“Fight against the hate that killed Jo,” were among the first words that came from the lips of Brendan Cox, the widow that Jo left behind together with their two young children.

He continued, “Jo believed in a better world and she fought for it every day of her life with an energy, and a zest that would exhaust most people.”

A rare political killing in Britain

Jo Cox was the first politician killed in Britain since the murder of Ian Gow by the Irish Republicans some 26 years ago. Political killings are rare in the UK, and only two other members of parliament have been killed in the UK, Airey Neave and Tony Berry, both by the armed Irish group during the period of the “Troubles”. 

Thus, the shock and grief that engulfed members of all political parties and the general public who were preparing to vote in the referendum a few days from today. Among the voices of condemnation was that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, also a victim of gun violence in 2011, in her home state of Arizona in the US. 

A colleague in parliament, Yvette Cooper described Jo as “somebody who saw life and shook it up…she was brilliant, seized on things, was a fierce advocate for the things she believed in, but also for her family…she never stopped doing both and doing both brilliantly. She was a fantastic mum as well as an amazing politician.”

Shot 3 times and stabbed repeatedly, Jo Cox was consulting her constituents to listen to their views and was gunned down in the street outside the library near the town’s market place in Birstall. The assailant named Thomas Mair shouted, “Britain First” – the slogan of the far right party that campaigned to leave the EU in the bitterly-contested referendum scheduled for 23 June. 

Just a day before, Jo and her entire family flew the “Remain” flag as rival flotillas campaigned in the river Thames in central London. While in London, Jo lived in a house-boat by the Thames, and thus was in familiar territory.

Bringing down a rising star of British politics and a ‘Day-Star’ of the Age

Jo Cox had served just a year in the British Parliament but had already made her mark, battling for causes close to her heart and advancing social justice, human rights and peace issues. She was also among the 99 female parliamentarians from the Labour Party.

Jo represented the constituency of Batley and Spen in West Yorkshire near Leeds, described by her colleagues in parliament as a “rising star” and in the words of the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock quoting the poet Shelley, “a day-star” of the age.

Jo was 41 years old, and in a matter of days on June 22 was to turn 42. But she was already a veteran public servant, having worked as policy head at Oxfam – a leading charity working for the more vulnerable in today’s world. She likewise worked at Save the Children and the Freedom Fund, an anti-slavery non-governmental organization, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and chaired Labour’s Women’s Network.

Jo crossed party lines to instigate the formation of the “Friends of Syria All Party Parliamentary Group” to remind members of parliament and policy-makers of the concerns of civilians, particularly, children who had become the prime casualties in the Syrian war.

Life lived with passion and compassion

When asked to describe herself, Jo Cox put it briefly: “Passionate, compassionate and loyal.” On Twitter, she wrote: “mum, proud Yorkshire lass, boat dweller, mountain climber and former aid worker.” As a campaigner for Oxfam she had travelled to faraway places in Africa and Asia.

Jo was a leading voice on the question of immigrants which has recently divided Europe and was the main issue raised by the Brexit’s “Leave” campaign, arguing that it was time for Britain to exit from the European Union since the influx of immigrants caused many ills in British society – “too many people from Europe and other countries were coming into Britain.”

‘Force of nature’

Jo Cox has been described as a “force of nature”, a vivacious and outgoing human rights advocate who went to local schools and was the first in her family to enter college: in Jo’s case to Cambridge University and later the London School of Economics (LSE). Speaking of her experience in Cambridge, she said: “…I was thrown into a Cambridge environment where I just didn’t get it. It shook me." After that, working in parliament was like “a walk in the park.”

She made friends across the political spectrum and could work with any group as she did in the formation of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Syria that she co-chaired with the Conservative MP  Andrew Mitchell.

Her death caused consternation in Parliament, and both sides in the Remain and Leave camps have suspended their respective campaigns in deference to the murder of Jo Cox. People have now called for more civility and respect in public discourse instead of the increasing vitriol and invectives hurled during the debates in the referendum’s campaign period.

Hatred kills, words and weapons make it possible

In what pundits have called a “post-truth and post-moral” brand of politics, would-be political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, in Europe and the Americas, and elsewhere, have cautioned against an extreme way of doing politics by brandishing words that inflamed passions and hurling threats that further deepened hatreds, at times, watching how invectives have burst out into violence in the streets.  It has been called “a chilling culture” – one that results in a “chilling effect.” 

The killings of some 49 people while wounding 53 in the gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in the United States, the worst mass killings in the nation’s history, for example, has been described by the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, as a result of the politics of fear, terror and hatred that have been propagated by narrow-minded people and groups who have preyed on the people’s sense of insecurity and bigotry, and intolerance. 

The death of Jo Cox is a reminder that the battle being waged against the politics of hate and intolerance has no bounds nor boundaries. It is a battle to be joined wherever injustice reigns and where the human rights of all are violated. 

The Philippines is no exception! – Rappler.com

 Ed Garcia taught political science at the UP and Ateneo, and was a framer of the 1987 Constitution.  He worked at Amnesty International and International Alert for over two decades, and is currently in London on medical leave from FEU Diliman.

The preliminary meeting between the Duterte representatives and the putative leaders of the CPP-NPA-NDF in Oslo is over, and they have two pages to show for it. “Duterte representatives” because at this time, they lack the legal capacity to represent the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Of course, the incumbent (outgoing) President can always ratify their acts to make them official acts of government.

One of the items on the agenda – often bandied about as a “confidence-building measure” – is the release of so-called “political prisoners.” Quoth the King of Siam: “Is a puzzlement!”  I am puzzled because there is no one in any jail in the Philippines who is a political prisoner. Detainees are charged with crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code or some special penal law; prisoners serving sentence are likewise behind bars for crimes statutorily defined. “Criminal political belief” is not one such crime. In fact, mere membership in the communist movement is no longer criminal; it has not been for a long time, after the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law!

And that is just where the disputed question arises. The CPP-NPA-NDF claim that the common crimes of which their comrades are charged merely lend legitimacy to what in fact is detention or incarceration for their political beliefs. But the terms of the proposition can be reversed.  

Is it not rather that these persons, charged with common crimes, now seek cover under the mantle of “political belief” to evade prosecution, trial, and penalty? Is it not as easy to characterize them as “political prisoners” to be able to get them outside the criminal justice system, even if they may have indeed committed common crimes?

Unless, of course, the theory now is that when one commits a common crime BECAUSE of one’s political beliefs, then the prisoner is a “political prisoner.” So murder ceases to be a common crime, and becomes a matter of political belief when a communist leader orders the execution of a suspected sympathizer of the military. But that gets us into very perilous ground, for political motive, allegiance, or ideological sympathy has never entered our books as an exempting or excusing, not even mitigating, circumstance.

Undue haste

I personally feel very strongly about what appears to me to be the undue haste with which the incoming government is willing to concede this particular “confidence building measure,” because I was assigned to Aparri, Cagayan, at the height of NPA activity in that part of the province. I was a witness to the grief, consternation and helpless anguish of families roused in the dead of night while armed men, NPA cadres, tied the man of the house, dragged him from his house, took him into the woods, or across the river, never to be seen alive again! Sometimes, only his bloodstained clothes would be sent back through some unknown courier. Many families did not even have the consolation of burying the remains of their loved ones – because there were none to be found.  

Is the pain of those who lost loved ones, often in a manner so cruel and despicable, now to be forgotten or traded for the prospect of “peace"?

I am for peace, and I am for peace negotiations, but both sides must want it and want it so badly that no side sets preconditions for truly thoughtful and just negotiations.  

As for Joma Sison and Luis Jalandoni, do these people who have safely ensconced themselves in the Netherlands all these years really command every band, detachment or unit in the hills, hinterlands and mountain ranges where the NPAs roam? Does every NPA commander or group leader heed orders from the Netherlands? Are we even sure that there is some semblance of a chain of command?  

Dean Sed Candelaria of the Ateneo Law School tells me that when he was a member of the peace panel and news arrived in the Netherlands that Governor Rodolfo Aguinaldo of Cagayan had been gunned down by NPA hitmen, it apparently came as a surprise to JoMa and Jalandoni – who, only later, issued a “congratulatory message” to the assassins to keep the semblance that they were in command!

My take on this is simple: Let those presently incarcerated and detained be tried by our courts, as expeditiously as possible, so that it may be determined whether they have been held only for their political beliefs or because they have in fact transgressed our penal laws.– Rappler.com

The author is Dean, Graduate School of Law, San Beda College

It is hard to resist blaming our people for Rodrigo Duterte. It’s not just that he won by a landslide. Millions of people have placed their hopes for a better future on him. We have no choice but to confront the ideas he has put out for shaping that future. But he makes it difficult to go beyond his self-indulgent bragging, his insistence on publicly airing his maleness by demeaning women.

Leni Robredo is the perfect antithesis of Duterte’s misogyny, his hatred of women. Where Duterte is a loud braggart, Leni is tranquilo– a few words, a shy smile and she gets her point across. Her victory is as amazing as Duterte’s. It’s hard to imagine that they both come out of the same pit of resentment and anger where many of our people live their lives day in, day out.

This was more than an election that picked our leaders. It is a warning to all our leaders, winners and losers alike, that things cannot remain as they are. Mar Roxas is the best president we never had. He had the misfortune of being perceived as representing the way things are, more than daang matuwid, the kind of society where the more the economy grows, the more frustrated the poor become.

To be fair, more has been done for the poor under the Aquino administration than at any time under any one regime, even the last 4 of them taken together. The problem is that PNoy’s personality, Mar’s for that matter – their way of doing things, made it difficult for them to reach the poor even as they accumulated projects and programs for them. They resisted, would not even know the first thing about, populism.

I do not know if Duterte is a conscious populist. His oversized personality, his self-absorption makes him a perfect populist. On one side of his macho personality, his preoccupation with women, on the other, not unrelated, with violence. It is the people’s fear for their personal safety that Digong is responding to. A populist is not accountable. All he has to do is (re)present in his words and actions the people’s fears, anger, and hopes. A President Rodrigo Duterte, however, is accountable.

Unsaon pod lamang

In Siquijor, we say unsaon pod lamang, accept what we cannot reverse, make the best of it. If you can cut through Digong’s populist bluster, you will find a number of, actually not policies, more like policy thrusts. These are not necessarily implementable, but could set things into motion. Take his constant refrain, drug lords and police who protect them, beware. It would be nice if drug lords actually got scared and stopped operating. More likely, small time dealers and their teenage runners will get targeted.

It’s not as if police are new to extrajudicial killings. They cannot be blamed if they believe that the statements of Duterte have given them carte blanche to kill as many drug lords as they can. Outside of police killings, vigilante groups, often out of uniform police, will have even less restrictions. The problem for Duterte is that he does not have the kind of control over the national situation as he had in Davao City.

There are more doable things in police reform. Because police were ill-equipped and poorly paid, the Philippine National Police (PNP) for many became a platform for sharing profits with criminals. But much has already been done in police reform. The PNP is a more professional agency. Its image has moved beyond the potbellied policeman. Digong can consolidate these gains by following through on raising police salaries, and identifying those 3 corrupt police generals he talked about.

If the Duterte administration achieves nothing else except conclude a political settlement with the National Democratic Front (NDF), it will have made a major contribution. Duterte’s experience in crafting a “working arrangement” with the Davao City NPA, and his appointment of NDF nominees to Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions, have created better political conditions for peace talks than in the preceding administrations. All indications are that Joma Sison is anxious to conclude talks that will enable him to return from exile.

Whether Sison can get the local NPA to agree is another matter. If Benny and Wilma Tiamzon, who are not as enthusiastic about peace talks as Sison, are released, will they go along at the pace that Sison wants? A ceasefire should be relatively easy, but what “cantonment” means, will local NPA agree to remain in identified camps, is going to be difficult. The situation in Caraga, where Duterte wants an end to illegal mining, provides an example of difficulties. Can Duterte and Sison persuade the military and the NPA who protect illegal mining to forego their millions in protection money?

I do not understand what considerations underlie Duterte and his people’s seeming hesitation on finalizing political settlement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front by pushing for the passage of the BBL. Waiting for constitutional amendments shifting the government from unitary to federal will take many years, and will not address the historical injustices to the Moro people. It’s also curious that neither Digong nor his people have said much about Mindanao development. Surely it’s not enough to stick a dirty finger at Imperial Manila.

While waiting for constitutional reform, there are many things that the Duterte administration can do to transfer more power and resources to local governments. They can retain Bottom-up Budgeting (BuB) for a start. Cutting it as Cabinet designate Ben Diokno reportedly suggests would risk the opposition of mayors. Poverty can be added to the formula for Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA). The long delayed review of the Local Government Code can be organized even as the more radical federalism proposal is being discussed.

There are many reforms that Digong and his people have supported, from FOI to mining to K+12. His economic team – Sonny Dominguez, Ernie Pernia and Ben Diokno – is strong and will likely continue the economic reforms of the PNoy administration. What people worry about is the volatility of Duterte’s rhetoric. It’s not just his cussing, it’s also how Duterte will navigate the demands of his allies on the Left and the Right. We can always hope for the best. In Siquijor, we go from unsaon pod lamang to hope, bason pod lamang.

Leni can help. With characteristic generosity, she says Duterte can expect 100% support. It may be best that she will not be in the Cabinet where she will be expected to provide undifferentiated support. From outside the Cabinet, but with the authority of her mandate as number two, she can provide critical collaboration, or if necessary, an alternative. – Rappler.com

Joel Rocamora is a political analyst and a seasoned civil society leader who has been working on issues of democracy, governance, and social movements for several decades. An activist-scholar, he finished his PhD in Politics, Asian Studies, and International Relations in Cornell University, and had been the head of the Institute for Popular Democracy, the Transnational Institute, the Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party, and member to a number of non-governmental organizations. From the parliament of the streets, he crossed over to the government and joined Aquino's Cabinet as the Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission.

Before Jamir was born, my wife Nean and I did a lot of research on breastfeeding and its benefits to the mother and the baby.

We've even attended birth class and some breastfeeding talks to know more  about breastfeeding. We have asked a lot of experts, joined different breastfeeding groups, and learned from experienced moms as well.

Every day of her pregnancy seems to be a class semester and the final project is Jamir, our baby. We are excited to breastfeed Jamir and see how things work in an actual set up.

From the start, we already know that breastfeeding would never be easy and would not be a smooth-sailing journey for us. Then Jamir was born.

It was very challenging at first since Nean underwent CS operation. Adding to this challenge, what prepared for was different from what actually happened – Jamir was always crying, Nean coudn't move for the first 8 hours after her operation, the hospital staff were not supportive, among other things.

But because of our determination to give the best to Baby Jamir, we’ve coped up with the challenges easily; it eventually became rewarding: Breastfeeding is indeed a wonderful journey.

Unwavering support 

Labeled as the “significant other” or the "better half," a father plays a vital role in ensuring a successful breastfeeding journey. 

As Jamir and our journey turn one, let me share with other expectant-fathers the following not-so-secret tips, summed up in KASAMA (companion): 

K: Know the journey

Educate yourself. Do some readings and research. Attend breastfeeding symposiums. Absorb as much wisdom on breastfeeding as you can. Learn not only the basics; go into the details. Prepare your own breastfeeding glossary, if needed.

A: Actively involve yourself

Giving support isn't enough. Involve yourself in the journey. Our nipples might not feed our baby, but our active involvement is one of the most important factors that will determine breastfeeding success. 

In fact, a woman with a supportive spouse is more likely to breastfeed her baby longer than a woman with a husband who isn’t.

After all, it is a whole family journey – the mother as the main player, the father in a supporting role, and the baby as the beneficiary.

S: Shield your family from prejudices 

Breastfeeding is best not only for babies but for the whole family. But not everyone can appreciate its beauty. Protect your wife from discrimination and bigotry.

Don’t let others, even family members, humiliate or disrespect your wife because she is breastfeeding your child in public places. Don’t let others judge her capability to nurture your child.

She can breastfeed anytime it is needed and wherever she wants it. Remind critics that there are laws protecting the right of your family to breastfeed.

A: Always be positive 

Breastfeeding is certainly challenging. Growth spurts, colicky and clingy babies, engorged breasts, plugged ducts, cluster feeding, maternal depression, and a messy home – these are just few of the challenges you and your wife will face in your journey.

You must be the one to maintain the positive energy in your home. Don’t let negative vibes surround your family. Be affirmative to your goal.

Remember, breastfeeding challenges are natural. And it could be easily addressed by going back to the first tip – educate yourself.

When your wife feels tired and fed up, comfort her, remind her of your goal and purpose, boost her morale and push her to continue. Your encouragement is a great help. Your wife must get that positive reinforcement from you.

M: Make mommy happy 

A happy mommy means a happy baby. Always make your wife feel good. Tell her how awesome she's doing. Tell her that she is great and beautiful. It may be a small gesture but believe me, it will give her an assurance and the feeling of being extremely loved.

You may also do some house chores for her: cook and serve her food, put the baby to sleep, wash the baby's clothes, change the baby’s diaper. These acts express how much you love your wife and how you treasure the journey.

Also, stress can decrease milk supply.

 A: Aspire to be the best breastfeeding-supportive tatay

Remember, breastfeeding is not just about latching. It is a holistic family journey, and you are part of it. Be the best in providing what she needs – your unwavering support.

Share your journey with others to advance the advocacy. Convince them that  breastfeeding is also good for the community, the environment, and the economy.

As parents, you both have a share in making your baby feel extremely loved and cared for. If you have your family's best interests in mind, then you most probably can't go wrong. Happy Father's Day to my fellow fathers! – Rappler.com 

Jaime de Guzman is a 25-year-old father. He is a community relations officer at the National Housing Authority. He is also a member of the following support groups: Breastfeeding Pinays, Babywearing Philippines, Modern Cloth and Nappying Philippines, and Gentle Birth Philippines.

Lately when I wake up in the morning, I can still smell the scent of heno de pravia, which was my lola's favorite bath soap. I expect her to be waiting for me when I walk down the stairs and greet me, "Good morning, dong."

She'd be eating her oatmeal sprinkled with a pinch of brown sugar, while the rest of the family was sleeping. While she might eat only oatmeal, she'd prepare a feast for everyone else.

My lola Ines del Mar Gajudo passed away on May 25, but memories of my summers with lola have been flashing back in my mind like it was yesterday.

I remember when I was growing up, I'd observe how she'd chop vegetables with her sharp knife, she was deliberate and confident with every move she made in the kitchen. While she was cooking she'd tell me stories about where she grew up, far away from California, in the mountains of Bohol and in the old town of Cebu.

Looking back, it was lola's stories that sparked my fascination with the motherland.

How I long to hear her voice and her stories once again. "You know, dong, when I was your age, I could slaughter animals on my own," she'd say. She grew up at a time when it was difficult to be a woman, but she didn't have to abide by what women were expected to do at the time, becoming the first woman in her province to drive a car.

My grandfather worked for a shipping company called Sweet Lines, while she was an entrepreneur.

Lola's stories

She'd tell me stories about the principles, values and life of the grandfather I never knew. He died in 1994 when I was 6 years, so I can't even remember the sound of his voice anymore. But because of my lola's stories, it felt as if lolo was very much around.

She would tell me how he emphasized the importance of eating meals together; about his strict, but loving style as a father. She told me that he was a voracious news reader and would not be happy if his morning newspaper, The Freeman, would be late. "Why is my paper late? This isn't news anymore, this is history!" he'd tell the paperboy.

But what lolo was proudest of was his beautiful wife, and children. While lolo Conrado and many others would tell lola Ines she was beautiful, she was always too busy to be concerned with her looks.

She was friendly, kind and generous. She traveled the world from the Holy Land to the Americas. While looking through old photos of lola, she'd always have the biggest smile when she was exploring faraway land.

She often traveled alone and unafraid, and shuttled from one country to another just to see her grandchildren. I don't know how she did it, when I still get nervous at airports alone. But my grandmother always figured these things out on her on, at a time before Google, smart phones, and 3G existed.

I still can't figure out how she always seemed so composed, she was never too emotional, too angry, or too sad. Even if she had every reason to be stressed, having so many roles to fill as a wife, a mother of 12, a businesswoman, and an active public servant.

Public service

She and her husband Conrado served multiple terms as barangay councilors in Mabolo, Cebu City. Despite having a big family to take care of, they would always have an open door to listen to the problems and issues in their community. Meeting the different people who visited her wake, I realized that she wasn't just lola to 40 grandkids and a mother to 12, she was a mother to everyone who knew her, especially the people of her barangay.

Mayor-elect Tommy Osmeña, whose father Sergio Osmeña Jr was a close friend of lola Ines, commented on my Facebook page a few weeks ago that she once helped hide over 200 black shirt rebels who were brought by Sergio Osmeña Jr, from Mindanao to counter Marcos' goons in Cebu during the 1969 presidential campaign. While I was proud to hear that from Osmeña, I was shocked to learn this story, as it was a story she never shared with me.

Last song

For more than 60 years, she stayed in the little blue house in Sitio Regla, Barangay Mabolo. It was a fun house to visit when I would visit as a kid. I had so many cousins to play with, and a fun grandmother who would feed us delicious food and chocolates while we would run wild.

The next time I would visit Sitio Regla again would be as an adult last 2013 when I first moved to the Philippines. But this time the visit wasn't as happy or exciting like when I was a kid.

The house was dustier, there were no more lively kids running around. No one to greet me with a box of chocolates. This time, I walked in to see my lola laying there, bedridden. She didn't recognize me at first. She didn't remember any of the stories she used to tell me. And as the years passed she had only gotten worse. In the last 3 months of her life, she was unable to talk.

And in the beginning of 2016, I moved to Cebu to be able to spend more time with family and explore the idea of working in Cebu. It also allowed me to spend what would be the last months of my lola's life with her.

It was on May 22 that I would spend what would be my last night with lola at her house. On that night she seemed very uncomfortable and unable to sleep. I remember growing up I'd play on the piano an old Visayan song about unrequited love called "Matud Nila"; and "Speak Softly Love" from her favorite movie The Godfather. Since I didn't have a piano, I decided to sing to her.

But as I sang, tears began to roll from her eyes. And it was the first time in my 28 years that I had seen my calm, composed, confident and independent lola cry. I held her hand and cried with her.

She struggled in an attempt to speak, but she didn't have to say anything because her eyes told me everything. That she no longer wanted to be trapped in her bed and in her body that made even wiping her own tears a battle. And that she longed for that freedom that she once had. A freedom that in her younger years, she'd never let go to waste.

Three days later, she was indeed freed.

Last interview

Sometimes I lie awake not understanding how I ended up in Cebu when I used to dream of Washington DC, in the thick of American politics. But I have no doubt now that I am here because I am supposed to be here. Especially that I was able to be there for lola during her final days on earth.

Lola, I'm a little sad though that I can't share stories of the work I do as a journalist here in your hometown of Cebu with you, because I'm sure it would have been fun bonding time for us.

But I know you're just there watching over me. I'm sure you're telling your friends up there about me, your apo who became a writer like your father.

If you were here now, you would be the first on my interview list. I still have so many questions, if only God could send you back for a day.

While I know you can't physically be here to talk to me, your friends and loved ones who've been coming to Cebu have been sharing some amazing stories about your life.

But goodbye for now, lola. I imagine you up there at the pearly gates. Free from your bed. Young beautiful and vibrant, holding up the line into heaven because you charmed Saint Peter and he got carried away enjoying your conversation. While lolo Conrado is impatiently waiting on the other side saying,"Ines! Hurry up, I've been waiting so long up here for you."

While we, your children and grandchildren, would give the world to embrace you once more. We know you are happier in the embrace of lolo, your "forever" and your creator. I miss you, I love you, and I thank you for everything. I look forward to when it's my turn to tell you my stories on the day we meet again. – Rappler.com

With the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the legality of China’s 9-Dash Line drawing near, and a week since the commemoration of our 118th Independence Day, national pride is boosting the country’s expectations. The court is widely expected to rule in the Philippines’ favor– a move likely to raise tensions considering China’s promised defiance.  

But it is important to first qualify what a favorable ruling really means. It is inappropriate to frame the case as a fight simply over territory. While China seeks to extend sovereignty over the area charted by its 9-Dash Line, the Philippines is merely protecting its entitlements within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Philippine diplomats have emphasized this point, as did incoming Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. in a recent interview with Rappler. A "win" does not mean we own the place; rather, we maintain special rights to the resources found within the 200 nautical miles from our shores. Consequently, one should not expect the United States (US) to support any sovereignty claims. Washington did not use its military hardware to wrestle control of Scarborough Shoal for us in 2012 because the Americans effectively function as a security guarantor by being non-partisan in these disputes. It is appropriate that the US and the Philippines have supported the freedom of navigation through what is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

Excessive entrenchment over sovereignty can be interpreted more as a sign of weakness rather than a show of strength. Chinese rhetoric over its “national rejuvenation” and so-called “peaceful rise” together with its geopolitical “island chain” philosophy reflects a state that is insecure. Nationalism is being used as an ordering tool for its domestic affairs and Beijing’s maritime territorial claims come hand-in-hand with its Belt-Road Initiative which tries to funnel development to trouble areas like Xinjiang and Tibet in order to pacify them, as observed by Professor Christopher Hughes, a China expert at the London School of Economics. A key component of national power is the ability to mobilize people and resources around a state’s security agenda, and the Chinese government is constantly paranoid over maintaining its grip and finds itself resorting to hubris in order validate its mandate. We must understand the motivations for China’s recalcitrance and assertive stance over its territorial integrity which it has tied to regime security.

The ruling should not be interpreted as or become part of a strategy to isolate China. Containment is a remnant of the Cold War and it is unrealistic to think that the second largest economy can be effectively isolated. It would be more beneficial to have China as a responsible global player, which is why a continued policy of engagement remains a prudent choice.

From a regional perspective, ASEAN remains a nascent security community that is not yet capable of dealing with issues like the current maritime disputes due to the differences in security interests among member states. The Code of Conduct remains elusive due to the inability of the various parties to see eye-to-eye on the issue. Instead, this ruling is a way to strengthen international institutions like international law that ultimately serve to equalize the positions of states on the global stage.

Ambassador Enrique Manalo boils the issue down the upholding the rule of law and respecting international norms, which are as important to regional development as economic links. Unfortunately, in an anarchical system without an enforcement mechanism, text on paper does not stand a chance against the barrel of a gun.

So how are we going to continue to socialize China as a responsible member of the international community if it chooses to challenge international norms? In order to manage a regional power transition peacefully and in our favor, the Philippines must engage in strategic diversification to maintain regional order beyond the military dimension. Rather than get caught up in a costly and futile arms race, it would be wiser to keep multiple policy options on the table against contingencies.

In analyzing why a coalition did not form against Nazi Germany in the years leading up to World War II, for example, Britain, France, and the USSR pursued divergent and incompatible strategies (appeasement, alliance commitments, and bandwagoning, respectively). The Philippines must coordinate foreign policy with its neighbors and strategic allies. Negotiations with China should also remain on the table where the arbitration ruling boosts our leverage, but by no means should we capitulate and compromise our rights. Rather, China must be incentivized to change its behavior instead of being pressured.

Professor Evelyn Goh of the Australian National University coined the term "omnienmeshment" to describe this strategy of sustained multi-directional engagement that aims to draw a state into regional and international society in order to redefine and alter its interests. A win-win situation is possible if we play our cards right and such a result would be more conducive to a stable regional order than an atmosphere of mutual distrust. 

China will no doubt attempt to circumvent the convention, use its economic clout to pressure Western governments to dampen their support for our position, and capitalize on the divisions within ASEAN as we have seen in the recent fiasco over the joint statement at a meeting in Kunming earlier this week. However, the Philippines is not playing a zero-sum game; rather, it is a chance for our country to demonstrate that it is a responsible player in the international community in support of the norms that form the basis of order.

Our leaders must remain prudent and pursue a policy like "omnienmeshment" to create an inclusive regional environment where our interests align with that of our neighbors and allies. The next administration ought to build upon the arbitration ruling to eventually institutionalize a regional Code of Conduct and develop a stable and lasting security community. Diplomacy remains the only way to preserve and extend common values which are crucial to the future of international society and the interests of the Philippines.  – Rappler.com

Carlo Fong Luy is pursuing a master’s degree in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

Sources 

Acharya, A. (2009) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, 2^nd ed., New York, NY: Routledge

Ayoob, M. (1995) The Third World Security Predicament, London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 

Brawley, M. (2009) Neoclassical realism and strategic calculations. In: Lobell, S. et al. (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society, 4^th ed., New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Carr, E.H. (1939) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, London, UK: Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

Goh, E. (2007/8) Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia, International Security, 32(3), pp. 113-157.

The Abu Sayyaf (ASG) has beheaded 3 foreign hostages in recent months, 2 of them Canadians and one Malaysian. Before this despicable rampage, the kidnap-for-ransom group also killed a Filipino hostage.

They committed these barbaric acts not in the name of religion or their twisted interpretation of Islam but because the deadlines for the payment of multi-million pesos in ransom had passed.

An Australian hostage who was released by the Abu Sayyaf in 2012, after more than a year in the jungles of Mindanao, has narrated his story, saying that money was what his captors were after. 

We will see more of these killings by the ASG – which started out as a radical Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda and morphed into a group of bandits cloaking itself with the mantle of the Islamic State – if they are not defeated. Two more hostages are being held captive, a Norwegian and Filipina. 

The Abu Sayyaf has even become more brazen, expanding its criminal operations to the seas. They hijacked vessels plying the waters at the intersection of Malaysia,  Indonesia and the Philippines and kidnapped crew members.

In May, they released 10 Indonesian sailors whom they kept hostage for a month after ransom was paid.

The military has been going after the Abu Sayyaf for years but there is little to show for their vaunted offensives.

The hard truth is: no amount of ammunition and military maneuvers can emaciate the criminal gang for as long as they enjoy the support of the community and the local government officials. The support is rooted in relationships – Abu Sayyaf members have a network of families and relatives that provide them protection – and money.

The kidnappings have become a lucrative business, embedding the Abu Sayyaf into the local economy of Sulu. Cash is shared with residents, corrupt officials and military commanders.

Prominent Muslims have called out local politicians for their failure to decisively act against the Abu Sayyaf. The National Ulama Conference of the Philippines decried the “insensitivity” of the “regional, provincial, municipal, and barangay” officials and blamed them for their “lack of cooperation with the PNP and the AFP to eliminate this terrorist group.” 

For his part, Mujiv Hataman, governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, said “its time for the government to hold them [local officials] accountable and responsible." 

We agree. This constant charade in Sulu, for example, has to stop – when victims are released at the doorstep of a local government official as if he should be praised, rather than questioned, for the series of kidnappings in his province.

As a local official who has lived in Mindanao, President-elect Rodrigo Duterte knows the political and physical terrain of Sulu and Basilan, lairs of the Abu Sayyaf. He knows that barangay captains, mayors and governors have a pivotal role to play in defeating the lawless Abu Sayyaf.

It is now up to Duterte to deal with this crisis. – Rappler.com

On June 20, 2016, incoming Finance secretary Sonny Dominguez called for "coalitions for reform" as the Duterte administration prepares its economic agenda. In sum, he challenged the business community to transform the way it engages with government for good governance in the country.

I could not agree more, but this would need to be concretely manifested and institutionalized through mechanisms that would in fact allow business to constructively engage government in specific reform areas. In education, I would argue for a national industry-academe-government (IAG) council. 

National industry-academe government council for education

It is important that all relevant stakeholders be represented in reform conversations. Borrowing from the field of development psychology, Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers", emphasized the need for outside help in achieving greatness in any pursuit. Applying this principle to education, any reform initiative would thus have greater success with the help of relevant decision makers, particularly from the business sector. 

Philippine education however has historically remained within the realms of educators and government ministries. This has been often cited as one of the reasons why despite high literacy rates and rosy economic growth in recent years, youth unemployment is double the national unemployment rate and is above average in the ASEAN region. Experts agree that bridging the skills gap would require active participation of business, schools, and government. 

We do not need to look far to see how business could positively impact education reform. In fact, Philippine Business for Education (PBEd), an industry-backed non-profit has set up the National Industry Academe Council (NIAC) in 2013 precisely to address the country’s youth unemployment problem and human capital development needs. Through the NIAC, business as employers has been given a role in setting quality standards, providing relevant and timely labor market intelligence, and shaping policies in order to get the right people with the right skills into the right jobs and careers. 

This initiative would thus need to be continued and institutionalized in order to support the Philippines’ growth trajectory. Formally bringing in industry would add the demand side into the human capital development equation. 

Concrete action

Now moving from ideas to concrete action, what would this national industry-academe-government council do?Such Council would help ensure dialogue between key players to bridge human capital development needs in three ways: 

First is the development of a robust and relevant Labor Market Intelligence infrastructure. A functioning national council would ensure that with industry taking the lead, human capital needs are assessed in real time and better-informed projections are made for informed human capital development plans. 

Second, an IAG council would contribute to the development of improved curricula.  With insights from industry that are enabled by supportive government regulations, curricular offerings would be more responsive to needs of the 21^st century economy. Education would be better geared towards the development of skills and competencies needed for career readiness and citizenship.

Third, dialogue between all three sectors would support efforts to reimagine the education system for a healthy talent pipeline. We see this in innovation economies like Silicon Valley. Increasingly, companies like Google, IBM, and Facebook are working directly with governments and schools to build promising talent pipelines in support of their businesses and further fueling their growth.

I am confident that the business sector would welcome the challenge of the Duterte administration in its call for ‘coalitions for reform’, as business has historically been engaged in various reform initiatives, not just in education but also in other sectors. (An excellent op-ed by Peter Perfecto of the Makati Business Club outlines these engagements.)

Moreover, the rosy projections of growth and prosperity for the years to come could only be realized with an educated, healthy, and mobile human capital. Specific to education, having all three stakeholders at the table would ensure that conversations on human capital development in the country takes into account the supply and demand sides of the equation. The business sector has made moves.

It is now time for the incoming Duterte administration to up the ante. Your move, sir.– Rappler.com

Love Basillote is executive director of Philippine Business for Education. 

When I was 15 or 16, I rode a tricycle to get to my PE class on a bright, sunny, but still sleepy weekday morning. I had woken up later than planned, so the usual 15-20 minute walk from my dorm to the covered courts just didn’t cut it that day.

I boarded the trike (yes, we called it a trike) and was about to leave for the campus when a middle-aged man boarded the same trike and sat beside me. It was a pretty tight ride but I figured it was okay because the trike ride would last no longer than 10 minutes.

A few minutes into the ride, I was surprised to feel a couple of fingers (or was it a hand?) trying (albeit failing) to cup my right breast. The man was looking away as I shifted (in the best way that I could). A few seconds later, the hand was still trying to cup my right breast.

I asked the trike driver to stop just as we arrived inside the university campus, a good kilometer or two away from the covered courts where my PE class was going to be held. That morning, I was late for my PE class.

I have never told anybody about what happened. I do not know why.

When I was 22, I was assigned to cover the trial of alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles at the Makati Regional Trial Court. One of the many hearings I covered ended early so I decided I’d be "adventurous" that day and try commuting via jeepney instead of taking a cab back to the office.

I got lost, somehow found myself in the heart of Manila but eventually traced my way onto an MRT station (yay for the MRT, who would’ve thought?). I boarded the train on the Pasay station, girded my loins, and after hours of being lost in Manila, was on my way back to the more familiar streets of the Ortigas Business District.

Somewhere between Magallanes and Buendia, I felt a penis pressed behind me. It was hard to maneuver and find out who the asshole was (this happened during rush hour) so the best solution I had was to get down Guadalupe station even if the plan was to go down Shaw Boulevard station.

I posted about it on Facebook, had a few laughs with friends, but I was shaking when it happened. The LOLs on Facebook did not extend to real life.

A few months later, I was working inside a frozen yogurt shop at Greenbelt (again, after a Janet Lim Napoles trial). The place was pretty empty, save for separate groups of giggling high schoolers and forlorn-looking yuppies a few tables away.

A man, who looked like he was in his 50s, walked in the store and sat down. He was wearing what looked like a gym attire which didn’t really stick out. It was a yogurt shop, after all.

A few minutes after I filed my story (on the hearing, again), I had the feeling that something was amiss. From the corner of my eye, I saw the 50-something man, who was wearing gym shorts and a ratty shirt, whip his penis out for all to see.

I panicked, hastily packed my things and panic-messaged a friend to tell him what happened? His response? A long “HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”

It took a while to realize I wasn’t laughing with him. He finally asked how I was a full 30 minutes after the penis-in-frozen-yogurt-shop incident.

It is both easy and difficult to recall these incidents. It’s easy because they’ve been seared into my brain. It’s difficult because I still call them “incidents” when I should call them “incidents of harassment.”

I write this a few minutes after reading a post on Facebook about a college student who was sexually harassed while riding an FX from school. I write this because recently, a friend on Facebook said catcalling “historically” only happens to pretty and hot girls and that the non-pretty and non-hot ones shouldn’t be worried about sexual harassment.

I write this because I pride myself in being a young, #empowered and educated woman who speaks out against sexual harassment and yet – in at least 3 instances – failed to speak out precisely when it happened to her.

During a recent media forum in Germany which I attended, an interesting thing happened when a woman proposed that women be taught martial arts to combat sexual harassment. The moment she started explaining her stance, I felt (and saw) eyebrows in the room shoot up.

It’s true, they admitted, being skilled in combat doesn’t hurt. But beating a would-be attacker up won’t necessarily deter others from preying on women (and men) who might be less physically intimidating.

What hurts men and women is a culture that encourages and emboldens idiots, bastards and scum bags to think they’re entitled to a person’s body as if it’s theirs – as if consent is merely a suggestion.

What hurts is that we live in a world where victims and survivors are told “OA ka lang,” "take it as a compliment," or "hindi naman yung pambabastos."

The problem is never what the woman (or man) wore, how pretty/handsome the woman/man is, or what s/he did to make it seem like s/he "was asking for it." The problem is that people think these details are relevant in cases of sexual harassment.

I write this because as each day passes, I feel as though we’re losing the war against rape culture because we’re letting another generation of Filipinos grow up in a world where catcalling is considered a compliment or where rape survivors are told they were raped because of what they wore or what they did.

It worries me that the rhetoric on crime prevention and public safety involves the claim that safety is best measured if and when a pretty woman can go out at night without fear of being raped (let me explain: because this reinforces the notion that physical attractiveness determines whether you will be raped. It does not.)

I don’t know how we’ll end this or if rape culture will ever cease to exist. I don’t know if I’ll finally be able to speak up the next time I encounter a rouge and unwanted penis. But this I know for sure: I will never get tired of writing about it, tweeting about it, or even speaking in public about it (if I feel educated enough).

This is a fight not between men and women but between all humans and a culture that encourages some to be inhumane. – Rappler.com

The premature announcement by Ateneo de Davao president Joel Tabora, SJ, that former UST professor Jose David Lapuz would be appointed the new head of the Commission of Higher Education (vice Dr Patricia Licuanan, Tabora’s bête noire), has been mostly met with derision and laughter.

These mainly came from Lapuz’s former students, who pleaded with netizens and everyone else to prevent Lapuz from replacing Licuanan. The hilarity and apprehension worsened when curious minds found Lapuz's excruciatingly grammar-deprived, fawning letter to Rodrigo Duterte reminding the president-elect of his promise to appoint his former teacher as CHED jefe. 

Why Tabora hates Licuanan is something that seems to go beyond the issue of allegedly unaccounted CHED funds. It will be of interest to our investigative journalists to delve into this un-Jesuit-like abhorrence of a fellow Catholic.

However, it is odder to watch Tabora, a cleric, seemingly gleeful over Lapuz's possible appointment, given that the latter’s early claim to fame was his defense of the Noli-Fili Law from sectarian attacks led by, of course, the Jesuits!

The late Senator Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo, who was one of the stalwarts the Catholic offensive to prevent young Filipinos from learning about Rizal, must be turning in his grave now as he watches a representative of his conservative cabal break bread with the loudest defender of Lolo Jose becoming law.

It was these early years of Lapuz as a defender of secularism and the Enlightenment that have disappeared in the current merriment/panic over his ambition to be CHED head.

Here are some stories I heard or experienced myself about Lapuz when I was at the State University.

There is no doubt that Lapuz is an original, especially when it comes to showy hours-long oratories, where all political issues, ideological contestations, and philosophical differences end up with him and his heroic resolution of these matters. But save for his excessive narcissism and lousy British accent (whose origins people continue to argue over until today), he is also not actually unique. 

This self-assured and dare I say quite relatively smart demeanor was a characteristic of his and his cohorts at UP when they were still students.

Lapuz’s classmates and barkada included the poet Jose Maria Sison, the law student Enrique Voltaire Garcia, the essayists Petronilo Bn. Daroy, Temario Rivera, Luis Teodoro, and Ninotchka Rosca, the brooding Asianists Nur Misuari, the comical but brilliant ex-Jesuit Hilario Lim, and the quiet activists Luzvimindo David and Nilo Tayag.

They took courses under a young Marxist political science instructor Dodong Nemenzo, UP sole “expert” on foreign relations the Congressman Manuel Cases, the rising nationalist historian and voice of the masa Teodoro Agoncillo, the philosophers Ricardo Pascual Roque Ma-Mon, and the English professor Leopoldo Yabes. 

This group was on the frontline of UP’s defense of its academic freedom from sectarian attacks by Tabora’s senior colleagues (including the influential UP parish priest John Delaney, SJ) and the Committee on Un-Filipino Activities (CUFA), a poor Pinoy copycat of the infamous Committee on Anti-American Activities led by the Senator Joseph McCarthy. We had as McCarthy’s equivalent the dull Leonardo Perez (who later became Marcos’ sinister Comelec commissioner). 

They responded to nasty clerical asides with élan. Journals, like the Diliman Review and the Philippine Social Science and Humanities Review, were filled with essays zealously defending UP’s liberalism, anti-sectarianism, and autonomy. A former student of Ricardo Pascual recalled how the philosophy professor shocked him and his classmates by spitting on the image of Jesus Christ just to show that God was nothing but a figment of their fears and imagination. Many became atheists and agnostics after taking his class.

The faculty and students of this era argle-bargled over philosophies and ideologies, especially Marxism and nationalism. One of their mentors, Professor Silvino Epistola, introduced nationalism in Asia to his students by telling them to just look out the window. Students like Lapuz involved themselves in a propaganda campaign to get Congress to pass the Noli-Fili bill. Others formed nationalist and radical circles like Ang Bagong Asya, the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), and the Bertrand Russel Peace Foundation.

They joined the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN), the coalition of nationalist politicians, business leaders, union leaders, and students and legal personalities of the reviving Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP). Lapuz ran as a candidate for MAN’s executive council but lost to the young Zamboangueño Eduardo Tadem. A significant factor behind that loss was Lapuz’s excessive, British-toned oratories. Those who elected the board of directors marveled at and guffawed over Lapuz’s bombast; they immediately deemed he was not fit for a leadership role. 

This was, therefore, a generation that was very sure of itself, and believed that they were History’s vanguard, anointed to be the heirs of the 1896 revolution but also promising that they would not repeat the mistakes of Bonifacio et al. This was the source of their arrogance: they thought they were the ones to complete the quest for full nationhood. 

They expressed these sentiments and opinions in the essays they wrote (academic and polemical), the speeches they made (from classrooms to Plaza Miranda), and the manner in which they recruited (like Leninists they recruited the best and brightest inside UP; the not-so-bright became the apparatchiks). 

A majority of the students would eventually constitute the first central committee of Sison’s “re-establish” a new communist party.

The loudest among them was Jose David Lapuz. But he was not alone in showing off this hilarious talent. In fact, some of the above-cited characters had similar quirks as the ex-UST professor; they were also often much livelier, funnier, definitely self-absorbed but more grounded because they spoke sans any accent than that of their own.

(Next: The writer talks about other personalities from his time as a student who gave Jose David Lapuz a run for his money.) – Rappler.com 

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW.

Lapuz's loose lips part 1
Professor Jose David Lapuz's early years as a
defender of secularism and the Enlightenment have disappeared in the current merriment/panic over
his ambition to be CHED chairman

***

Other personalities from his time as a student gave Jose David Lapuz a run for his money. When I was in UP, I encountered some of these engaging, quirky, self-absorbed individuals. I also heard stories about them from colleagues, comrades, and friends who preceded me at the State University. They were the smart “crackpots” and “characters” responsible for giving the State University of the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s that distinct personality that is now extinct.

Teodoro Agoncillo started class by spewing fire and brimstone on the repressive Spanish frailocracy, then went full throttle in support of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo (he was a little but guarded on Rizal). After 15 minutes on the Revolution, he would shift to his favorite historical figure: Manuel Quezon.

Agoncillo once recalled the story of Manuel Quezon waiting for the American Governor General on top of the Malacañang stairs, in his bathrobe. As General Leonard Wood was halfway up the stairs Quezon – according to Ago – half opened his robe, turned to his staff and said (I am paraphrasing here)  “Now, let’s see who the real boss is!” Agoncillo would smile as we all broke down laughing. He repeated the same story two weeks later, and despite it being old news, we still would double up in laughter.

Remigio Agpalo was as equally “Lapuz-ian” as his neighbor in the History Department. The political scientist would half-skip as he entered the classroom and began the class by pointing out the inadequacies of existing political science theories as they applied to the Philippines. After going through Talcott Parson, C. Wright Mills, and others, he would raise his head, give this bright smile and declare: “The beauty of my theory….”

He would elaborate on his “theory” – likening Philippine politics to the human body. One time a classmate whispered to me, “Eh kung itinuli ang political system, ano'ng mangyayari?” (If we circumcized the political system, then what happens?) He would take the entire 3 hours to elaborate on his Pandanggo sa Ilaw approach to politics, and we marveled at how he was able to sustain his vociferous monologue.

From the Political Right came Congressman Cases, the ex-congressman from Ilocos Norte, a UP alumnus who earned his PhD at the University of Michigan. Hired by the Political Science Department to teach Philippine foreign policy lecturer, Cases treated his class like it was a legislative session with his voiced echoing through the west wing of the Palma Hall 4th floor that summer I took him. 

Cases was staunchly pro-American and argued for the permanent stay of the US bases. When we took him to task for this position, he responded like the way Joseph McCarthy replied to criticism of his anti-communist witch-hunts. 

“I am for the retention of the US bases, class, because if we take to removing the bases, the Red Chinese will come swimming across the China Sea, all 700 million of them. And you know what? We will either run out of bullet or mangagawit na ang mga daliri natin sa kakabaril at hindi pa rin sila maubos!” (We'll get tired pulling triggers and still not wipe out the Chinese.) He warned that a second Great Deluge would blight mankind if all 700 million Chinese urinated at the same time, or that the Earth would break in half if they jumped at the same time from a 6-feet platform. 

He brooked no opposition. When a classmate challenged his Cold War views, he lashed back at him, shouting, “Why are you questioning me? You are only AB; I am PhD!” Instead of being scared, we all just laughed. I only got an average grade in that course, as my name was not a political name. A classmate with the last name “Lacson” got one of the A’s in class after Cases asked him if he was related to the late Manila mayor and he replied in the affirmative (not true, but who cared?).

The other brilliant “characters” in UP had their endearing foibles. 

A favorite of UP students before me was Professor Antonio Mamon of the Department of Philosophy. His opening statement on the first day of his Philosophy 11 (Logic) was classic and well-remembered: “Good morning class, I am Professor Mamon, hindi puto, hindi ensaymada – Mamon! Whether you like it or not, you will pass this course!” For the next 3 months, he would puzzle his student with this “logical” preposition: “Queen Elizabeth is a ruler. A ruler is twelve inches long. Queen Elizabeth is twelve inches long???” 

Nationalists fondly remembered Mamon’s last semester before retirement, when he announced to his class that he was accepting a part-time position at the UP unit at Clark Air Force Base. After his students implored him not to serve the “imperialists,” he gave this fabulous reply: “Class, for many long years, the Americans have miseducated us. I am going to Clark because now it is our turn to miseducate them!!!” The class supposedly gave him a standing ovation.

This was the setting that shaped Jose David Lapuz's character. He was at home with these personalities, and they were used to his antics, although not as amenable to giving him organizational responsibilities. He was all right for the speeches, the bomba against the anti-Rizalistas, the obscurantists, and the pro-imperialists. 

A lot of these folks did have their narcissistic tendencies, albeit in varying degrees. Lapuz was the “most extreme” because he was comical and candid about his narcissism.  

By the time he left UP for UST, his self-love had gotten the better of him. And with today’s generation never knowing about his background, it is easy to understand that, to them, Joe Lapuz is nothing but an ageing eccentric still seeking his place in the sun. 

Now Digong might just put him in that place. If Lapuz does become CHED chair (sans a PhD), then God really help us. – Rappler.com 

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW.

With the nomination of Gina Lopez to the DENR portfolio, the mining industry in the Philippines has every reason to be perturbed. No, it has every reason to panic. Lopez is known for her staunch, often hysterical stand against mining.

She is not alone though in her campaign against mining. There are very spirited groups throughout the country that are, some of them, led by indigenous peoples and members of indigenous cultural communities. Many of them are church-led or church-sponsored. And the misgivings are not unreasonable. The scarred earth, the polluted streams, the subsidence of topsoil — what mining leaves in its wake seems to capture most vividly human rapaciousness that threatens to turn Earth into one sorry wasteland! (READ: Stand for the environment)

But a thoroughgoing rejection of mining is not practicable.  

I will go so far as to say that it lacks integrity. Almost everything that modern life and civilization depend on has some, if not most, elements from mining. From steel trusses and bars to spoons and forks, the products of mining are ubiquitous, and there is no known substitute for the basic materials that must be wrested from beneath the ground!

Now, if you admit that you need materials that are mined – and how can you not? – and at the same time disallow mining in the Philippines, are you giving your approval to mining, as long as it is done elsewhere?  That is hypocrisy, to put it more kindly. It is either wrong for all, or wrong for none.  

Evidence of abuse

I should not be misinterpreted. I am not saying that all mining practices are acceptable. The evidence of abuse is irrefutable. But abuse is never an argument against what is abused for almost every good thing that has come from the Creator has been abused, even life itself!

I really do not think that the anti-mining advocates seriously mean to exclude all mining from the Philippines. Legally, it cannot be done.  Both the Constitution and our statutes allow it.  

And the present battle we are fighting with China before an arbitral tribunal over sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea — South China Sea is certainly not over an expanse of choppy sea or a few rocks that jut from the sea only at low tide. It has to do largely rather with deposits of oil and natural gas in the region – all of which are to be mined if they are to be of any good to anyone.  

In short, a complete rejection of mining in the Philippines is impracticable and “really unrealistic” –  and that conjunction is deliberate!

Responsible mining – that is a reasonable position to take.  And that some areas should not be mined at all, that too is right, provided that the criteria are clear, the standards, fair and reasonable.

And when Gina Lopez picked a verbal tussle with Manny Pangilinan and held on to the mike, she was holding on to something that had most of its parts at one time tucked deep within the earth, and brought to its surface by the very process against she was inveighing.  So much for performative consistency! – Rappler.com

The author is Dean, Graduate School of Law, San Beda College

The inner doors open and 56-year-old President Benigno Aquino III, talking to two aides, walks into the Music Room. In his hands, he holds two briefers. While putting on his microphone for our video interview, he immediately says, “I’m still getting you the data that you asked for on the justice system.” 

The once underperforming son of two democracy icons leaves office at the height of an economic boom that in the first quarter this year made the Philippines the fastest growing economy in the world, surpassing China. 

“They might get mad at me again,” he quips, smiling broadly, referring to what mid-term he told me was his toughest challenge – dealing with China, the Philippines’ largest trading partner, and its aggressive claims to territory inside the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone. 

“What is the direction we should have with our relations with China?” Aquino mused aloud in our interview in 2013. “Adopt the kowtowing attitude or stand up for what you think is right? And when you stand up for what is right, how hard should that be or how diplomatic should it be?”

Shortly after, Aquino found his solution: he decided to take China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague – and in 2016 in his last days in office, he could joke about it, confident he made the right choice for his nation.

It’s personal 

For Aquino, Philippine history is personal: the assassination of his father and namesake in 1983 sparked the people power revolt which ended the 21-year rule of then President Ferdinand Marcos and catapulted his mother, Corazon, into power in 1986. 

“When my Dad said, ‘the Filipino is worth dying for’ to when my Mom said, ‘the Filipino is worth living for,’ and I added that ‘the Filipino is worth fighting for,’” recounts Aquino as he looks back on 44 years of what he seems to think of as trench warfare, which he says began when he was 12 years old, when Marcos declared martial law.

“From my Dad’s solitary cell to EDSA and people trying to stop tanks that are higher than they are. To all the ingredients necessary for a bloody revolution being present. But we somehow avoided it. Those of a religious bent would like to think God had a part in it. To now.”

His mother’s death in August 2009 was the emotional underpinning for his own rise to the presidency. With his family name and values as his main qualifications, the self-effacing man who never had the spotlight became a symbol of change - something many forget today.

One of his first actions was an all-or-nothing move that a more experienced politician may have avoided. If he had lost, he would've become a lame duck president: an anti-corruption crusade which began with the impeachment of the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"There has to be transformational change," he told me in 2013. "Without transformational change, we just took our turn in the musical chairs. That would really be such a ridiculous endeavour.”

The change may not have been as earthshaking as he had hoped, but the effort changed the man, forcing him out of the shadows of his parents and his celebrity sister.

“There was a time sabi nila, ‘Ano ba ang papel mo?’ Ano pa - di dakilang alalay. There was always some leader that I deferred to. To suddenly being the leader that everybody deferred to. And everybody was looking for all the instant solutions yesterday. The common thread is that it goes back to our people. They were there.” 

Yet, despite his best efforts, the vote on May 9, 2016, seemed a repudiation of his administration and his anointed candidate, Mar Roxas. 

Social media elections 

Powered by social media, maverick candidate Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte created a groundswell movement for change in one of the most engaged and vicious national campaigns focused on the perceived failures of Roxas and Aquino

“What lessons did you learn from the loss of Mar Roxas?” I ask Aquino.

“They were really able to differentiate themselves from the pack,” he replies. “I had to run the country while campaigning. Also number 4 in the survey to number 2 is nothing to be ashamed about.”

“Very masterful way of campaigning,” he adds about Duterte. “Am I running? Am I not running. And all that. So we really have to hand it to them that they really mounted a better campaign. That was the right tone, the right messaging, the right time.”

I watch him closely in our exit interview and marvel at the change: there is an easy confidence that comes with surviving the crucible of power. At the same time, a heavy weight, palpable 3 years earlier, had been lifted from his shoulders.

Through the course of an hour and a half, his crossed arms, like a buffer in front of him, unfolds and relaxes. He begins to slouch in his chair, comfortable enough at one point to turn the table around and ask me a question.

“There’s also great anger in the people,” I point out. “We see it on social media.”

“Can I ask you how confident are you that what you see in social media is representative of the people as opposed to the concept of trolls that everybody is talking about these days,” President Aquino asks me. 

Rappler, like many analysts, dubbed this the first social media elections in the Philippines: we conducted numerous studies and polls to understand human behavior and the role social media played in influencing this vote.

“What we’ve seen is a pretty organized campaign, but they seem to be real people,” I respond, describing the grassroots online campaign we documented. “Organized in messaging, organized in approach, but the anger of the real people they’ve mobilized is there.”

“Everybody’s been complaining that if they say something positive about me, there are so many who pounce on them right away. Instantly,” he comments. “Organized? Organized, volunteers would not have that much number of people to pounce right away.”

“Well, we’ve seen it on social media. We’ve seen it in the statistical surveys. We’ve seen it in the vote, right?” I remind the President. “Part of what seems to be driving this is anger. How would you ask Filipinos to deal with this today so that the fissures don’t open up?”

In the days after elections, the gap between economic classes as well as between the urban and rural areas had widened, with alarmingly violent messages on social media threatening to turn it into a wasteland.

“Number one, perhaps has to be on all who purport to be leaders regardless of whatever sector, should ensure those fissures don’t really appear. perhaps we should remember to get to an agreement on anything, we need to be in a responsible dialogue or a civil dialogue.”

Aquino declines to say anything more about his successor - except on China.

“I do believe he’s a patriot,” Aquino says about Duterte. “I think he’s a no-nonsense guy. Once he gets all the facts then I think he will come to the same conclusion.”

“The same conclusion as you have, meaning he will maintain your China policy?” I ask.

“I don’t want to say things like ‘been there, done that,’” Aquino smiles gently. “It’s kind of condescending, but he will be privy to everything that I am privy to now. Like everybody else, let’s see if he comes to a different conclusion.”

Highs and lows

His regret? He didn’t focus enough on communicating what he tried to do and the challenges he faced.

“Perhaps we could’ve done a little better with saying these are the hindrances to it. This is what we want to achieve. These are the obstacles that have to be met. These are the resources that we have. These are the things that can be expected this time.” He pauses. “I really wonder what is our function. 50% explaining everything, and 50% doing. Now when you take time in terms of the explaining portion is lost in the doing portion. So would we have served our people better by attending to propaganda more than the governance?”

“And your lesson – would you?” I ask. “Would you do it differently?” 

“No,” he responds immediately. “If I had the choice again, I’d have to choose the doing - to do that which is needed by our people.”

Political analysts pointed out that Aquino didn’t provide strong enough leadership to unite Roxas with another former ruling party ally, Senator Grace Poe. Aquino corrects me when I ask about his last ditch efforts the weekend before the vote, saying that he had repeatedly tried to bring them together.

“I tried. I might have looked ridiculous. I might have looked naive. I said, ‘let’s see, 'no? Baka naman these persons are being used by God to deliver a message. I tried. Obviously, it failed.”

During the course of our interview, Aquino reels off impressive figures: on education – from 8,000 classrooms a year (which would make 48,000 in 6 years), he leaves 185,000 classrooms; on universal health care - 93 million members (out of a population of 100 million); the overhaul of a former bastion of corruption, the Department of Public Works and Highways that now brings in infrastructure projects under budget; CCT, the Conditional Cash Transfer program, his flagship for bottom up poverty alleviation, 7.7 million ‘lifted out of the poverty line.’

How leadership changed him

Still, in his time in office, Aquino watched his approval ratings slip from a historic high of 85% in 2010 to 52% in 2016. Over the years, there were times when the man became too defensive, attributed by some analysts to a sense of entitlement and privilege. 

In our last interview at Malacañang Palace, his defensive edge drops as he tells us about how he can now change the lyrics of one of his favorite songs, Estudyante Blues. 

“It encapsulates all a president will have to face,” says Aquino. “Ako ang nasisisi. Ako ang laging may kasalanan’” - which he would change to “‘Hindi na ako masisisi. Hindi na ako ang may kasalanan.’” We laugh.

It was clear he felt he did the best he could – and that should be enough, but of course, it never is.

His mother, once angry with a New York Times reporter for printing the transcript of their interview in full (showing her naivete), never granted an interview to that reporter in her 6 years in office.

Her son is more professional. Near the start of his administration, I wrote Noynoy Flunks His First Test for the Wall Street Journal, criticizing his loyalty to his friends and his conflict-averse leadership style that had deadly consequences during the Manila bus hostage crisis. 

Numerous sources told me how angry he was, anger that dissipated over the years – at least enough for him to grant a mid-term and an exit interview.

“You looked at your own weaknesses, and you tried to mitigate them?” I ask. As we’ve seen repeatedly, a leader’s weaknesses are magnified as they ripple through their bureaucracies.

“I think so,” he answers. “In a lot of instances. I remember so many people that, you know, our relationships have changed. Or some that didn’t change. Si Rico Puno, for instance,” referring to his shooting buddy he appointed as undersecretary during the bus hostage crisis who was eventually removed. “He wasn’t performing to the level that I felt he should be doing.”

Not surprisingly, Aquino’s term in office begins and ends with defending his friends - from the bus hostage crisis to Mamasapano, the bungled police special forces operation that tanked one of his key initiatives, the Mindanao peace process. 

His friend in the center of Mamasapano? Former police chief Alan Purisima, then under preventive suspension and later dismissed from service. Aquino glossed over Purisima’s involvement and said the operations failed because the 2-star general in charge, Getulio Napenas, didn’t follow Aquino’s orders.

“The point is did we have legitimate targets?” asks Aquino. “Yes. Is it risky? Yes. Could the risk have been manageable? Yes. Did they follow orders? No.”

Showing he does hear the criticism against him, Aquino goes on to defend another friend, DOTC Sec Jun Abaya, saying Abaya was not corrupt and that there was limited time for any replacement to do anything meaningful with Manila’s mass transportation system, great fuel for public anger.

“Friendships stop when the country’s interests are at stake,” Aquino says emphatically.

Several times, Aquino refers to instances where his government made a difficult choice, and regardless of the choice, whoever was unhappy blamed him.

“If it’s not there, people complain,” he says, referring to road infrastructure, “When we’re trying to put it, people complain … I guess that was part and parcel of it. It was needed infrastructure, but we will get flak before-hand.”

In an earlier interview, he joked that if the airport ceiling falls down, it’s his fault. 

So how did the presidency change him?

Aquino is disarmingly frank about how being with world leaders taught him humility, the best advice he could give to any leader.

“My mother used to say the one thing I lacked was my willingness to travel. She felt that was such a necessary skill to live in this new age where the world is getting smaller and smaller,” Aquino says, “Somehow I was most content being in the Philippines.”

“So here I am, I have to suddenly start dealing with a lot of world leaders, to understand where they are coming from. A lot of times in the early part, I felt they were talking to me because they had to talk to me as opposed to they wanted to talk to me,” he continues, zooming in on how the attitude of one leader “from the other hemisphere” changed.

“The first time I met him, he was kind of delivering a soft sermon – and the transformation 4 or 5 years later, he was earnestly asking us to visit his country on a state visit.”

Back to the future?

As Aquino ends his presidency, it doesn't look like the Philippines is quite ready to move on from the family feud that defined people power 30 years ago.

The son of Marcos, a senator named after his father but more commonly known as Bongbong, comes within about 200,000 votes of the vice presidency. Marcos is contesting the election results.

"When he became the frontrunner in the surveys, that to me seemed such an impossibility," says Aquino. "Then when you look at it in an objective manner, you find out those opposed to him were fragmented, number one. Number two, perhaps we should have paid more attention to the long-running campaign, the revisionist view of history they are trying to portray ... we should have done a better job explaining how power used incorrectly can be thoroughly abused to the detriment of our people."

The numbers Aquino leaves behind show a methodical approach to leadership that hints that history may be kinder than his contemporaries.

“I think I’ve grown as a person,” he answers. “I hope I presented the best face of the Philippines: our causes are legitimate, and we’re a worthwhile partner. We really are sincere when we say that when we look at you, we want growth, not on a one-sided basis, but on a multi-dimensional basis for all parties concerned.” – Rappler.com

On June 30, Rodrigo Duterte, who won by a commanding lead, will start his 6-year term as president of the Philippines.

He takes office amid high expectations that the country will be safer and lives will be better – as he had promised during his stunning campaign. We hope he does not disappoint.

Criminality, he said, will be down in 3 to 6 months.

Corruption will be reduced as Duterte announced he will be unforgiving to corrupt government officials. “One whiff of corruption and you’re out,” is his mantra.

While Duterte did not stress poverty reduction during his campaign, his economic managers have unfolded an 8-point program that continues the growth policies of the Aquino government. They have declared to “expand and improve” the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program, the anti-poverty centerpiece of the former administration.

This economic agenda has since expanded to 10 points, adding promotion of science, technology, and the creative arts “to enhance innovation,” and strengthening the implementation of the reproductive health law to allow couples to plan their family sizes.

The incoming finance secretary, Carlos Dominguez, recently told a large gathering of businessmen in Davao City that the new government’s key goal is to make growth “truly inclusive” and not just to “further entrench the oligarchy.” While the “macroeconomic numbers are good,” he said, “they did not translate into a good life for all.”

Included in the to-do list of Duterte’s economic team are:

• building a robust middle class by reconfiguring the tax system
• developing rural areas and modernizing agriculture to generate more jobs
• reforming the bureaucracy to be more responsive to citizens and business
• freeing government agencies from “regulatory capture”
• raising money to invest in “social goods” such as infrastructure, health facilities and quality educational institutions

We did not hear Duterte raise these issues during the campaign but he has repeatedly said that he will leave economic policies to the experts in his Cabinet because it is not his field.

For his part, Duterte has prioritized peace and order. Talks with the communist-led National Democratic Front have begun.

The incoming president has continued his heated rhetoric on going after drug dealers and criminals, even encouraging citizens to shoot those who resist, causing concern about upholding the rule of law. The public needs to be vigilant.

In a few days, change begins as the Duterte administration takes over, albeit on a discordant note. The new president has refused to be inaugurated with the vice president, showing division on his first day in office.

Alienating would-be allies, as we know, unnecessarily wastes political capital. After all, for Duterte to succeed, he needs all the support he can get. – Rappler.com 

The world was taken aback by the British vote to leave the European Union (EU) in last Thursday’s (June 23) referendum. We needn’t have been so surprised. The experience with EU referenda in countries like France, the Netherlands and Ireland taught us that they are often used as a way for the people to kick their rulers in the teeth. Never mind the question that they are actually being asked on the ballot paper.

In this case of course, the referendum result has far reaching consequences, especially for the British themselves. Sure, for the EU it is a setback too, but one that it is sturdy enough to overcome. And without the British, the EU may even be able to finally adopt some urgently needed cooperative measures that the British used to block. The British may enjoy a short while of what they call “independence”, and then discover that they are beset by global forces that are much easier controlled from within the EU, and that they lose all the advantages of the economy of scale that the EU offers. It is not a coincidence that the remain-vote had a large majority amongst the younger voters, who will no longer have the possibility to easily work and study in the other 27 member states. Scotland, that voted to remain in the EU, may now well leave the UK. In fact, within a day or two of the referendum a petition calling for a new referendum got more than 2 million signatures.

But the vote was not merely about the European Union. It was as much about immigration, about the government’s austerity measures, and about a general sense that Britain isn’t what it used to be. Apart from Scotland, the remain-vote had a majority in urban centers like London, Manchester and Liverpool, and the leave-vote was strongest in the countryside and in traditional industrial Labour-heartlands that suffer particularly under the measures of the current Conservative government.

No doubt there is a sense of fear amongst a large part of the electorate, not only in Britain. We see it in other northwest European countries, we see it in the United States, and elsewhere. Many people understand the global processes that are going on, and that they have the potential of bringing great benefits (and in many cases have already done so) and bring opportunities, but many more find these processes bewildering and the changes that they bring frightful, and believe that the challenges that they pose are almost impossible to overcome.

Thanks to modern technology, such as the internet, today’s society is incomparably faster and more complex than it was even only 20 years ago. If you are not part of it, you easily feel left behind. This is an important cause of what is called the “disconnect” between decision makers, media and large businesses on the one hand, and the rest of us on the other.

Only the United States seems to be able to harness globalization to some extent, but it is not as if the national government there (whichever the ruling party) is always so popular either.

To cut a long story short, a referendum on EU issues is a wonderful opportunity to vent the accumulated fear and anger.

It is incongruous, because as a project the EU is singularly successful. It has produced legislation that is arguably of great benefit to its citizens, in a whole lot of areas from consumer protection and health issues to food production and environmental protection. The Erasmus system allows students to enjoy education in other member states, and now also has a global component.

The EU brought democracy to the formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe, and its soft-power foreign policy is increasingly successful, even if in both cases there is room for improvement. The euro currency, despite the problems with Greece, has actually been a success, leading to greater monetary stability than Europe has ever known in its history. The so-called Schengen-cooperation of passport and visa free travel works well. Britain, of course, wasn’t part of either the euro or of Schengen. For most, and probably all EU-member states it would be impossible to handle super-powers like the United States, Russia and China on their own.

And yet, contrary to the 1970s and 80s, the EU has managed to become entirely un-loved by large chunks of the European citizenry. However magnificently the bureaucracy works, it is still a bureaucracy behind splendid glass façades. It has become slow, legalistic and elitist, and worst of all it has developed a humorless kind of institutional arrogance. What is needed to face to problems of the modern age is better and often more intensive cooperation, but nobody really wants the kind of dull, faceless cooperation that the EU currently has on offer.

Sure, one major problem has also been that leaders of European governments have for decades engaged in an us-and-them rhetoric, blaming Europe for unpopular decisions that they themselves have just taken collectively. But the European institutions have made it easy for them to do so.

These problems are not impossible to solve. They require creativity and agility, and the political will – thus far hardly noticeable on the part of the member states’ governments – to make the European project once again inspiring. They also require simple, practical measures that show benefits for ordinary people. The recent legislation on mobile telephony, doing away with high charges when people take their mobile phone abroad within the EU, are a positive example.

This is what they mean when European decision makers say that the Brexit, for all its problems, is also an opportunity to finally move forward. A relaunch of the European project is possible, even necessary. And if that happens successfully, one should not be surprised if at some point in the future, 10 or 20 years ahead, a British (or English) government would reasonably argue that it would quite like their country to be part of it again. – Rappler.com

Jules Maaten was Country Director of the Philippines office of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom – a German NGO – from 2010-2016. From 1999-2009 he was a Member of the European Parliament.

Note: Last June 24, 2016, I received the Bahaghari Media Awards given by Rainbow Rights, Philippine, Outrage Magazines and the US Embassy for mainly for my Rappler columns supporting LGBT persons. This is a slightly revised version of my acceptance speech. 

Thank you for agreeing to introduce me as I suggested: “an ordinary human being who is trying to be decent.” There is Google after all, for those who might want to know a bit more about me.

I felt such an introduction would be a great segue for the main theme of my acceptance speech, something I will return to shortly.

In preparation for this, I looked at other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual awarding ceremonies and noted that a common theme would be to celebrate how wonderful LGBTQIA persons are. To celebrate, as the community says, PRIDE.

I agree that this is an important message. Whether one is a seasoned activist or an isolated transman or transwoman in a small and remote community, an LGBTQIA person has to deal with the daily oppression of stigma that ranges from the slights that begin with, “a lot of my friends are LGBT but…” to the fear of becoming a victim or actually being a victim of a hate crime whether one is in a bar in Olongapo or Orlando. So there is sense in saying that LGBTQIA people are wonderful and that one can take pride in being part of this community.

Just like everyone

But I thought about going in a reverse direction and emphasizing merely the ordinary. Certainly the child bullied because of gender expressions that run afoul of community norms wishes only to be ordinary, not to stand out.

Certainly every LGBTQIA person is tired of having to decide to come out even when they are already out, to the next person they meet, the next class they attend, the next place of employment, etc. It is tiring to have to make sexual orientation or gender identity an outstanding feature of one’s face to the world. Even if one chooses not to, there is always the gossip and then someone who will ask.

And are we not all tired of having to lead such exemplary lives so that we can prove to ourselves, our families, our communities and the world that we are not abnormal or criminal or deranged? Aren’t we so tired of living exemplary lives because we are afraid we will disgrace the movement and the community if we do anything wrong?

Are we not sick of the people so ready to condemn our movement and the activists because we have disagreements and sometimes those disagreements become really emotional and end up being hurtful and divisive? Critics and policy-makers always ask us for example, how can they grant us respect or protections or freedoms if we ourselves cannot get our act together?

So I instead want to make the point that LGBTQIA people are ordinary people like everyone else. In short, like everyone else LGBTQIA persons and groups are as diverse as any other group. Some of us are psychopaths and some are real heroes. Some of are smart and good looking and cultured. And some of are..er..not so much! Some are religious, some are not. Some like politics and some do not. And so and so forth ad infinitum.

And LGBTQIA movements and leaders are just as virtuous and as flawed as all others.

Human rights

We need to remind ourselves of what human rights mean. No one needs to prove or do anything to receive the full range of guaranteed freedoms and protections. Even the worst person carries these freedoms and protections by merely being a person.

In a just world no one needs to be or prove anything to have the simple respect and equality the LGBTQIA movement seeks. Critics of all movements always ask why groups, women, LGBTQIAs, indigenous peoples, etc, wish to be treated specially. But we want no special treatment, we just want to be treated like everyone else. And that includes being allowed to be as different from another person of the same sexual orientation and gender identity as one is to another heterosexual person.

I am proud to receive this award and at the same time feel undeserving. It should not be unusual for a person to respect another person’s inherent rights. It should not be unusual for someone who declares themselves an activist to move towards compassion and solidarity with other movements and with every person who suffers from stigma, oppression and exploitation. That should be the norm.

Self-centered is abnormal

Frankly, what I find abnormal are the people who insist that who they are, what they are like, what they were born to, what they are comfortable with, should define normality. It should be abnormal for people to insist on homogenizing human differences and that homogeneous ideal should be what they find comfortable. Abnormal to be so lacking in basic human decency and compassion that they would call LGBTQIA people immoral or sinners or criminals. Abnormal that because they are the majority, therefore it is OK to stigmatize LGBTQIA people.

In short I am someone who believes that LGBTQIA people are ordinary folk who possess human rights and therefore must be given all the freedoms and protections. I am an ordinary person who strives to be decent. And in so doing finds it astounding that anyone should discriminate against LGBTQIA persons.

I accept this award in the name of all the truly ordinary persons who, because they have not been socialized in the games of privilege, are behaving like normal human beings. Ordinary, normal people like myself are not homophobes and we are not bigots. – Rappler.com

Yesterday, I was chatting online with a former colleague about a common friend (I cannot even remember his name or my association with him). He died in a freak motorbike accident in Davao, which dismembered parts his body.

During our exchange we started to dwell on  death – or the most sordid part of it – dying. My friend asked me, “How do you want to die?” followed by “Would you like to experience dying or do you prefer instead to expedite everything through a sudden death such as a vehicular accident or dying while you are sleeping?” It was rather a morbid conversation and my condescension to the topic of death was defused by intermittent laughter punctuated by icons and emojis in the chatbox.  

We do not really fear death. For Muslims, death is a form of release, or a return to where we all came from: the Creator. It is celebration for pious Muslims than an occasion for sorrow. The morbidity of our conversation revealed to me an old adage that we do not really fear death as it is – we fear dying. And then by a very strange stroke of fate, my former colleague mentioned about dying together with his family.

“I think it’s better: We all die together at once so it’s not going to be a very loathsome journey for all of us,” he insisted. Then you and your family should die in a massacre, I joked. We exchanged laughing emojis, and made fun of the idea of a massacre as a form a communal release; a communal journey to the unknown – a death shared by many as a form of bond. Its meaning will only matter to those who will dare remember the simultaneous deaths in a single occasion as an event worthy of a celebration.

Remembrance

This conversation about death occurred to me again this morning as I rummaged through my files of massacres in Mindanao during the regime of former President Ferdinand Marcos, specifically during martial law. I was planning to write an article on the report released by the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission.

To my surprise, June 19 passed by and I had not returned to the story of the Manili Massacre in Carmen, North Cotabato. What shocked me more was none of my friends from my social media circles who are either Moros or into development and peace works in Mindanao bothered to post something in remembrance of the 1971 Manili Massacre.

It is not true that death and dying comes to us in many forms; we will all end up in that ultimate destination: the eternal unknown. However, death has become too commonplace that we can joke about it or forget it just the same until the time comes that we need to face it. But of course, to laugh at death does not diminish our fear of dying.

To us, the Manili Massacre is a narrative on the death of some 70 to 80 Moros in 1971. The exact number is still unknown because of cover-ups during the Marcos regime when the the massacre caught the attention of the international media and Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Unfortunately, few books and articles were written about the Manili Massacre. It was mentioned in Macapado A. Muslim’s The Moro Armed Struggle in the Philippines, Salah Jubair’s Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, and essays of Soliman Santos available online. The latest is Rogelio Braga’s novel Colon, published just this year.  

For most young Moros and Filipinos, the Manili Massacre was just an event. That’s why it's easy for us to memorialize it, to turn it into an artifact of the past like those bloodless things inside museums – something we can remember but we can also opt to forget. Its value has been reduced into historical data as lifeless as old books in  libraries that we seldom visit.

The Manili Massacre, however, should remain as a kind of perpetual, recurring form of dying that will come upon us unless the government and Filipinos decide to address the historical injustices against the Bangsamoro people.

The Ilaga

Now the challenge remains: How do we retell the Manili Massacre beyond the bloodless historical recounting of a morbid past? Let me begin with one word: Ilaga.

The Ilaga (Visayan for rat) was born in Upi, now a municipality of Maguindanao province, as a group of farmers composed of Ilonggo settlers and Teduray lumads. It initially represented a collective and a communal resistance against the oppressive landed family, a political clan of known Marcos cronies.

In a legendary encounter in Cotabato, these farmers won over the private armies of this political family using only bolos and home-made shotguns. Their victory spread throughout Cotabato. From a small group of timid but valiant farmers, the Ilaga was raised to folk hero status, and eventually became a movement that would wreak havoc among Moro communities in Central and Northern Mindanao.

The Marcos regime used the Ilaga in its operations in Mindanao. At the time, most Filipino soldiers were from the Visayas and Central Luzon regions who were unfamiliar with the terrain of Cotabato's valleys and forests. Marcos and his generals used the Ilaga to navigate and penetrate Cotabato’s treacherous geography.

Ilaga members were recruited from the community, mostly Visayan settlers and some Teduray. They are known for their tactics of entering Moro communities at night, then burning houses down while the families were asleep. They would kill everyone who ran out of the homes. As soon as the area was cleared and covered, the soldiers would enter.

Ilagas were brutal to their victims. They were known for dismembering body parts of Muslim victims by removing the right ear of men and the nipples of their women captives. Ilaga members can be identified by a white bandanna wrapped around their heads during operations, in tandem with Filipino soldiers and authorities.

The combined forces of CAFGUs and Ilagas were responsible for massacres in Moro communities during the Marcos regime. Some incidents remain unaccounted for until now.

The Ilaga perpetuated fear and division among communities across Mindanao. All these incidents of atrocities were removed from the annals of Philippine history, a dominant narrative that will always serve the interests of a nationalist center while silencing Moro narratives. 

The massacre

The Manili Massacre was a product of the Ilaga’s atrocities against the Moros in Northern and Central Mindanao. On the morning of June 19, 1971, a group of men led by Captain Langgam and Lieutenant Lagatus arrived at Sitio Bual. They were looking for a man named Enalang, a renegade rebel in the military's wanted list. Captain Langgam and Lieutenant Lagatus faced Hajji Yusof Nagli, the community leader, and asked him to surrender Enalang to the group.

Manili then was a quiet village, most of the inhabitants were farmers, and Christians and Muslims lived in peace and tolerance. Nagli denied that there was a person named Enalang except for the person who lived far from the village, across the Rio Grande de Mindanao.

While all the men in the village were already in their farms working, the women, children, and old folk who were left behind were sent to the village elementary school, and to the Sitio Bual’s community masjid (mosque). They were forcefully convened in these two places.  

It started with a gunshot in front of the school. Nagli was shot point blank in broad daylight. All the people inside the school and in the masjid panicked and the children started to cry. What happened next was a scene that Filipinos, given the chance, would exclude from history textbooks: the Ilaga and members of the Philippine Constabulary opened fire at the school building.

They did the same to the masjid, but committed something more gruesome. The Ilaga  threw several grenades inside the masjid filled with mostly women and children. It was reported that after the incident, dead bodies were piled on top of each other and the walls and ceiling of the masjid were strewn with body parts. It had been said that those who managed to escape had to wade in ankle-deep blood inside the masjid when they returned to retrieve the remains of their family members. The Ilaga removed the ears of their victims – either already dead or dying.

The Manili Massacre will remain as a horrendous story among the Moros and also a quiet gap in the country’s history. The difference between death and dying is always the memory of suffering: the Manili Massacre is a wound that will forever perpetuate the memories of sufferings of my people until justice is served to its victims, their families, and those who have decided to remember the pain and loss.

And as a Moro, Manili will be a reminder of what is left of this dying nation, a bangsa that is set to perpetually wait for its culmination. For only in victory or in martyrdom can we be freed. – Rappler.com

Patricio Abinales found this unedited transcript of an audio-report in a garbage bin along Arluegi Street. Given that President Duterte refused to talk to the media until the end of his term, Filipinos are made to suffer through the dull speculations of ill-informed pundits. So in the interest of public transparency, he is reproducing the first excerpts from this report of pure fiction.

 ***

Hello, mga Kabayan, this is a special secret Bombo Radyo report from inside Malacañang Palace. Our journalists Romeo Apiag and Eddie Kagid managed to avoid President Rodrigo Duterte’s cordon sanitaire. So we are in. Exclusive ito!

Hello Romeo, Romeo…are your there, over?

Uy…halo, Kabayan, ug halo sab sa inyo mga higala! 

Ania kami ni Eddie Kagid karon sa sulod sa Roxas Cabinet Room, gahuwat sa pagsugod sa unang kabinet meeting ni Presidente Digong dinhi sa Malacañang Palace. 

Unpoortunately, wa ni kasugod dayon kay natrapik kuno si Presidente; di makagawas iyang convoy sa NAIA! 

Nasuwertehan mi ni Eddie Kagid kay gihatagan mi ug media pass sa akong amigong si Badong Panelo – nga bag-ong topi pa mga higala! Haom kaayo sa iyang pameste. Kining press pass bayad ni Panelo sa iyang pagkapildi sa among pinusta-ay bahin sa mga Ampatuan. Miingon siya nga mapagawas kuno niya ang tibuok pamilya sa priso sa dili pa mahuman ang tuig. Ingon ko sa panahon lang ni Mampor kana mahitabo! “Wanna bet?” ang tubag ni Badong. 

Sugot ko, pero giingnan nako siya nga di ko mangayo ug kuwarta. “Bay, mosikat man gyud ka niani Ampatuan masaker kay abogado gud ka sa mga killers. Kung mapildi ka ugma damlag na ko mangayo nimo ug bayad.” Kining media pass mao silbing bayad.

Pero, hapit mi wa makasuod mga higala, kay namatikdan ko ni Pete Lavina. Mitutok siya ug dugay sa ako-a pero kaluoy sa Dios wa niya ko ma-ilhi. Mga pipila ka dekada na gud ming wa magkita, busa wa na siya makaila sa ako-a. Upaw na man ta gud, ug kining akong beer belly layo sa akong lawas kaniadto, atong sexy pa ko ug gikahadlokan sa mga kababay-an. 

Dali ra gihapon ma-ilhan si Pete: kay kanang iyang pagka-baby face wa gyud mausab.

Uy…miabot na si Presidente Digong, mga higala! Pero morag gisapot ang nawong; basig siguro ni sa trapik. 

“Bilat s'yang ina, katrapik ba dinhi sa imperial Manila,” miingon siya. “Kinsa man tong trapik polis nga nagpapababag sa dalan ug dakong trak? Unsa man, nasuholan ba sa tag-iya sa traking serbis! Basig korapso to kaayo! Ipapusil ko nang pesteng yawa-a na!” 

Mihunghong si Bong Go sa Presidente ug nawala ug gamay ang kalagot ni Digong. “Pastilan, taga-Dabaw diay tong bata-a. O sige ayaw na lang ug ipapusil. Ibalhin na lang sa didto sa Agusan para magkasinati siya sa mga walay sapatos didto. Pa-um-umon na ug bala ni Ka Oris.”

“Na hala, magsugod na ta!” Moabri na unta si Attorney Salvador Medialdea sa iyang notebook para ilansuyo ang agenda, pero nasakgaw siya ni Pastor Apollo Quiboloy.

“Brother Presidente Digong, di ba ta manginahanglan mag-ampo kang Papa God sa dili pa magsugod ang miting? Basig masuko to ug matunglo ta.”

Mo-tando na unta si Presidente, pero sa dili pa makasugod si Pastor Q. sa iyang pangadyi, miingon sila si Ka Judy Taguiwalo ug Ka Paeng Mariano. “Taym sa Presidente Digong. Di mi maka-ayon sa gi-sugyot ni Pastor Q. Di mi motuo sa iyang Papa God kay komunista mi! Ang among Dios si Mao Tse Tung, ug ang among Pastor si Joema.” 

Natingala si Digong: “Ha? Inyong Dios katong Insik? Ug sa inyong tan-aw mas balaan pa tong akong kanhing propesor sa Lyceum kang Pastor Q?” Miyango si Ka Judy ug Ka Paeng. 

Motugot sab unta si Presidente Digong sa hangyo sa mga komunista, pero sa wala pa siya makatando misinggit ug kalit si Datu Abdul Khary Alonto gikan sa tumoy sa kuwarto.

“Mister Sultan Presidente Digong, kinahanglan i-apil sab si Allah sa atong pangadyi. Ingon ka nga aduna sab kay dugo nga Moro busa bitaw misyagit ka ug ‘Alla Akbar’ sa Luneta. Di mi mosugot kung si Pastor Q. lang ang mang-ulo sa pangadyi. Kinahanglan adunay imam sab.”

Dayon mi-salmot si Sonny Dominguez ug miingon siya sa iyang kanhing silingan, “‘Migo, I know you do not believe in the bishops, but I also cannot sit here and not assert the right of us Catholics to say our prayers! I am a loyal son of the Ateneo!

“Bai, di mi mosugot nga si Pastor Q. ug si  Datu Abdul lang ang adunay kahitungod nga mangulo sa pag-ampo. Ug nganong kinahanglan ani-a kining mga komunista dinhi nga di man na sila motuo sa Ginoo?”

Wa na ka-abri sa iyang ba-ba si Presidente Digong kay ga-syagitay na ang tanan. 

“Peke kanang mga obispo,” ingon ni Pastor Q., “ako lang ang makapahinabi sa Ginoo, kay ako ang ‘Appointed Son of God’!” Mitubag si Alonto, “Hoy, ingon sa Koran, there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet! Dili ikaw Quiboloy! Ug – Inshallah - mas guapo pa si Mohammad sa imo! ” Mi-apil sab si Sonny: “You two are fools! Ayaw intawon mo ug pagpasipala! Si Jesus Christ ang bugtong sinugo ni God the Father ug Mama Mary, ug ang mga obispo ang iyang mga sulugoon!”

Mi-deklara si Ka Judy ug Ka Paeng nga “dili mi mo-apil nianing away sa mga factions ng naghaharing-uri! Boycott kami!!” Mitindog sila ug nag-walk out. 

Sa pag-agi nila sa amo-ang duha ni Eddie Kagid, nakadungog mi sa hunghung ni Ka Joel Maglungsod sa iyang kaubanan: “Comrades, ingon lagi ko nga mag-armed struggle na lang ta! Makabuang ning parliamentary struggle, uy. Ngano man intawong gi-assign ta ni Lolo Joema dinhi?” Milabtik si Ka Judy kang Ka Joel: “Hilom na lang dinha comrade. Utos ng Utrecht. Democratic centralism kini.”

Wa na gyud sa kaantos si Presidente Digong ug misyagit: “Hoy, mga balhug mong tanan, ikaduhang cabinet meeting pa lang, di na mo magkasinabot! Unsa man, mosupak mo nako, kamong mga tamba-luslus? Ga-yasmi lang nang inyong mga nawong!

“Asa man si General Dela Rosa? Tawga kay ipapusil ni nako silang tanan! Misakit ning akong ulo ug samot sa inyoha! Putang ina…”

Mihilom ang tanan ug kalit, nangahadlok nga basig ipadayon ni Presidente iyang hulga nga ipa-ihaw silang tanan.

Miagi ang pipila ka minuto nga kahilom. Dayon misulti si Presidente: “Ug ngano mang nia ta dinhi sa kuwarto sa amahan sa Bayot mag-pulong-pulong dawbe? Unsa man, gipakaulawan ko ninyo?”

Gibakwit ug ahat ni Bong Go ang badlis nga ga-ingon “Roxas Cabinet room” sa bungbong sa entrada sa hawaan “Sir, unsa may atong ipuli? Si Lapu-Lapu?”

Mohilum na lang sab mi ug kadiyot mga higala, kay basig madungag mi sa hit list ni General De la Rosa…

Dis is Romeo Apiag, live from Malacanang, ober and awt! – Rappler.com 

In a historic move, Pope Francis said during an interview that the Church must apologize for marginalizing LGBTQ people. Despite this Catholic leader's progressive stances in the past, a statement such as this is groundbreaking given his remaining opposition to same-sex marriage and consistency in believing that homosexuality is a sin.

The Bible and Christian teachings have long been used to condemn and oppress the LGBTQ community, so the hope is that Catholics would heed their leader's words and turn their dislike for gay people into a more tolerant love for them in the same and more Christian inspiration. 

If you are one of these Christians who have been touched by Pope Francis' words and are at a loss as to how you can repair your damaged relationships with LGBTQ people, here are some things you can do to sincerely apologize to the gay community:

1) Be accountable for your actions

No matter how progressive and tolerant you think you are, you have wronged the community in your own way through your own biases. Own your offenses. Remember the times you may  have laughed at a transgender woman or commented that a lesbian was no substitute for a man. Approach your LGBTQ friends and acquaintances and apologize sincerely. Don't claim to be sinless or believe that only other people have wronged us. If you don't know how you've offended us, ask. Say something as simple as, "Sorry if I ever hurt you intentionally or unintentionally. Please let me know when I offend you so I won't hurt you again."

2) Listen to us

Don't disregard our complaints and reports of harassment or discrimination. Treat them as if they're coming from your own son or daughter and express the same anger and disgust. Never say, "You're already accepted in this country," or "Mabuti pa nga dito, tanggap kayo (You're better off here because at least, you're accepted." Understand that it is never your place to speak for a minority on whether they are oppressed or not. Listen to our sadness and fears. Don't dismiss us and ask us to change in order to be treated better. If you really listen closely, you'll recognize the legitimacy of our lives and relationships and you'll know that it is highly offensive to ask us to not be "too gay" so we'll be treated right.

3) Never quote the Bible to judge LGBT people

You would never approach someone who has pre-marital sex and tell them about your religious beliefs. You would never read Bible passages to liars, adulterers, or contraceptive users to make them feel bad. Treat LGBTQ people with the same respect that like you, they know how to reconcile their faith with their actions. Just like with everyone else, our lives are none of your business and it is not your place to tell anyone what they are doing wrong or right.

4) Admit your sins of inaction

Without your knowledge, we take note of the times we are insulted as well as whether you sat silently as we were being abused. Resolve to never stand around while an LGBTQ person is being harassed or being discriminated. Be more clear in defending your friends and relatives. Talk to parents who are being tough on their effeminate son. Talk to your boss if you know your coworker is being treated unfairly. Yes, there are those who directly hurt us. But there are more people who stand by and watch while we're being hurt, forgetting that remaining silent during times of oppression means you are on the side of the oppressor.

5) Relearn the teachings of your religion

Instead of focusing on hating and judging people, live your life according to the primary teaching of Christianity which is to love one another as Christ loves you. Recognize the time you have wasted in finding reasons to not love others or try to change them. Instead, begin with a universal love for everyone regardless of their appearance, beliefs, or actions. That is definitely what Jesus would do.

6) Understand your LGBTQ brothers and sisters the way they've understood you

We have spent our entire lives rationalizing why we are treated poorly by our own families and friends, telling ourselves that it's their religion that makes them behave badly towards us. Now that the leader of your religion has expressed his remorse in hurting us, you should in turn approach us with the same understanding and not take offense when your apology isn't always welcomed or if a lifetime of hurts prevents us from quickly accepting Christians with open arms.

7) Do your share in influencing others

Don't let children speak hatefully or repeat hurtful and bigoted lines. Don't allow expressions of humor or disgust when faced with images of same-sex couples or transgender people. Make young people apologize when they say hurtful words to or about gender-nonconforming people. Most of our elders also remain in the dark and continue to spout hurtful statements about the LGBTQ community. Educate them and inform them when you can. Be a good example by being accepting of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Be the first to say that who they love and how they act has nothing to do with their morality, ethics, or values.

Queer people have as much of a right to exist in peace as anyone else. Don't just say it. Believe and defend this principle. It is your responsibility to take part in correcting many years of hate towards the LGBT community, since you were also part of their suffering. Recognize your role in perpetuating it by remaining silent. Recognize what you can do to stop contributing to our oppression.

8) Examine your own biases.

Reflect on the times you've treated gay men as inferior to straight men just because they are effeminate or love another man. Examine your language and correct yourself when you say things like "real man (tunay na lalake)" or "real woman (tunay na babae)" when referring to heterosexuals. Recognize that LGBTQ people are as "real" as men or women can be. Sexual orientation or identity or expression has nothing to do with the legitimacy of one's manhood or womanhood. Be conscious when you catch yourself treating others as "less than" or different just because they do not conform to your ideas of masculinity or femininity. Remember that your right to your own feelings and opinions should not affect the feelings, opinions, and welfare of others. 

9) Treat all hate speech as a precedent to violence

The largest massacre of LGBTQ people just occurred a few weeks ago by a person who was allowed to believe and spew hateful things about our community. Recognize that hearing and repeating hateful speech contributes to the assault and murder of LGBTQ people. When a local politician says that LGBTQ people should die, or are worse than animals, not opposing these statements means you are fine with your brothers and sisters being treated as lower-class citizens, or worse - beaten or killed. 

10) Really, sincerely, honestly, and meaningfully say, "I'm sorry"

With every sincere apology comes an admission of all of your offenses. It is a genuine inquiry on what you have done knowingly or unknowingly to hurt your LGBTQ brothers and sisters. It is a firm promise to try your best to not hurt us in these ways again, to educate others to treat us as equals, and to fight for our rights and welfare the way you would fight for your own. The stake in LGBTQ hearts is long, sharp, and splintered and it will take a long time to rebuild relationships and for us to trust that you truly have our best interest in mind. 

An apology is an excellent start and the best example of what a Christian life is truly like. Truly loving your neighbor - all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender expression or identity - is the best way to show your love for your God. – Rappler.com

As new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte prepares to assume office, a growing number of Filipinos seem to – or want to – believe his surprising claim that he will be the country’s first “socialist” President.

Since he won the elections last month, some leftists – as well as anti-communists – have even suggested that he is or could be “our Hugo Chávez,” the iconic former Venezuelan President who challenged his country’s oligarchs and empowered millions of ordinary Venezuelans by promoting a “socialism of the twenty-first century.”

This hope that Duterte is or could be our Chávez – some even say our Allende – must surely be an expression of many Filipinos’ yearning for radical change. It is a “sigh of the oppressed creature” that likely has its material basis in conditions similar to Venezuela’s.

Unfortunately, a brief review of Duterte’s early actions and of the Venezuelan experience indicate that Duterte is unlikely to wage the kind radical change many yearn for.

Right-wing populist in ‘socialist’s' clothing?

To begin with, Duterte himself has made it very clear that he does not intend to challenge what socialists consider to be the roots of oppression and inequality in society.

On the contrary, he has declared in no uncertain terms that he will “continue and maintain the current macroeconomic policies” of the outgoing administration: policies that, by prioritizing the interests of corporations above working peoples and nature, have largely benefited elites and certain sections of the middle class while hurting the majority and degrading the environment.

In fact, instead of rolling back neoliberalism, Duterte plans to take it even farther by doing what former administrations have wanted but failed to do: remove the remaining constitutional restriction on foreign investments once and for all.

In addition, he intends to push for federalism: a project that claims to give more power to the provinces but is actually meant to force them to compete with each other for investments by adopting the most business-friendly policies – i.e. the worst labor laws or the weakest environmental regulations – and to prevent the poorer provinces from sharing in the wealth generated in the more favored provinces.

Finally, Duterte seeks to reinforce neoliberalism by intensifying the repression of workers. Not only has he “joked” about killing workers who refuse to compromise with capitalists (while refraining from “joking” about punishing capitalists who refuse to compromise with workers), he has refused to include ending “contractualization” and increasing wages in his “10-Point Economic Program.”

Instead, he has announced plans to enforce a “war on drugs,” a liquor ban, and other measures that, while presented as measures to curb crime, are actually meant to discipline the poor and turn them into docile, productive workers. They will target the shirtless kanto boys drinking gin bulag in the street corner while sparing the executives in gray suits downing whisky over at the City of Dreams.

Perhaps all this explain why Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg and other business groups – normally the first to raise hell and threaten a capital strike whenever real socialists threaten to take office – have happily welcomed Duterte’s election.

In addition to reinforcing neoliberalism, Duterte has also made it clear that he does not intend to challenge patriarchy. Though he has voiced support for pro-women measures, he has famously “joked” about rape and has denigrated LGBTQIA+s, thus encouraging the very attitudes that render ineffective some of the very policies he claims to champion.

Duterte has also left no doubts on where he stands on the question of authoritarianism. Not only has he threatened to crush the opposition using Marcosian measures ‘if necessary,’ he has even vowed to bury the dictator in the country’s Libingan ng mga Bayani, thereby bolstering the Right’s claim that Marcos is a “hero.”

Finally, despite his supposed hostility towards the US, Duterte does not support abrogating the agreements that allow the US to maintain military basing in the Philippines.

Duterte’s words and plans contrast markedly with those of Chávez.

Unlike Duterte who, despite his much-vaunted membership in left groups in his youth, did not actually pursue a socially transformative agenda as mayor of Davao and only engaged in an instrumentalist, top-down “alliance” with one section of the left when he was in office, Chávez was already an active and committed militant already working closely with social movements to push for radical change even before coming to power.

Though the “Bolivarian Revolution” he subsequently led was far from perfect, he was a consistent critic of capitalism and imperialism, and he broke decisively with neoliberalism and promoted a form of radical social democracy when he was in office.

In addition, he opened up broader societal discussions relating to patriarchy, homophobia, and racism, all of which he explicitly condemned.

And despite constant charges that he was a dictator, Chávez, who overcame a military coup in 2002 through popular support, was elected and re-elected five times with growing support and turnout. All this occurred without fraud, and Jimmy Carter famously called Venezuela’s electoral system “the best in the world.”

Towards populist neoliberalism?

To be sure, Duterte is by no means just another run-of-the-mill neoliberal.

Indeed, unlike the outgoing Philippine President, for example, Duterte has appointed leftists to important cabinet posts (land reform, social welfare, and education), put a critic of mining in charge of the environment, has voiced support for ‘national industrialization,’ and has vowed to resume peace talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).

But all these “plus points” or contradictions do not necessarily make him less of a neoliberal. They only make him a different – because more populist – kind of neoliberal.

Thus, even as he has surrounded himself with leftists, Duterte has reserved the core of the state – i.e. the finance and economic planning departments—to a businessman whose family is deeply invested in mining and a mainstream economist who has already assured businessmen that he and others will work to “temper” the “enthusiasm” of  left-leaning secretaries in the Duterte Cabinet.

Sharing Duterte’s commitment to neoliberal macroeconomic policies, these pro-capital secretaries – not the leftists – will ultimately control the most important levers of state power, deciding the level of government spending, the interest rate, and other policies that set iron limits to whatever reforms the leftists may try to pursue in office.

Consequently, no matter how “enthusiastic” the leftist Secretaries may be, they will only likely end up being tasked with absorbing the popular dissatisfaction that will likely result as Duterte – trying to do a Bonaparte by balancing the needs of business with the demands of his lower-class supporters – throws (possibly larger) crumbs to the poor while ultimately favoring capital on the most fundamental questions.

In short, they will likely only be asked to perform the same role that capital has happily allowed the left to perform in history: clean up after their mess – and then take the blame.

As for Duterte’s openness to a peace deal with the CPP, some concessions that may improve the well-being of oppressed groups in the countryside may potentially be “won” and must of course be welcomed.

But the over-all goal of such a deal – long sought by the more farsighted sections of the Filipino property-owning class – has also long been clear: to pacify the countryside so as to open it up for the deeper penetration of capital.

On this point, it is worth stressing that Duterte’s closest allies are deeply invested in extractive industries, his top campaign contributor owns vast plantations, and his core of supporters appear to be mainly relatively nouveau-riche property-owners from the periphery: those who went to the Holy Cross Academy of Digos rather than to Ateneo High, those who studied in San Beda or Adamson rather than UP Law or Wharton, those who chill at the Marco Polo instead of the Manila Pen – those, in short, who have so far been relatively shut out of Imperial Manila’s cacique-dominated inner circles and therefore seek a “revolution” in intra-elite relations.

All belong to that "marginalized" section of the ruling class that has been trying to get a larger share of the spoils by opening up the countryside to capital through neoliberal decentralization. None has a necessary interest in mitigating the contradictions of capitalist penetration in such a way as to favor the oppressed classes.

So Duterte may indeed push elites to make concessions to the oppressed – only for them to take those concessions back as they bring “development,” i.e. more enclosures, more dispossession, and more ecological degradation, to the countryside.

Chávez was different. Though he was by no means the paragon of socialist virtue, he did not simply seek to replace one elite faction with another or to establish a kind of neoliberalism with a "human face."

Despite various shortcomings – particularly an inability to reduce Venezuela’s extreme dependence on oil, and a tendency for his radical discourse to outpace state practices, partly due to limited capacity – Chávez promoted real socialist development measures that actually sought to challenge or disrupt the logic of capitalism. Examples include a thoroughgoing land reform, and the (re)nationalization of the oil, steel, telecommunications and electricity sectors. 

Further, Chávez more than doubled state spending on healthcare and education and, in a contradictory way, pushed participatory democracy and tried to build the ‘popular power’ needed to overcome the limits a capitalist state imposes on attempts at radical change.

As a result, Venezuelan workers and other subordinate groups experienced vast improvements in access to healthcare, education, housing, and pensions. Poverty was cut in half between 2003 and 2008, with extreme poverty falling by 72%, so that by 2012 Venezuela had become Latin America’s most equitable country. 

Alliance with ‘passive revolutionaries’? 

Given what we know about Duterte and Chávez, then, there seems little reason to hope that Duterte and the elites around him can be pushed to fight for the kind of socialism that Chávez and the Venezuelans sought to build.

He and his friends may indeed be setting out to wage a “revolution” – but a revolution closer to what sociologists, building on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, have conceptualized as a  “passive revolution”: a revolution from above that uses leftist rhetoric, deploys leftist individuals, and even mobilizes the "masses" but to ultimately reinforce rather than challenge capitalism.

If this were the case, allying with Duterte – or selectively criticizing his policies while mobilizing people to defend his administration – may not necessarily be the more "mature" or more "sophisticated" strategy to achieve social justice. 

For even if combined with constant admonitions to "stay vigilant," amplifying (or refusing to question) Duterte’s specious claim that he is the country’s first socialist President will only likely further de-mobilize and divide the popular classes as some internalize the view that they already have a “kasama” in the state and as the section of the left "in power" comes to have a stake (and material interests) in ensuring that that putative “kasama” also stays in power.

But with the popular classes de-mobilized and with the left more fragmented, the only political forces capable of pushing for radical transformation will also likely be paralyzed: exactly what Duterte and his faction needs for them to succeed in their “revolution” and thwart radical change.

This is not to say, of course, that Duterte should not be pushed to act like a real socialist. Indeed, his very claim to be a “comrade” opens up a possibility closed under previous Presidents: it allows social movements to escalate their popular mobilizations against contractualization, land-grabbing, etc. saying “If you are really a kasama, Mr President, how can you possibly order the police to disperse our protests? How can you possibly be in favor of anti-worker or anti-poor policies?”

Towards autonomous, independent Left

But to prevent Duterte and his friends from hijacking these popular mobilizations and instrumentalizing them in their struggle to revolutionize intra-elite relations, we can perhaps learn a thing or two from our Venezuelan compañeros who have withstood more than a decade of destabilization attempts.

Faced with unending efforts by the elites to divide them and mobilize the poor’s anger to stabilize the system, they stood their ground, vigilantly defended their autonomy, and escalated antagonistic mobilizations against US-backed Venezuelan elites seeking to oust socialists from power – while also simultaneously continuing to put pressure on those socialists in power.

Today, all those seeking to push the Bolivarian revolution forward are under siege as oil prices fall, as Chávez’s successor staggers under the problems of mismanagement, and as elites take advantage of their weakness to attempt to return to power.

But the Chavista dream – of building a genuinely democratic form of socialism marked by worker and community control over economic and political decision-making – lives on. Indeed, this aspiration may just be what Filipinos are actually expressing when they say that Duterte could be “our Chávez.”

Unfortunately, Duterte’s words and actions give us little reason to believe that he actually shares that dream. – Rappler.com

Herbert Docena is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley while Gabriel Hetland is an assistant professor of Latin American, Caribbean, and US Latino Studies at University at Albany, SUNY.