THE FILIPINO NORM OF MORALITY
Vitaliano R. Gorospe, S.J.

**************************************************************
WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: (Caution: Lest the reader might think I am taking a moral high ground, please note that I am not a christian; but I know about christianity learned in my youth and adulthood. Jesus is one of the great sages.)

Some of the church people always talk about the lack of morality, more appropriately social morality/responsibility as it applies to our perennial, national political-economic crises.

For 480 years and counting, most of us Filipinos have been taught or inherited the Catholic/Christian religion. For some reason/s, there obviously is something wrong in the inherited teaching (or method of teaching) since we have become superficial, truly nominal or "split-level" Christians. One can call it "hypocrisy".

Ignorant of the history and essence of christianity: we, like parrots, recite those various incantations/prayers we learned by rote; we, like robots, observe those religious holidays, church rites and other symbols of Catholicism without really understanding what they mean or stand for; we are more concerned about following the Catholic Church as an institution, its rules and teachings than the supposed ideas of Jesus which somehow gave birth to Christianity as a cult/sect, then grow into an institutionalized religion (would Jesus have wanted to be the object of adoration rather than the object of emulation?). [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/when-our-religion-becomes-evil-our.html]

It is long overdue that self-proclaimed Catholics and Christians of all variety learn, think and understand authentic Christianity. True Christianity is about consistency and honesty. It is consistency to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to one of two that I think is most relevant and important in society: christian love = love of neighbor (not the sexual healing kind).

This teaching has not been internalized, not made integral into the character of Filipino Christians. Therefore as applied to our homeland, and more specifically to those Catholics who are, economically and politically, in power and thus can do something about the predicament of the majority, it has not been applied; at worst, it has knowingly been ignored.

It is about christian love, not the lovey-dovey kind, but honest concern, decisions and actions FOR the impoverished majority. All other stuff about religion which we learned in the catholic schools, we can throw out the window.

Below an article that can help us understand ourselves; about our Filipino attitudes and behaviors, which we are all familiar with but not really analyzed and understood, especially as to their inconsistent relations to the self-proclaimed Christianity. Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ clarified this inconsistency so many years ago.

“I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an EDUCATION.” - Wilson Mizner, 1876-1933, American Author

“The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us a hierarchy of values: man comes first, and the Sabbath second. Public, social and ecclesiastical institutions exist for man, and not the other way round. We, like the Samaritan, must first of all see the man, his status in society notwithstanding, his splendid clothes or pauper's rags notwithstanding.” – Fr. Victor Potapov, Rector, Russian Orthodox Cathedral

"We receive and we give not to others. We praise generosity, but we deprive the poor of it. We are freed slaves, but we do not pity our companions who remain under the yoke. We were hungry, and now have a surfeit of possessions, but we ignore the needy. While we have God as a magnificent patron and provider, we have been stingy towards the poor and refuse to share the goods with them. Our sheep are fruitful, but more numerous are the people who go naked. Our barns are too small to contain all that we possess and yet we do not pity those who anguish." - St. Basil

***************************************************************

A way of looking at the problem of morality in the Philippines is to consider the actual and prevailing norms of right and wrong among Filipinos. It is quite obvious that there is a conflict between what they say as Christians and what they do as Filipinos; between their actual Filipino behavior and their ideal Christian behavior; in short, between what is and what ought to be.

One norm of morality in the Philippines is based on "group-centeredness" or "group-thinking." One's in-group determines for the individual what is right or wrong. The individual who has not yet attained moral independence and maturity will ask: " What will my family, or my relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?" "What will others say" usually determines Filipino moral behavior; it is "conscience from the outside." For instance, parents tell their daughter who is being courted: "Iha, please entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go outside. What will the neighbors say? Nakakahiya naman." Shame or hiya makes the parents and the girl conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest they become the object of chismis or gossip. Here again there is a conflict between the individual and social morality, between internal and external morality. The norm of morality should be internalized so that the mature individual should form his own moral "conscience from the inside."

Another norm of morality in the Philippines is characterized by the "Don't be caught" attitude based on shame or fear of the authority figure. The authority figure may be a parent, teacher, priest or policeman. As one law student puts it:" What's wrong witrh cheating in the bar examinations as long as you do not get caught?" During the war, it is told that a prison official of Muntinglupa addressed his new prisoners thus: " Here there are no Ten Commandments. You can obey or break the rules as you please. But God help you if you get caught." Thisa norm of moral behavior also gives rise to a conflict in the individual between the "don'ts" of the authority figure and "what every else does" in the latter's absence. As long as a policemen is on duty, Filipino drivers will obey traffic rules but if there is no policeman, then everyone else tries make puslit or get ahead of the others often causing a traffic jam.

We find in the Filipino whose norm of behavior is purely external, a split between the ideal Christian norm of morality and the actual Filipino norm of morality. He will put on the externals of Christian moral behavior in front of the authority figure while at the same time follow in "real life" an inconsistent moral behavior when the latter is "at a distance."

The problem for the Filipino individual is to be "aware" that the two inconsistent norms of morality are allowed to coexist in his personality and life and that he must overcome this split if he is to become a mature Christian Filipino.

What can be done about the problem of morality in the Philippines? In this respect, the question of attitudes, whether on the part of the individual or on that of society as a whole, is quite relevant. The solution to a problem depends to a great extent on one's awareness of the problem and his attitude towards it. Let us consider the various attitudes that the Filipino indiidual or Philippine society can take towards the problem of morality and religion.

The worst possible attitude is not to be aware of the problem at all. The person who is not aware that he has a cancer or heart trouble will not see the doctor. Another wrong attitude is complacency when one is aware but is not concerned. The individual who feels secure and comfortable with the status quo sees no need for change. Some individuals see the problem but it is too frightening. Hence they are afraid to make a decision and initiate change because it is painful and difficult. This is the attitude of timidity. Others try to escape from their real problems. They skirt confrontation with the real issue in their lives and hence raise up pseudo problems as camouflage.

Finally a very common attitude is rationalization. People who know they are doing wrong but do not want to change easily find excesses like "ako'y tao lamang" (I'm but human), "ganyan lamang ang buhay" (life is like hat), "bahala na" (come what may), or "eveybody is doing it." In this age of "passing the buck", another excuse for shrinking personal responsibility is the Filipinism, "I am not the one".

All these attitudes of mind are wrong and without the proper attitude there can be no solution to the problem. Filipinos will make no progress toward a Christian solution until they realize that the problem is serious and urgent.

(Source: extracted from Fr. Gorospe's article on Christian Renewal, 1966)

“You know your god is man-made if it hates the same people you do.” – UseNet

“Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.” – Blaise Pascal

THE COMMON GOOD

“There is no higher RELIGION than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.'' - Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1965, German Born Medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician, and Philosopher

************************

NOTES TO READERS:  

1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. PLEASE SHARE: Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. THANKS!!

2. Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:

Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines

3. Instantly translate to any of 71 foreign languages. Go to the sidebar on the right to choose your language. Fellow native Filipinos translation in Cebuano and Tagalog.

4. The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out."  My apologies...The selected topics are not for entertainment but to stimulate deep, serious thoughts per my MISSION Statement and hopefully to rock our boat of ignorance, apathy, complacency, and hopefully lead to active citizenship.

*************************

LET US NOT KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND

REMINDER: March 3, 2022. The total number of postings to date =578. Use keywords in the sidebar: PAST POSTINGS, Click LABEL (sorted by the number of related posts) to access.

CACIQUE DEMOCRACY. DEJA VU.

WE NATIVE FILIPINOS LEFT BEHIND IN ASIA.

***

From the time of our Katipunan revolutionaries fought and died against the Spanish rule, and against American interference and colonization then, our society has been administered by a "cacique, " the socio-economic elite in cahoots with foreigners against their fellow native Filipino majority, kept them poor, illiterate, and thus ignorant.

A socioeconomic and political system designed to perpetuate a class-defined society, a class-conscious country, divided and never really becoming a nation.

We are schooled heavily about political democracy but do not know that economic democracy is a prerequisite to fully realizing it. We have been conditioned to believe that mere and regular election makes a democracy; an illusion in reality.

We native Filipinos keep ourselves ignorant of history, of “what’s really going on” in our homeland then and now; and thus, by default, never learn.

We continue to be lost -having failed or refused to look in the mirror- believing in fate rather than about us people causing the cliche “history keeps repeating itself” true and valid.

That is why it's Deja vu every time.

- BMD

#primaryposts

Hi All,

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: When politicians, businessmen, clergymen, journalists, and citizens talk of or pay lip service to the "common good", they are dealing with one of the main questions in political philosophy.

The "common good" or "public good" is really an abbreviated term covering deep and vast issues. Simply interpreted, it refers to the " just and/or fair distribution of material goods, of freedoms and rights" in society.

Hereunder is a brief discussion on this concept of the "common good". While the authors comment on American society, their ideas also apply to our homeland society.

*************************

The Common Good
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, University of Santa Clara, San Jose, CA

Commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote: "We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect their own benefits." Newsweek is not the only voice calling for a recognition of and commitment to the "common good." Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics, argues that solving the current crisis in our health care system--rapidly rising costs and dwindling access--requires replacing the current "ethic of individual rights" with an "ethic of the common good".

Appeals to the common good have also surfaced in discussions of business' social responsibilities, discussions of environmental pollution, discussions of our lack of investment in education, and discussions of the problems of crime and poverty. Everywhere, it seems, social commentators are claiming that our most fundamental social problems grow out of a widespread pursuit of individual interests.

What exactly is "the common good," and why has it come to have such a critical place in current discussions of problems in our society? The common good is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage". The Catholic religious tradition, which has a long history of struggling to define and promote the common good, defines it as "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment."

The common good, then, consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, an effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.

As these examples suggest, the common good does not just happen. Establishing and maintaining the common good requires the cooperative efforts of some, often of many, people. Just as keeping a park free of litter depends on each user picking up after himself, so also maintaining the social conditions from which we all benefit requires the cooperative efforts of citizens. But these efforts pay off, for the common good is a good to which all members of society have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. All persons, for example, enjoy the benefits of clean air or an unpolluted environment, or any of our society's other common goods. In fact, something counts as a common good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access.

It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the common good. But numerous observers have identified a number of obstacles that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so.

First, according to some philosophers, the very idea of a common good is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes "the good life for human beings", differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been heard. Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environments we will all pitch in to support.

And even if we agreed upon what we all value, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us. While all may agree, for example, that an affordable health system, a healthy educational system, and a clean environment are all parts of the common good, some will say that more should be invested in health than in education, while others will favor directing resources to the environment over both health and education. Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the common good. In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group's preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.

A second problem encountered by proponents of the common good is what is sometimes called the "free-rider problem". The benefits that a common good provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to do their part to maintain the common good. Individuals can become "free riders" by taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good. An adequate water supply, for example, is a common good from which all people benefit. But to maintain an adequate supply of water during a drought, people must conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they know that so long as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without reducing their own consumption. If enough people become free riders in this way, the common good which depends on their support will be destroyed. Many observers believe that this is exactly what has happened to many of our common goods, such as the environment or education, where the reluctance of all people to support efforts to maintain the health of these systems has led to their virtual collapse.

The third problem encountered by attempts to promote the common good is that of individualism. our historical traditions place a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to "do her own thing". Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference from others. In this individualistic culture, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the "common good". Our cultural traditions, in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not have to contribute to the community's common good, but should be left free to pursue her own personal ends.

Finally, appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a common good often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their lives depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens "for the sake of the common good", is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods.

All of these problems pose considerable obstacles to those who call for an ethic of the common good. Still, appeals to the common good ought not to be dismissed. For the urge us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. They also challenge us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to recognize and further those goals we share in common.


"He does much who loves God much, and he does much who does his deed well, and he does his deed well who does it rather for the COMMON GOOD than for his own will." - Thomas Ń Kempis, 1379-1471, German Monk, Mystic, Religious Writer

“The HEALTH of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend.” – Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881, British Statesman, Prime Minister

CHARTER CHANGE, GATS, AND PRESIDENTIAL SURVIVAL

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: Filipinos, especially those among us in the homeland, who are directly and adversely affected tend to be "lost in the trees and not see the forest". We get bogged down and spent on personalities among our so-called leadership who, then and now, still have no honest desires and actions that would lead to public good. It is so discouraging and outrageous to see an endless charade to "fool the people, buy the people and off the people."

No individual person can be truly independent when he is burdened with debt/credit and close to bankruptcy. And similarly, no individual country can be truly free when it is burdened with odious foreign debt. In both cases, the individual is a slave. The debt-ridden person goes to work to pay for his debt while the debt-ridden country offers its natives the hardships and dangers of impoverishment while leaving their offsprings a mortgaged future.

We Filipinos continue to seemingly enjoy and suffer ad nauseam all these political insults to our intelligence, not realizing that for so long we have been trapped in a cage, maybe a bit larger than usual, wherein we can "jump and run around" (talk about cha-cha, change in form of government, attract foreign investment, sell our patrimony, better tax collection, etc.) while we unwittingly deprive ourselves and our young and unborn a decent, dignified and more humane existence.
(see: http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/filipinos-in-cage-in-pursuit-to.html]

Thanks to the endless supply of such costly entertainment that constantly distract us, we have allowed the foreigners to come and plunder our women and children, our agriculture and nascent industries, our country and our national patrimony.

Frankly, our country is not a nation; a nation connotes a united people, which we are not. And our disunity, due to the absence of Filipino nationalism, is a gross disadvantage - to ourselves; and a gross advantage - to foreigners.
[see: http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what-is-filipino-nationalism-mrs.html and http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/12/impediments-to-filipino-nationalism.html]

Below an article by Joseph YU from IBON (an NGO) on the issue of Charter Change and its hidden agenda.

“Nations whose NATIONALISM is destroyed are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan Political and Military Leader

"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini La Revolucion Filipina (1898)

“In the long-run every Government is the exact symbol of its People, with their WISDOM and UNWISDOM; we have to say, Like People like Government. “ - Thomas Carlyle, 1795-1881, Scottish Philosopher, Author

**********************************************************************************************

The Arroyo administration is banking on Charter change for its political survival, but amid the hulabaloo on the political aspects of Cha-cha, it should remembered that its proponents also want to change vital economic provisions in the Charter.

By Joseph Yu

IBON Features-- As President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo struggles to hold on to the presidency, it seems her only hope lies in amending the Constitution. Charter change and the false hopes it offers are Arroyo’s last chance to avert not just another popular uprising that would sweep her from power, but a more extreme political scenario such as a military junta.

The Arroyo administration is also urgently pursuing Charter change due to the current economic and financial crisis resulting from its adherence to globalization policies. The government is in dire economic straits as liberalization of trade and investment has substantially eroded domestic sources of industrial and agrarian growth, and resulted in a brewing balance of payments crisis.

Public debate on Charter change has so far revolved around the manner of changing the Constitution and the political “reforms” involved. Hence: a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention. A presidential vs. a parliamentary system.

But in the midst of all the hulabaloo about the political aspects of Charter change, some people seem to have forgotten that proponents of Constitutional reform also want to change vital economic provisions in the Charter. These changes would ease the entry of foreign investments in sectors that were previously restricted to Filipinos. Although Charter change would result in a short-term economic boost as a result of an influx of foreign direct investments (FDI), it would be at the cost of further long-term damage to the local economy.

Undermining Economic Sovereignty

The 1987 Constitution has not successfully regulated the country’s trade and investment relations with other countries towards developing national industries and domestic agriculture. The most that can be said is that the Constitution has partially contained the full implementation of globalization policies and forced monopoly capitalists-- with the cooperation of the government-- to find ways to bypass, subvert or totally disregard it.

The concept of economic sovereignty is in fact enshrined in the Constitution’s Declaration of Principles, which says that the State shall: develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos; and pursue an independent foreign policy whose paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

Specific Charter provisions on economic sovereignty include:

• Restricting foreign ownership, the degree of foreigners’ involvement in decision-making and the grounds of expropriation;
• Regulating the exploration, development and use of the national patrimony and defining corresponding rights, privileges and concessions;
• Giving preference to Filipinos and stating the responsibility to protect, encourage and promote Filipino economic activity;
• Giving the state various powers with which to assert national sovereignty, specifically in terms of: regulating trade, monopolies and other economic activity in the public interest and in favor of Filipinos; defining the State’s treaty making powers; and giving the Supreme Court the power to assert the Constitution’s nationalist provisions.

In principle, these provisions could be used to assert the Philippines’ economic sovereignty at least in a limited way. In practice however, administrations from Ramos to Arroyo have seen these as barriers to foreign direct investments that should be removed. It has even undermined these provisions by ratifying the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and becoming a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and by passing laws such as the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

Foreign chambers of commerce and other big business interests have also not been shy about revealing their preferences for Charter change. The US, in particular, has been very vocal in criticizing restrictions on foreign ownership of land and other nationality requirements in public utilities (i.e. electricity, water, telecommunications, public transport) and other sectors such as banking and advertising.

Foreign Domination of Services

Charter change is also in line with government’s commitments to open the economy under the WTO. This would lead to transnational corporations gaining control of vital sectors of the domestic economy.

Recently, the government announced that it would open six service sectors to foreign investors under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The offer covers information technology (IT), construction, distribution, energy, and environmental and tourism services. Constitutional “reform” would ease the process of opening these sectors to foreign investors.

For example, investing in the environmental services sector (which includes water and sewerage) would be more attractive to outside investors if total foreign control would be allowed. Although water services have been privatized, full foreign ownership is still prohibited under the Constitution.

The offer to liberalize the construction and energy sectors covers services incidental to the mining industry. After the Supreme Court recently upheld the 1995 Mining Act, government is hell-bent on liberalizing the industry, in violation of the Constitution and at the expense of indigenous peoples and small communities who oppose mining on their lands. Removing economic sovereignty provisions in the Charter would preclude later legal challenges to foreign control of these sectors.

Adherence to GATS itself should be prohibited under the Constitution because of its requirement for WTO members to extend most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to trading partners. MFN treatment means that if a country allows foreign presence in a sector, it must allow equal opportunities in that sector to service providers from all other WTO member-nations.

But it can also be interpreted to mean that a government cannot provide incentives to domestic providers of a service without providing the same incentives to foreign providers. This sharply restricts government’s powers to develop the local economy by protecting it against competition from foreign providers. This goes against Article XII Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which says that the State shall “protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.”

It should also be noted that MFN treatment applies even if a country has made no specific commitments to provide foreign companies access to its markets under the WTO.

Presidential Survival Tactics

The Arroyo administration is banking on Charter change for its political survival. In a recent speech before 500 Philippine consuls and honorary consuls to the US and Filipino-American investors, Arroyo once again pledged that she would speed up constitutional amendments.

But it is clear that the real motive behind Charter change is to remove Constitutional provisions on economic sovereignty that hamper transnational corporations’ full exploitation of the country’s natural resources and labor.

Charter change advocates also aim to tighten their control over the political system by diluting the Charter’s provisions on civil liberties and human rights. This would allow them to stifle dissent over their iniquitous economic policies. Moves towards the intensification of state repression are already evident with the rash of killings of activists.

Admittedly, the 1987 Constitution is not perfect. But for all its weaknesses, it must be prevented from becoming worse through Charter change. It is not the Constitution itself that is the root of the people’s social and economic problems. The basic problems of the country are foreign domination, factionalism of elite politics, bad governance and feudal bondage-- and any Charter emerging amidst these problems can only be worse.

Meaningful constitutional change can only take place when it is driven by the people’s true economic and political interests rather than in response to the demands of foreign interests. IBON Features

"If the people are not completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own." - George Washington, shortly after the end of the American Revolution

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain" - Thomas Jefferson, 1809

"The chief business of America is business" - President Calvin Coolidge, 1925

"The glory of the United States is business" - Wendell L. Willkie, 1936

"What else do bankers do -- walk-in and turn-off the lights in the country." - William Slee, 1978

http://www.ibon.org/index.php

IBON Features is a media service of IBON Foundation, an independent economic policy and research institution. When reprinting this feature, please credit IBON Features and give the byline when applicable.

Authentic Christianity and About the Poor - Listen to those closest to the Problem

ABOUT THE POOR: LISTEN TO THOSE CLOSEST TO THE PROBLEM
Authentic Christianity in Society

**************************************************
WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: In the Y2004 Philippine election as in the past, we and many opinion-makers always campaign against candidates who have great popularity with the impoverished masses. We always prefer so-called educated ones, somebody like us, middle class and above, church-going and church-supported, afraid and mistrustful of the hungry multitude.



The Cartholic/Protestant churches, ministries and members should discard their escapist piety which consequently support the status quo by default, if not by choice; and need to reorient their emphasis to implement the historical Jesus' revolutionary vision; which the double-standard, late Pope John Paul II discouraged among Latin Americans in the 1980s: Liberation Theology (which would apply to Philippine realities).



John Paul II encouraged the Polish Solidarity labor movement against the communist regime in his homeland till the latter's downfall; then he subsequently castigated church leadership in Latin America who were advocating or applying their theology of what the church should represent and do in a capitalistic-military dictatorhip; and contributed to the demise of the Nicaraguan revolutionary government (its foreign minister a priest).

Below is an article about the poor in America. However it is quite applicable to Filipino attitude/thinking and Philippine reality, to Filipino Christians in all their flavors or varieties. It is a good article from Jim Wallis [founder of the Sojourner], a liberal-evangelical (an oxymoron?) Christian.



[ADDENDUM: The needs of our homeland are beyond social welfare - a palliative,i.e. the 25-centavos "Pondo ng Pinoy", or "Gawad Kalinga" housings are laudable but only encourage the perennial neglect by the government. When the sole purpose of government is to be "by the people, for the people and of the people", that is, to serve the people, to provide for the "common good".



The ruling elite, who in our case controls the government and has mainly caused the national predicament, has not lived its professed christianity; and instead ignored the needed, fundamental reforms for decades. Thus, the higher probability that socioeconomic and political changes for the common good will be brought about only by radical, even violent, means.]



"A society that treats any serious segment of its population with distaste or disrespect runs the risk of convincing that group of its own inadequacy and thus alienating it from identification with the group and allegiance of its moral codes." - Willard Gaylin, MD, President/Founder, Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences
***************************************************************

Listen to Those Closest to the Problem

"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him. The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see." (Mark 10:51)My wife tells the story of a young priest facing a tough assignment—his first attempt to teach a Sunday school class. Eager to be accepted by the kids, he tried to portray himself as very casual and accessible. He sat on the edge of a desk and asked a question of the wide-eyed children. "Hey kids," he said. "What’s gray, furry, gathers nuts, and runs up and down trees?" There was a long pause while the kids looked at each other with puzzled faces. Finally, one little boy ventured an answer, "Well, I know the answer should be Jesus...but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me!"



The story reminds us that there are not always easy religious answers to every problem. Nevertheless, some of the most successful efforts in dealing with poverty and violence are emerging from faith communities—meaning not only churches and congregations, but a myriad of religiously and spiritually based nonprofit organizations. And many of those efforts teach us a clear lesson: Listen to those closest to the problem.



LISTENING TO THELMA
Who do we listen to and who do we trust? Trust is essential to listening. Why do we continue to believe the myth that poor people don’t know anything and can’t be trusted? Where do you really find the truth about a society, at the top or at the bottom? Are the best solutions conceived in the corridors of power or in the neighborhoods? Do the poor really have no assets or resources as most people think? Listening to the poor opens up whole new possibilities, ideas, and directions in overcoming poverty


.Why listen to the poor?
Well, there are good biblical and ethical reasons. But there are also just plain practical reasons. Many youth and community-serving programs have found that they couldn’t get off the ground until they began to truly trust and engage and involve the people they were trying to serve. Many good and decent programs didn’t become highly successful until the poor themselves were given a real hearing and became involved in their leadership. The presence of the poor in the discussion makes all the difference. I can testify to this fact.



When young people are at the table for a discussion of youth violence and what to do about it, the conversation is very different than what it otherwise would be. Too often, the discussions we have about poverty only involve the people who are working to overcome it. But we usually don’t listen to the poor. On the contrary, it’s easy to pick on poor people. We do it all the time in America. But living and working with those who are poor gives you a whole different perspective.



Thelma used to live next door. She and her family were there before we arrived in the neighborhood some 20 years ago. Thelma’s husband had died, so the responsibility of keeping the family together fell to her. And she did it well. Three generations grew up in that house with, as far as we could see, good "family values." But because Thelma could never afford a down payment, she could never buy her house. One of our tenant organizers sat down with Thelma one day, and they figured out that she had paid for her place several times over in rent. Over the years, she was the most stable figure in the ever-changing history of a house that had had several owners during the period of her residence. The last owner was the D.C. government, which had done nothing to help Thelma own her own home. Instead, without fixing the plumbing or a leaking roof, they raised the rent again. Thelma just couldn’t afford it. One day, when I came home from a long trip, I was shocked to see that Thelma had moved out and her place had been boarded up.



Ever since, we’ve had to fight to keep it from becoming a rat-infested crack house.Thelma never got the equity from her housing investment that might have helped put her kids through college. She never received the home ownership mortgage tax deduction, a far bigger entitlement for the middle class than welfare is for the poor. And she never could get the parental help that many middle-class folks receive, a loan for the down payment on their first home. Listening to people like Thelma taught our community organizers more about the housing problem in America than attending meetings at the Department of Housing and Urban Development ever did.



There is a parable here. It’s about class, and race, and the economic system. It’s not about Thelma’s failures. Sure, poor people can make bad choices that entrench them in poverty. But there’s more to it than that. In fact, bad personal choices can have far more severe results for the poor than the well off. That’s why we are very tough at Sojourners Neighborhood Center about young people making the right choices in life and not further compounding the poverty they’ve already started with.



But there are always social and structural reasons why some people are poor and others are not. For example, it would not be difficult for America to figure out a fair way for low-income families to buy their own homes, and that would make a great difference in the fight to overcome poverty. But we have chosen not to do it.‘WE DIDN’T END POVERTY, WE SERVICED IT.’



The Bible sees those societal choices as moral failures. Instead of ignoring the poor, it tells us, we should listen to them, pay attention to them, and even evaluate our success as a society by how we treat them. It’s not that poor people are different or better than anyone else. Not at all. Living and working in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country for 25 years has taught me that those at the bottom have all the good and bad in them that people do anywhere else. But from a moral viewpoint, those at the bottom are the litmus test for the health of the whole society. That is both a religious insight and the beginning of political wisdom.



If you want to really know the truth about a society, look to its bottom rungs. The perspective is clearer there and less subject to varnish and illusion. That’s where you find out what is really going on and how best to change it. You are unlikely to learn it in any other place because, in part, the political and media centers that disseminate information about the society don’t want people to really know what is happening at the bottom.



An honest view from the bottom is usually uncomfortable for those at the top. Our traditional approach to the problems of poverty has been far too bureaucratic. We don’t talk about the meaning of community, we just engage in endless arguments over resources and allocations. Now we’ve created a whole "poverty industry," a professional social welfare bureaucracy that is rich in procedures and regulations but poor in genuine compassion and real connection to people.Unless we discover a new sense of family and community in America, we will never face our issues of poverty and racism.



Where will we find the reconciling practices to bring the disparate parts of the American family together? How do we begin talking about "we" instead of talking about "us" and "them"? Developing the big "we" will take a common vision and strategy "that will resonate around our kitchen table," as veteran anti-poverty organizer Tom Jones puts it. He says, "Our great national initiatives in civil rights, women’s rights, and the environment drew upon our collective social conscience, our sense of justice and fairness, and our confidence in creating opportunities. 


But it’s been different with poverty."Jones says candidly, after four decades of grassroots organizing and coalition building, "I think we have in the end attempted to resolve poverty with networks of professionals working in a well-meaning, yet palliative social welfare industry, allocating an inadequate amount of resources to make life barely endurable for the poor.

We didn’t end poverty, we serviced it. Notwithstanding the billions of dollars and armies of workers and professionals (I include myself and most of my life’s work), we must admit that after four decades, we are left with three significant facts:


 The quality of life for today’s poor is as bad if not worse than it has ever been; the separation and segregation of the poor from the rest of this nation is greater than ever; and more Americans than ever are either denying the degree and extent of poverty in America, or simply don’t care." Jones calls for a commitment that moves beyond the provision of social services "to invigorate a sense of emotion, drama, and outrage around the issues of poverty and racism."



NOT-SO-STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
That will require a mobilization that touches every part of the community. It is a natural role for the religious community to go beyond its own social-service mentality and remember its prophetic calling to seek justice. But it must go beyond the churches to engage the arts, media, academia, business and political leadership, and the hundreds of thousands of community and civic organizations—the civil society—that shape much of our social life. The task is simply to generate a new expression of compassion and resolution in behalf of poor people that connects them to the rest of us. It’s about including people in the family and the body politic.



What will it ultimately take to overcome poverty? It simply won’t happen until we see "the poor" as friends and neighbors, even brothers and sisters, who are not yet known to us. That will take relationship, partnership, and risk more than care, subsidy, and services. It will require our institutions to invest their assets, not just their surplus, and engage the gifts and talents of all their members, not just the leaders. It will require new ways of thinking and acting on the part of all of us. And it will take a reweaving of social relationships in our families and churches, as well as in our schools and workplaces.



We must learn to perceive "the poor" not as a problem to be overcome but as precious resources that have been ignored—people who have gifts and talents that would extend and enrich the community once they are permitted to sit as friends and neighbors in the circles of our lives. Churches and other social institutions must learn to measure poverty as much by the numbers of children and families who are left outside their doors by a lack of welcome, as much as they are left outside the society by bad national policies.



Ultimately, a social climate of shame should apply to those institutions and social bodies who will not come to terms with the "least" of our people, as Jesus would say.Many of the successful social movements that have made a difference in history result from an alliance between middle-class people and poor people. Without the insight that comes from viewing a society from the bottom up and without the energy of the oppressed, middle-class advocates can’t really understand what needs to be changed, nor do they have a constituency that demands it. And without the resources and access that the middle class brings, poor people often don’t have the voice to finally make a difference. The abolitionist and civil rights movements in the United States are good examples of alliances of the middle class and the poor, as are the myriad democratic movements in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and South Africa. Nothing is more satisfying than being part of a movement like that, one that anyone who wants to can join.



BUILDING A ROCKING HORSE
We know that government alone cannot solve the problem of poverty. Real solutions will need involvement from all of us. I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in several successful community-mobilizing efforts in every part of the country. One good example is Springfield, Ohio. We had several days of old-fashioned town meetings, bringing together very diverse churches and nonprofit organizations, business leaders, the mayor and other government officials, and lots of ordinary people. One after another, good ideas and creative initiatives from around the country were discussed by the citizens of Springfield. Poor people themselves were heard, among them a former welfare recipient who lost her child care benefits when she got a raise from $8 to $8.50 per hour. She was trying to better herself, as the society says it wants her to do—yet working, she was poorer than she had been on welfare. This time, local political leaders were on hand to hear her problem. All agreed that some policy changes were in order. They had started to listen to those closest to the problem.



A youth rally drew a racially mixed group of 800 mostly poor young people, attracted by good music, good food, one another, and a dynamic speaker. Sparked by Gary Percesepe, a pastor with organizing energy, a local Call to Renewal roundtable came together, again uniting people who hadn’t worked together before.One result was the Rocking Horse Clinic in Springfield—a new pediatric clinic for low-income children who otherwise would have no health care. The new clinic was inspired by Jim Duffee, a soft-spoken Christian doctor, and funded by two hospitals that had never worked together before. 


It often takes a common project, like the Rocking Horse Clinic, to bring people together and excite a local community.It isn’t easy, but the people of Springfield are developing a common strategy for overcoming poverty—the only way welfare reform will truly work. It’s difficult to get many different groups working together, but the principle of partnership is this: Everybody does their share, and everyone does what they do best. Nobody gets to sit on the sidelines, and everyone brings some answers and some resources. It can work; I’ve seen it over and over again.



Always, the key is listening to those closest to the problem. People often ask me, "Where have you found the strength to stay involved for so long?" or "How have you stuck with it and not burned out?" I’ve asked those questions of myself. But more often I’ve asked myself how I can make the most difference in the world. For me, the answer to both questions is the difference that faith makes. What do I mean by faith? I like the definition used by the biblical writer of Hebrews: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Simply put, faith makes hope possible. And hope is the single most important ingredient for changing the world.



Many people today would like to find some way to practice their faith or spirituality, despite the excesses, corruption, or narrow regulations of religion that have turned them away. I believe the making of the modern Christian, Jew, or Muslim will be through action. When put into action, faith has the capacity to bring people together, to motivate, and to inspire, even across former dividing lines. We demonstrate our faith by putting it into practice and, conversely, if we don’t keep the power of faith in the actions we undertake, our efforts can easily lead to burnout, bitterness, and despair.



The call to action can preserve the authenticity of faith, while the power of faith can save the integrity of our actions. As the biblical apostle James put it many years ago, "Faith without works is dead." Indeed, faith shows itself in works—faith works. – JIM WALLIS





“There is no higher RELIGION than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.'' - Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1965, German Born Medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician, and Philosopher

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed people, the heart of the heartless world, and the soul of the soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people.” – Karl Marx“

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.”- Napoleon Bonaparte

THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS....ARE WE SLOW-DANCING TOWARDS REVOLUTION?

Well, the news says the Catholic hierarchy, i.e.Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), voted not to demand the resignation of the "devout Catholic" Gloria Arroyo - never mind her hypocrisy. No surprise. The predominantly conservative bishops (no more than 10 of about 86 bishops in the homeland may be considered progressive) to keep the kolehiyala Gloria rather than encourage oppositionists of all colors to go into a free-for-all among themselves: the Fidel Ramos-military, former Marcos cronies, born-again Brother Eddie, etc. Had the CBCP called for Gloria to step down, the girl could go down soon through a repeat of an EDSA, given that Filipino Catholics, here and abroad, are mostly a herd of sheeps. [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/when-our-religion-becomes-evil-our.html]

Even in the face of a decades-old and worsening national predicament in the homeland, the CBCP and Catholic followers do not want any radical change in our society. They seem to believe or be mislead that prayers will lead to miracles. The Spanish friars of yesteryears have been replaced not by native, secular clergymen of the heroic GomBurZa variety, but by native versions of the Spanish friars and American missionaries, most of whom were reactionaries, content with their comfortable lives under the status quo while teaching the faithful to practice escapist piety, to forget their dire predicament and suffering, and to look forward to a heavenly afterlife.

Historically, the Christian Church (Catholic or Protestant), where it is or has been the majority, becomes a defender of the status quo. The revolutionary Christ who was crucified by the Romans for being a "de-stabilizer" has been sold out by his so-called modern disciples. Actually, this is characteristically true of all religions that started as a minority, revolutionary cult or sect. Our mainly native Catholics, most especially educated ones and middle class -- have either ignored or not learned from the ascendancy of their Church-anointed "religious and prayerful" Cory Aquino, who grossly failed (we do not have to recount the results of her governance here). We, the so-called educated, should know and do more. We the so-called educated should acknowledge these realities and work with the impoverished majority instead of blaming them. Or all the educated and middle class might as well leave the country and not come back (if we could when we want).

But what are the present alternatives? When most of the major oppositionists to Arroyo are similarly incorrigible and unconscionable opportunists. When a number of them deserve to be put against the wall and shot or put at least behind bars and the keys thrown into the China Sea. Different faces, same people who would use their "gold, goons and guns" to have their way. They are probably church-going Catholics too; these practitioners of "split-level" Christianity. They call all who practice democratic dissent, including those who are Filipino nationalists and/or practicing authentic Christianity as either "communists" or "terrorists" to rationalize their state-sponsored terrorism committed against dissenters.

They do not get bothered, so calloused in heart and mind, by their thievery of government coffers, their corruption and cooptation with foreigners which does violence to the young, the old and the sick, to the ordinary worker and their family: by depriving the majority of the native citizenry of food, medicine, and other essential human needs and services, such as proper education, health care, etc.; their cooptation with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that lead to the death of our native agriculture and industry, consequent loss of millions of jobs and the pillage of our national patrimony. [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/06/multilateral-punishment-wto-and.html].

Now, we have economic deterioration, political deterioration which are ingredients for a revolution. Is a bloody revolution and/or upheaval imminent in our homeland then? I venture to say NO although I am convinced that it is the only way for radical changes, given the almost 60 years of pleadings for peaceful changes (reforms) and promises by the political leaderships that never materialized.

Any revolution against the Arroyo regime or any governing substitute is untimely and irresponsible. A timely and responsible revolution has to have a good probability of success. Timely in the sense that a significant number, if not majority, of the native citizenry are primed for it; responsible in the sense that the native citizenry understands the reasons for it; and successful in the sense that the cost, i.e. human lives to be lost or injured, will be selectively minimized and bring to fruition true and fundamental changes in the economic and political systems and social institutions; all for the "common good" of the native, Malay Filipinos in the homeland.

Right now, I think and believe that a revolutionary situation is not completely present for a successful revolution. A successful revolution in the sense that it will be nationalistic and united, that will remove from power the greedy and unconscionable among the ruling elite and their foreign partners. A successful revolution that will pursue the dismantling of the present political-economic system that allow the plunder of the national patrimony by foreigners and native partners. A successful revolution that will prioritize agriculture and industries to produce and satisfy first the essential needs of the majority. A successful revolution to be led and supported by truly nationalistic Filipinos who sincerely identify with our revolutionary heroes who fought the foreigners (Spaniards, Americans and Japanese); and nationalistic Filipinos who continue to struggle towards those ends in the recent past and today. A successful revolution that will form a truly professionalized Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) subservient to the sovereignty of the people; and not to a foreign power, i.e. America, or government that does not serve the common good of the unarmed, native citizenry/majority. [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what-is-filipino-nationalism-mrs.html], also [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/impediments-to-filipino-nationalism-to.html]

To ensure such a successful revolution, mass education is first and foremost, sine qua non, it is imperative. Education to have the majority understand what is going on. Education that makes the majority see the forest (present socioeconomic and political systems) and not get lost in the trees (all these current events/issues about military and civilian corruption, cheating, etc). Education to explain the neocolonial economic system that we inherited and adopted from the American interventionists/occupiers ("friends") which only kept in cage the majority of Filipinos to perpetual perdition. Education to instill knowledge and understanding that will propel them to demand radical and fundamental changes. Education that will ensure, produce and identify truly nationalistic leaderships and similarly nationalistic followers courageous and dedicated enough to fight for a more humane and dignified future for their children, grandchildren, and their unborn. [http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/filipinos-in-cage-in-pursuit-to.html]

It is only then that a successful revolution can be realized. This educational process for fostering Filipino nationalism among the majority will not be an easy task since the International Monetary Fund/World Bank/Asian Development Bank (IMF/WB/ADB) and WTO have imposed pressures on our national educational system to discourage study of our nationalist history. Thus the need for informal education via "teach-ins", conferences, etc. common during the premartial law/Marcos Dictatorship years. With nationalism instilled, these foreign financial institutions that built, in cooperation with our Americanized native technocrats, the millstone of odious foreign debt on our people have to go.

Of course, we should not forget who the US supports, since America has always thrown its weight around whenever political upheaval seems to blow up in our homeland. Its Philippine Desk plans and coolly acts to place their bets on the surely, Americanized minds among native politicians, technocrats and military officers. In short, to identify and support Filipino leaders whose Americanized minds will continue to protect American economic and military interests instead of their own people and homeland. Thus America is vehemently against Filipino nationalists and not necessarily against communists, who it has learned to do great business with, as the mainland "Communist" Chinese.

An instance of support for Americanized minds: during one of the almost successful attempted coups against Cory Aquino by the RAM officers -mostly PMA Class 1971(attempted takeover to install the AFP as the new political/ruling elite), USAF jets flew over the rebel RAM soldiers. The RAM officers and their followers got the message and quit; that's how cowardly, unresolved and weak we Filipinos are; always allowing a foreign power, our former colonial master and now neocolonial master, to call the shots.

America, itself now effectively and efficiently controlled by its transnational corporations, with its citizenry made content and quiet with conspicuous consumption, kept ignorant, distracted and misinformed of its foreign affairs (which lead to hatred for America --thus to the American citizens' surprise) has conveniently forgotten its revolutionary origins and heritage.

"Those who profess to favor freedom
and yet deprecate agitation
are men who want crops without plowing up the ground;
they want rain without thunder and
lightning.They want the ocean without the
awful roar of its waters.This struggle may be a moral one
or it may be a physical one
or it may be both moral and physical
but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a
demand
It never did, and never will." - Fr. Pedro V. Salgado, O.P. (The Philippine Economy: History and Analysis, 1985)

“The first priority for any underdeveloped country, before it can begin the economic and social development most appropriate to the needs of its people, is the seizure of power by the masses and the total destruction of the control and influence of the foreign power and local exploiting elite. Without this, nothing is possible.” – Felix Green, British Author, 1970

"If the people are not completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own." - George Washington, shortly after the end of the American Revolution

“They do not easily rise whose abilities are repressed by poverty at home.” - Decimus Juvenalis, 120 AD (CE)

“Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent” – Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister (1804-1881)

“Nations whose NATIONALISM is destroyed are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan Political and Military Leader

"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini La Revolucion Filipina (1898)

BAYAN KO: LABAN O BAWI?
By Jose F. Lacaba


May mga kaibigan at kakilala akong nag-iisip nang mangibang-bayan. Hindi naman sila mga Amboy na may mental colony, at ang ilan pa nga sa kanila ay magiting na lumaban sa dalawang People Power Revolution sa Edsa. Pero nitong mga nakaraang araw, seryosong pinag-aaralan ng mga kaibigan at kakilala kong ito ang posibilidad na mag-immigrate sa Canada o Australia. Kung baga, pagod na sila sa laban, bawi na ang gusto nila. Hindi ko naman sila masisi. Ibon mang may layang lumipad, kapag matagal-tagal nang nakakalanghap ng makamandag na hangin dito sa ating bayang magiliw, ay makakaisip na talagang mag-alsa-balutan at mag-TNT.

At hindi sila nag-iisa, o nag-iisandaan, o nag-iisang milyon. Ayon sa pinakahuling survey ng Weather-Weather Station, 69 porsiyento ng ating mga kabataan--at siyento-porsiyento ng mga sidewalk vendor at ng mga presong nahatulan ng kamatayan--ay ayaw nang maging Pilipino. Mas gusto nilang maging Men in Black. O kaya'y X-Men. O kahit na Hobbit. Ang 30 porsiyento naman, ayon pa rin sa nasabing survey, ay gustong sumapi sa Yaya Sisterhood. Mas malaki kasi ang kita sa pag-aalaga ng isang uhuging sanggol sa Hongkong kaysa pagtuturo ng 50 uhuging bata sa ilalim ng punong mangga sa Barangay Bagong Bakuna.

Gayunman, lumalabas sa survey na may isang porsiyentong nakalaan pa ring manatili sa ating lupang tinubuan. Ito'y binubuo ng mga sumusunod na sektor: pulitiko, kidnap-for-ransom gang, Abu Sayyaf, at SWAP (Samahan ng mga Walang Atik at Pamasahe). "Wala na talagang pag-asa ang Pilipinas, sa kabila ng dalawang Edsa at isang Diosdado Macapagal Avenue," himutok ng mga nawalan na ng pag-asa. Kabilang sa mga ibinigay na dahilan ng paglaganap ng kawalang-pag-asa ang sumusunod: di-masawatang krimen, di-kinokolektang basura, di-makontrol na polusyon, sobrang trapik, walang-tigil na pagtaas ng presyo ng gasolina at galunggong, kawalan ng hanapbuhay, paghihigpit sa mga pelikulang bold, at pagpapakasal ni Assunta kay Kongresista Jules.

Takang-taka ang mga kaibigan ko't kakilala kung bakit pinipili kong dito pa rin manirahan sa loob ng bayan nating sawi. Ang una nilang tanong ay: "Bakeeet?!" At ang ikalawa'y: "Is that your final answer? Do you sure?" Ganito ang sagot ko sa kanila. Sa ganang akin, mas masarap pa ring mabuhay sa Pilipinas dahil exciting ang buhay dito, hindi boring. Kung masyadong plantsado ang bawat araw at gabi mo, kung sukat na sukat ang bawat oras mo mula sa pagpasok sa trabaho hanggang sa pag-uwi ng bahay, mamamatay ka sa antok. Samantalang dito sa atin, makapigil-hininga at makabagbag-damdamin at puno ng misteryo ang bawat sandali, tulad sa telenovela. Paglabas mo ng bahay, hindi ka nakatitiyak na walang aagaw sa cellphone mo. Pagtulog mo sa gabi, hindi ka nakatitiyak na walang magtatanggal sa side-view mirror ng kotse mo. Kahit superbilyonaryo ka at marami kang security, tulad ni Kongresista Imee Marcos, puwede ka pa ring mabiktima ng akyat-bahay. At kahit superpobre ka at walang mananakaw sa bahay mo, tulad ng mga taga-Payatas, puwede namang mabagsakan ng bundok ng basura ang barungbarong mo.

Sa madaling salita, kung narito ka sa Pilipinas, para kang laging nakakapanood ng palabas sa circus. Marami kang makikitang naglalakad sa alambreng tinik, at kabilang sa makikita mo ay ang iyong sarili. At saka, marami namang magagandang nangyayari sa ating bayan. Sa kabila ng kapalpakan at kasuwapangan ng maraming taong-gobyerno, mayroon namang gumagawa ng kabutihan. Halimbawa, sa Iloilo ay ipinagbawal na ng alkalde ang bikini car wash. Sa gayon, napangalagaan niya ang dangal, puri, at kalusugan ng kababaihan. Nawalan nga ng trabaho ang mga nakabikining kumikita noon ng P400 isang araw, pero hindi na sila sisipunin. Kung ipasiya nilang magputa na lang, baka mas malaki pa ang kanilang kitain.

Salamat din sa pangangalaga sa moralidad na ginagawa ng mga taong-simbahan, hindi ka na makakabili ngayon ng condom sa 7-11 at iba pang convenience store. Posibleng lalong lumaganap ngayon ang AIDS sa Pilipinas, o kaya'y maraming mabubuntis na hindi puwedeng magpalaglag, pero kasalanan nila iyon. Mahilig kasi silang manood ng Joyce Jimenez sa Pasay, e di, ayan, impiyerno sa lupa ang bagsak nila. Kahit ano pa ang sabihin tungkol sa Pilipinas, grabe rin naman ang kalagayan sa ibang bansa. Sa New York, halimbawa, kabubukas lang ng Museum of Sex. Diumano, mayroon itong layuning historikal at edukasyonal, at ipakikita nito ang "sexual landscape" sa pamamagitan ng retrato, poster, painting, libro, at pelikula, na mangyari pa ay puro malaswa at mahalay sa paningin ni Cardinal Sin.

Alam ba ninyo ang implikasyon ng ganitong Museum of Sex? Lalo pang mapapariwara ang maraming kalalakihang Amerikano, na pagkatapos ay magsusundalo, at pagkatapos ay ipapadala sa Pilipinas para sa Balikatan, at pagkatapos ay magsisilang ng isa na namang henerasyon ng mga walang-tatay na tisoy at tisay, na pagkatapos ay kukuning artista ni Kuya Germs at sa kalaunan ay magiging bold star, na pagkatapos ay pupukaw sa makamundong pagnanasa ng mga manonood, na paglabas ng sinehan ay manggahasa ng unang babaeng makikita nila, na dahil walang condom ay magsisilang ng sanggol na may AIDS, at pagkatapos... Diyos na mahabagin! Wala na bang katapusan ang trahedya ng sambayanang Pilipino? Teka muna, bawi na rin yata ako. May mapapasukan kaya ako sa Timbuktu?
*******************************************

Those who profess to favor freedom
and yet deprecate agitation
are men who want crops
without plowing up the ground;
they want rain without thunder and
lightning.
They want the ocean without the
awful roar of its waters.
This struggle may be a moral one
or it may be a physical one
or it may be both moral and physical
but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a
demand
It never did, and never will."

- Fr. Pedro V. Salgado, O.P.(The Philippine Economy: History and Analysis, 1985)