those who are actually living a less privileged existence can sometimes have a better understanding of what life is like because they have actually experienced destitution, pain and suffering and have a better perspective on life compared to those who have household help 24 hours a day and complete meals three or more times a day. There are also those members of the middle class who may not have experienced the same level of hardship as the lower class but are the ones who experienced working in the corporate world; have held rank and file positions; earn a living through hard work and are also the consumers who are in a position to provide constructive feedback about the services provided by big organisations and bureaucracies.

Of course, a formal education is good and should always be encouraged for it is only through higher learning that ignorance can be eliminated. However, without practical experience, all the knowledge from school remains basically theoretical. One should not dismiss the knowledge that can be gained from those who have lived a life of local experience and those who have enjoyed less of life’s trappings. These groups hold the key to the simplest solutions to life’s more profound complexities. These groups are the ones who will use public transport and public facilities. As such, both groups are the majority who will benefit or suffer from policies created by the political elite and members of the oligarchy.

In a true egalitarian society, everyone has a voice. In fact, those who are in the lower classes are the ones who are prioritised and are taken more seriously by the politicians. In Philippine society, members of the oligarchy and political dynasties are the ones that matter and are the first ones who directly benefit from their own policies. The latter do not listen to the majority of the population because these so-called political dynasties and oligarchs have vested interests or have actually deluded themselves into thinking that they are doing the right thing for the sake of the majority. Strangely, the lower classes for their part also believe that the political dynasties and oligarchs have their best interests at heart even though it is blatantly obvious that decade after decade; nothing much has really changed as far as the circumstances of the poor go.

What can be done to end this hopeless cycle of deluded back-patting?

Filipinos need a dose of reality similar to what Alexander the Great had experienced. Filipinos need to listen to what everyone is saying, whether the message is coming from the upper, middle or lower class members of society. Filipinos should pay more attention to the message rather than the messenger. Filipinos need to listen more to those who oppose their views. Filipinos need to listen carefully and analyse if what their opponents are saying makes any sense. Filipinos need to find out if all the noise their detractors are making holds any truth. None of us can be right all the time. All the members of Philippines society need to question why the country is still what it is today despite all the promises of “change” coming from one presidential candidate or the other.

Obviously, we have been listening (or hardly listening) to the same members of the political elite and oligarchy for almost three decades now. It is high time that we hear from those we have not heard from before. It is time that we pay more attention and ask more questions to those who say the same old tired promises to “fight” corruption and poverty without showing any concrete plans on how they will do it.

Let us listen more and think about how someone’s words can actually affect our lives. Painful as it may seem to hear, but the truth will set Filipinos free.

I was moonlighting (nag-sideline) this weekend and had an interesting conversation on parenting and marital life. One of the parties was complaining that their spouse was not too involved with children’s activities. The child had just established her dominance of  a sport in her school, wanted one of the parties to come and see her play – and the standard reply was, I have to wake up early tomorrow for work. It can be such a big letdown to a child. You know, someone who you think the world of, who you adore, has no time for you and does not even make the effort to find the time for a child. And so went a laundry list of litanies – including upbringing.  

I had a eureka question – speaking of parenting and upbringing, what style of parenting do most Pinoys have – and could it be related to the type of citizens that profligate in these 7,100 islands of ours. Hmm… first stop – read up on parenting styles. Here’s what I found about parenting styles in about.com

Developmental psychologists have long been interested in how parents impact child development. However, finding actual cause-and-effect links between specific actions of parents and later behavior of children is very difficult. Some children raised in dramatically different environments can later grow up to have remarkably similar personalities. Conversely, children who share a home and are raised in the same environment can grow up to have astonishingly different personalities than one another.

Despite these challenges, researchers have uncovered convincing links between parenting styles and the effects these styles have on children. During the early 1960s, psychologist Diana Baumrind conducted a study on more than 100 preschool-age children (Baumrind, 1967). Using naturalistic observation, parental interviews and other research methods, she identified four important dimensions of parenting:

• Disciplinary strategies
• Warmth and nurturance
• Communication styles
• Expectations of maturity and control

Based on these dimensions, Baumrind suggested that the majority of parents display one of three different parenting styles. Further research by also suggested the addition of a fourth parenting style (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

The Four Parenting Styles

1. Authoritarian Parenting
   In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, “Because I said so.” These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. According to Baumrind, these parents “are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation” (1991).
2. Authoritative Parenting
   Like authoritarian parents, those with an authoritative parenting style establish rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. However, this parenting style is much more democratic. Authoritative parents are responsive to their children and willing to listen to questions. When children fail to meet the expectations, these parents are more nurturing and forgiving rather than punishing. Baumrind suggests that these parents “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative” (1991).
3. Permissive Parenting
   Permissive parents, sometimes referred to as indulgent parents, have very few demands to make of their children. These parents rarely discipline their children because they have relatively low expectations of maturity and self-control. According to Baumrind, permissive parents “are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation” (1991). Permissive parents are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, often taking on the status of a friend more than that of a parent.
4. Uninvolved Parenting
   An uninvolved parenting style is characterized by few demands, low responsiveness and little communication. While these parents fulfill the child’s basic needs, they are generally detached from their child’s life. In extreme cases, these parents may even reject or neglect the needs of their children.

The Impact of Parenting Styles

What effect do these parenting styles have on child development outcomes? In addition to Baumrind’s initial study of 100 preschool children, researchers have conducted numerous other studies than have led to a number of conclusions about the impact of parenting styles on children.

• Authoritarian parenting styles generally lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank lower in happiness, social competence and self-esteem.
• Authoritive parenting styles tend to result in children who are happy, capable and successful (Maccoby, 1992).
• Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school.
• Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control, have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers.

Why Do Parenting Styles Differ?

After learning about the impact of parenting styles on child development, you may wonder why all parents simply don’t utilize an authoritative parenting style. After all, this parenting style is the most likely to produce happy, confident and capable children. What are some reasons why parenting styles might vary? Some potential causes of these differences include culture, personality, family size, parental background, socioeconomic status, educational level and religion.

Of course, the parenting styles of individual parents also combine to create a unique blend in each and every family. For example, the mother may display an authoritative style while the father favors a more permissive approach. In order to create a cohesive approach to parenting, it is essential that parents learn to cooperate as they combine various elements of their unique parenting styles.

With these in mind, I had this sort of video instant replay playing out in my mind about what parenting style is dominant among Filipinos?  So, I tried to recall how I was raised – as well as those of all the people I have come to know – friends, family, co-workers.

A typical admonition when with a toddler (a child in the development state) is

• you better follow or your ass will be whooped, literally;
• never question the elders (even if their logic and reasoning is faulty) – wag kang walang respeto;
• it’s my way or the highway, I’m the one paying the bills

The long and short of it is that – most Pinoys are raised in an authoritarian environment – for short, the introduction to authoritarianism  starts within the Filipino family.

Based on my empirical observations and unscientific survey… LOL – lots of blue collar families have this idea that the best parenting style is the “Kastila style” or in Cebuano – “kinatsila”. What exactly is the “kastila” style of parenting? The “kastila style” of parenting (as described by old-times) are accentuated by any of the following behaviors:

• Do not talk unless I say so.
• Do not question my authority.
• You are my property and I can do with you as you please.
• Spare the whip and spoil the child (huwes de cochillo).
• Do not bring shame to this family, family comes first, persons are subordinate to the “greater good” as defined by the patriarch/matriarch.

This is an obvious vestige of the feudal colonial days which I believe should die a hard death. We have so become accustomed to these behaviors that to us Pinoys, this abnormality is the norm.

We condition our children to become good authoritarian subjects. No wonder when they grow up to become citizens -they are obedient and proficient (in whatever dysfunction was embedded in their psyche), but they rank lower in happiness, social competence and self-esteem.

And due to the lack of an understanding of democracy – at home and in the school – we have citizens who are prone to become conformists, get easily swayed by the bandwagon – like sheeps being herded into a slaughterhouse. And those who have been hit real hard – would rather be the dictator, than the dictated. Imagine these people growing up polarized into two camps – dictator and the dictated on.

What chances does democracy have when the basic social fabric woven by the family – does not have a clue about the engine which drives democracy – free, thinking, sovereign – let me emphasize.. individuals.

My personal take is this – if we are to become a truly democratic nation – we better start teaching it at home and use a more appropriate parenting style.

Democracy begins at home.