Tuesday, January 10, 2006


"I would rather have a Philippines run like hell by Filipinos than a Philippines run like heaven by the Americans" -- Manuel L. Quezon

NOTE: Once in a while, I get emailed by self-proclaimed "former" Filipinos, who are now proud, naturalized Americans, who with apparent sarcasm quote the late President Quezon. I suppose my ranting about Filipino nationalism makes them sick. Well, sometimes truth makes one sick.

Shown below, I found a good response from a fellow blogger, who happens to be a Quezon descendant, to such self-proclaimed, gaggling "ex-Filipinos."

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

By Manuel L. Quezon III, Inquirer News Service

AFTER THE MASSACRE at Amritsar, Mahatma Gandhi said to British officials led by the viceroy of India: "I beg you to accept that there is no people on earth who wouldn't prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power."

About 10 years earlier, a Filipino said basically the same thing: "I prefer a government run like hell by Filipinos to a government run like heaven by Americans." It was a sound bite heard around the world. But what all too few recalled was the essential sentence that came next: "Because, however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.

"To this day, there are Filipinos who, whenever something goes wrong, cackle and say, "Look, Quezon got his wish. We have a government run like hell!" As if it is something uniquely Quezonian -- and Filipino -- to want to run our own lives, badly as the case may be, rather than entrust it to the guidance of foreigners.

What Quezon and Gandhi said roughly a decade apart is the essence of nationalism: a people, a nation, must have the chance to make good and bad decisions, because there is simply no substitute for decisions made for one's self, by one's self. Government will not always be good, leaders will not always be the best, but in the end, a government and its leaders must be selected by the people and no one else.

Love of country, nationalism, requires that a people have the freedom both to make mistakes and achieve great things. After all, the lives of individuals as well as nations require learning, and one cannot learn without, at times, doing wrong or making mistakes. Surely it is better to make one's own mistakes, to collectively endure errors of one's choosing, rather than undertake the same risks at the direction of a colonial power.

Nationalism is not my country, right or wrong, or everything for my countrymen at the expense of all aliens, but rather a more fundamental appreciation that one belongs to a people who have a country, and that the destiny of that country is in the hands of a people free to make errors but at the same time rectify their mistakes. It involves a sense of stewardship over a particular territory that geography and history have made the primary responsibility of no one else on earth but those who inhabit that territory.

When, as a child, I first asked what nationalism meant, I was simply told, "It means love of country." There are many kinds of love, as we all discover as we grow up, but fundamental to understanding love is that it requires a sense of self-worth and dignity. You cannot love and be loved, first of all, if you do not love yourself. And you cannot love properly if your love is the kind that is dependent merely on the approval of others, or measured by what you might believe to be the superior love of others.

To love one's country is to love one's land and people with all their flaws, despite all their wrongs; and to maintain, at the same time, a conviction that one's love for nation and nationhood will result in a better, stronger country.

As a child, every August 19, I would look at the statue of Quezon in Letran and wonder what it was he was portrayed as being in the act of saying. Eventually I asked one Dominican, who looked at me sternly and thundered, "He is saying, 'I love the Philippines!" And the answer satisfied me.

Many years later, I came across a recording of one of Quezon's speeches, and it is the only one I have committed to memory both due to its brevity and its being to the point. The speech was recorded in the 1920s, when he was first diagnosed with tuberculosis and assumed he didn\'t have much longer to live. It goes like this:

My fellow citizens: there is one thought I want you always to bear in mind. And that is: that you are Filipinos. That the Philippines are your country, and the only country God has given you. That you must keep it for yourselves, for your children, and for your children's children, until the world is no more. You must live for it, and die for it, if necessary. "Your country is a great country. It has a great past, and a great future.

The Philippines of yesterday are consecrated by the sacrifices of lives and treasure of your patriots, martyrs, and soldiers. The Philippines of today are honored by the wholehearted devotion to its cause of unselfish and courageous statesmen. The Philippines of tomorrow will be the country of plenty, of happiness, and of freedom.

A Philippines with her raised in the midst of the West Pacific, mistress of her own destiny, holding in her hand the torch of freedom and democracy. A republic of virtuous and righteous men and women all working together for a better world than the one we have at present."

These are the basics we often overlook, but which are the requirements for true love of country: A sense of identity. A sense of belonging. A sense of responsibility and accountability to the past, to the present, and to the future. Most of all, a dream of a country that is no one's but our own, and for which we must always retain the fondest dreams to inspire us as we go about our daily lives.

Comments welcome at http://www.quezon.ph/


See also:
http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what-is-filipino-nationalism-mrs.html ,
http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what-nationalism-good-article-by.html ,

As to indicators of hell, see also:


Anonymous said...

No matter how you look at it, Quezon made an error. It's written in history and no one could salvage his quote.

Nonoy Ramos

Anonymous said...

Go behind the puffery and look at the reality.

Ross Tipon

Anonymous said...

How many times have we amended the constitution since
1935? In 1940--to accomodate Quezon's ambition, in
1973 or 72, to accomodate Marcos' ambition, in
1987--to ensoul the embryo of Bernas.
The trouble with this country is that there are ten
thousand constitutional tinkerers and not one Bill

Ross Tipon

Bert M. Drona said...


Thanks for your response.

Oftentimes quotation(s) are made out of context. It is not to deny its(their) existence, but can therefore mean anything one wants with it to.

As Humpty Dumpty might say: define the language "as you like it".

Bert M. Drona said...

Hello Ross,

Thanks for your response.

There may be reasons to make changes to any constitution, via Amendments; as happened in many other countries, including the US of A. The issue is change to and for what?

As far as I know, the current desire to change the 1987 Constitution is to delete mainly the nationalistic contents; and allow for the ambitions for political (and economic) power of present rulers and their ilk,etc.

You may have to clarify about Bill Gates, hehe.

My blogsite carries a couple of discussions on Charter Change:
http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/12/charter-change-nationalism-and.html ,

Anonymous said...

Dear Bert,

The reason capitalism fails to operate properly in our
country is the lack of Civic Cuture.

I have a nice
book for you to acquire: John Sidel, "Capital,
Coercion and Crime: Poliical Bossism in the
Philipines." I know it costs a pretty penny but
...Access amazon.com: >Books>Sidel.

Having "nationalist" provisions in the constitution is
dangerous. Look at the Manila Hotel sale scandal.
Justices made moolah out of their stupid decision.


Bert M. Drona said...

Hi Ross,

I think and believe any system, economic or political, may work/operate well. As long as many if not the majority of the citizenry have attained social consciousness and thus able to monitor and act on the leadership.

As you alluded to, it depends really on the characteristics, i.e. the culture of the people; specifically of the rulers who supposedly are more knowledgable than the ordinary citizen (which of course is not true in our homeland for the greater part). Since character and integrity have been thrown out the window at this point in time.

As you correctly implied, even our Supreme Court is now corrupt, in awe of the rich Chinese, i.e. Emilio Yap! and of course, with the connivance of the Ramos regime at the time.

It seems all institutions in the homeland are so. Thus,true reform or fundamental changes via peaceful means are remote if not improbable.

Anonymous said...

But of course you would not believe in Islamic
theocracy. Dont say ANY system.

Ross Tipon

Bert M. Drona said...

Let us be realistic here, not theoretical.. We are talking about our homeland. Not the Middle East nor the Arab world. Thanks

Anonymous said...


Dedicated to those who were elected.

Eternal Father and Sovereign God, we come before Your holy presence and that we may seek Your face. You know our hearts. Nothing is ever hidden from You.

Truly, Your Word says “Woe unto you hypocrites!” No area of life has this been so true than in politics. Political candidates invoke your Name as if it were a magical formula for winning the elections and claim it as divine mandate.

We have degraded your Name by false promises to the people we intend to serve and those promises have always been broken.

We circumvent the truth by saying it is not good for people to hear the unpalatable truth because we might lose votes.

We design sinister political strategies of winning at all cost based on Machiavellian ideas and Sun Tzu’s aphorisms.

We demolish our enemies by the weapons of slanderous rhetorics and mudslinging obscenities.

We shout from the rooftop regarding accountability and transparency in governance but these are all sham rantings.

We perfume corruption by puffing it with rhetorical gobbledygooks – pork barrel, junkets, CDF and realignments. Woe unto us for kickbacks, 10% percentage, ghost projects, ghost employees, fraudulent wheeling and dealing scams.

We endlessly borrow money and get deeply mired in a financial quagmire and charge it to taxpayers’ money. We steal people’s money and utilize this money to buy votes and bribe elections officials. We confess that this ingrained a damaged culture based on damaged conscience.

Politicians go ballistic loudly blaring innuendos, doubletalk and showboating against corruption but isn’t this the very height of hypocrisy?

We grandstand, filibuster, and present ourselves as public servants with hidden agenda but behave like contemptuous tyrannical masters of our constituents.

We denounce all forms of social cancer – prohibited drugs, illegal gambling, kidnapping, prostitution, gunrunning, immoral affairs - but instead we are coddlers and protectors of drug lords, warlords, gambling lords that putrefy and consign our innocent people to the pit of perdition.

We talk of peace, law and order but our followers, disguised as security, are fully armed to the teeth.

We have defiled, disgraced, dishonored, prostituted, bastardized and perverted our mandate and lofty positions notwithstanding our motive for greed, abuse, vested interests, lust for power and love for money. Humility is the anti-thesis of politics.

In all these things, You ask of us, what profits a man if he gains everything – power, fame, wealth, lofty
position – but loses his own soul? We swagger and profess of our so-called unshakable principles and high standard of ethics but never take them to heart. Woe unto us for these empty avowals. Hypocrisy has overwhelmed us. We shamelessly display our religious pretenses but are congenitally and pathologically dishonest in our deeds and actions. It is to the hypocrites that You have been angry. We confess to You our sins for making a mockery of your Word.

Search us o God and know our hearts and lead us into Thy ways everlasting. In all Thy ways we acknowledge Thee and You shall direct our paths. Teach us o Lord to fear Thee for it is the fountain of life and that we may learn of Your wisdom and understanding. Forgive us our transgression and corruption in all its facets, cleanse us and lead us into Your righteous path, o Lord. This we ask in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Amen.


Bert M. Drona said...


Thanks for your response, however full of understandable rage. But however enraging and discouraging, let us reach out to those who can not comprehend and continue to discuss and hopefully and however slowly, the messages we convey stick.

Anonymous said...

[Attachment is the MS Word identical version]


The Philippine Islands has always been a strong
unitary state with no breakaway centripetal forces. To
dabble in federalism is a harebrained experiment. The
shift does not at all address the ills of this
country. On the contrary it will exacerbate some of
To begin with Filipinos have no experience in
federalism. Experience, no matter how flawed, is still
a vital asset in nation-building.
Even under Spanish rule with its divide-and-rule
policy the Islands were inadvertently moving toward a
unitary polity. At the outset of American colonial
rule President Wm. McKinley set forth the policy on
how these Islands were to be governed through his
Instructions to the Philippine Commission. The
Commission was the adviser to the governor-general.
When autonomy was instituted for the first time on a
national basis via the election of the Philippine
Assembly, a unicameral body, the Commission functioned
as some kind of "upper house", reviewing legislation.
A fuller autonomy came into being with the enactment
of the Jones Law in 1916. The legislature was
transformed into two chambers, a house and a senate
elected by senatorial districts. The Commission had
passed into history.
In the years of Republican Party ascendancy in the US
following their electoral sweep of the 1920, 1924 and
1928 presidential elections and the sending of one
governor-general after another perceived as hostile to
the idea of Philippine independence Quezon was
troubled with doubts if the US would really totally
relinquish sovereignty over the Islands. He began
sounding out for a parliamentary system modeled after
Australia where at that time the governor-general
still retained considerable residual powers. Quezon,
at least would fulfil his life-long dream of becoming
the Numero Uno among Filipinos as the native prime
With the law for complete independence enacted by the
US Congress in 1934, a constitution drafted by
Filipinos, which would also become the organic body
for the fully sovereign Philippine Republic was
approved in a plebiscite. The legislature reverted to
unicameral. But in 1940 an amendment was adopted which
provided for a second legislative chamber again, this
time the senators were elected at-large. This was the
constitution that governed the Philippines till Marcos
thrashed it in 1973.

Latter-day tinkerings

The 1987 constitution essentially resurrected the
1935 constitution, as far as the vital governing
organs were concerned. But what this constitution did
was legislate economic policy, matters better left to
ordinary legislation or executive policy for the
government of the day. It also pompously
constitutionalized some government bodies. The results
of the latter has not at all be salutary.
Much of constitutional tinkering has been done to
suit ambitions of politicians. In 1940 the aspiring
consul-for-life Quezon wanted the single six-year term
restriction scrapped. To do so Quezon had to bargain
with aspiring politicians who demanded a restoration
of the senate as a springboard for their own
moist-eyed dreams of becoming Numero Uno.
In 1971 there was really no urgent need to overhaul
the constitution but Marcos manipulated the
restlessness of politicians and then used the
constitutional draft to legalize his dictatorship.
With the flush of the dictatorship's ouster many
quite well meaning Filipinos believed that that it was
possible to legislate into the consciousness of men,
that is, remove the conditions under which another
Marcos might be waiting in the wings. Thus many
governmental bodies were enshrined into the
constitution like the Ombudsman and the Commission on
Elections. These institutions turned out to be
disappointments, to say the least. We Filipinos should
be wise enough to know that corruption follows the
assignment of power. Thus the Ombudsman clothed with
vast powers on paper is honeycombed with agents
loitering around the country negotiating deals with
defendants. Morally weakened the office easily
succumbs to the vaster powers of the presidency. The
Commission on Elections is now autonomous enough to
create its own mess. The unconstitutionalized
Commission did better. There were men of probity
appointed to that office in the old days when some
delicadeza mattered. Constitutionalizing an office is
not the solution to improving governance. Such a
futile verbal exercise speaks more of the sacerdotal
proclivity of many maka-Diyos Filipinos to bandage the
chancre of our society.

Secularize the Constitution

We must secularize the constitution. When Alexander
Hamilton was asked where God's place was in the
proposed constitution of the new union he answered
facetiously: "I forgot about him." Jefferson went on
to amplify the secularization of society by stating
that a wall separates the government from religion.
These men were first-rate thinkers, at home with
Thucydides as well as with the Zeitgeist, not
intellectual pygmies like Bernas and Bernardo
Villegas, who can do no more than endlessly parrot
papal encyclicals as though they were eternal truths.
The Philippines can truly be proud of being at the
near-top of the list of corrupt countries. Politicians
and even business leaders try to out-maka-Diyos each
other like mafioso dons..

Go by the experience of the people

The Commission on Appointments was and even now not
an exemplary body but the creation of a so-called
Judicial and Bar Council, which operates like a
Vatican conclave, for the installation of members of
the judiciary is a hell worse. I say an idiot is one
who cannot tell the difference between bad and worse
Most states (in the civilized world, that is) are
unitary. The United States is federal by history and
experience. But even its federalism has its
weaknesses. States like Alabama and many others have
to be federally subsidized and its judges have to be
reproved for ignorance of the American Constitution.
If Alabama were not part of the American Union it
would most certainly belong to the Third World.
Only Germany is truly federal because the states
(laender) are almost of equal economic and cultural
footing. Moreover there is a two and a half party
system there that makes a parliamentary system
operable. We can say almost the same of Australia and
less developed sprawling India. In the Philippines
nearly every politician belong to the one and only
true party, Lakas ng Bwuaya. The deputies will simply
sell their votes to the highest bidder.

Don't legislative into an Organic Document

"Economic nationalism" whatever this stupid phrase
means leads to the Manila Hotel sale imbroglio where
it became a justiciable issue Then the third highest
bidder "won" by virtue of his being a qualified
legatee of a national heirloom.
A number of "nationalists" got hold of provisions to
insert that framed our economy into an autarchic
straitjacket. The result was a dismal flow of foreign
investments into high-risk capital intensive ventures
such as mining, ventures that call for the
globalization of the entrepreneurial mind, not the
enshrinement of ideological insularity. Far too many
Filipino entrepreneurs being SIGURISTAS are inclined
toward real estate, shopping malls and other
businesses that fuel a consumer-led spending, a
condition that cannot long endure. The same misguided
minds also tried to restrict media ownership and even
advertising into SIGURISTA hands. The result is
numbing mediocrity.
Clerico-fascists like Bernas inserted provisions
which could be interpreted as the ensoulment of the
embryo, meaning NO to all sorts of family planning
that this teeming nation badly needs.
The upshot of it all is a lackadaisical economic
performance, 3.5-4.5% in the best of times, just
abreast of population rise, if the GDP performance has
to cover the truly dismal years.

Most of the constitutional tinkerers have no knowledge
of comparative government

A parliamentary system need not do away with a second
chamber entirely as the cabal of Jose de Venecia
says. Some parliamentary systems retain a second
chamber to review legislation or even the budget. It
simply makes the executive responsible to the House.
In Israel, the prime minister is directly elected by
the people. Some parliamentary systems are mixed.
France retains a strong directly elected president.
The constitutional change drivers don't even know
where and how to take us to a place which they don't
know much about.
Ignorant as they are of comparative governments some
proponents are adept at sneaking in provisions to
curtail press freedom. Jarius Bondoc, a sharp-eyed
writer and member of the constitutional drafting body,
excused himself for overlooking the insertion with his
statement that he was going to vote against the entire
amendments anyway. This point only proves that what is
going on is the railroading of amendments without much
open discussion and debate. They even put a deadline
when the new constitution should come into being as
though Armageddon were to follow if it is not
In the book of John Sidel, "Capitalism, Crime and
Coercion: Political Bossism in the Philippines" the
old pols with a strong local bases operate with wide
ranging autonomy especially in crime protection
rackets, which is what matters to them. Do you want to
give them more and ensure their perpetuity? Only a
strong determined central government under unitary
authority has ever the hope of eventually ousting
them. Get hold of this book: amazon.com. >Books>John

Amendments that matter

Undoubtedly one of our problems is the repeated
election of a minority president (and other public
officials too), that is, one who comes to office with
a mere plurality. The cause of this is the
nonexistence of true political parties. However even
when there were functioning political parties third
party candidates had at various times made strong
showing denying the elected president a majority. We
cannot legislate the formation of true parties
because, moreover, crass opportunism has become the
order of the day for nearly all politicians.
Holding a runoff election as done in many countries
including backward Africa can easily solve this
problem. This device might even midwife the formation
of truer parties. Who knows? True parties can come
into being because Filipinos want real issues
articulated. They are sick and tired of politicians
shifting their positions with the complexion of the
Did we have true parties in the past? This is
doubtful, really. In colonial times parties formed
along pro-independence and delayed independence
platforms. They were essentially one-issue platforms.
In 1946 the Liberal party split from the old
Nacionalista Party over the issue of the so-called
Parity Amendments to the constitution. Over the
decades the party differences began to blur. Diosdado
Macapagal raided the ranks of the Nacionalista Party
when he became president through the usual means:
bribery via favors and pork barrel. Marcos eventually
drove the last nail into the parties coffin.
If there are no true parties a parliamentary system is
a failure ab initio. "Parties" will simply align,
reform, get new members, shed disgruntled ones and the
final arbiter will be the Lord God Mammon

Cui bono?

As borne by our tortured history the clamor for
constitutional change as proposed by the Tin Drummers
of Darkness is simply a device to get the unelectable
elected to power. To sweeten their offer (for the
members of Congress, that is, not for the people whom
they simply assume will vote for their proposals) they
propose that the 2007 election be scrapped and the
terms of officials be extended. How crude! How very
The defect of the 1986 constitution are really many
including the above already cited. A single term for
six years for a president seems unduly long. Four
years with option for reelection is better as in the
old. With the spacing of elections every three years
instead of two as in the old constitution twelve slots
have to be opened up in the senate. Voters have
difficulty evaluating twelve names and name recall
simply becomes the order of the day. With a two-year
election spacing as in the old only eight slots in the
senate have to be opened. The composition of the
senate did not drastically change in one election,
which should be the case as the senate is viewed in
all mature democracies as a steadying flywheel of the
political engine.

Hail and farewell,



Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Drona,

Anyone who put interest reading the events and the lives of politicians during the early American colonial administration will point to MLQ as the man who played a dominant role during the Commonwealth . The naming of a political party with a catching name "nacionalista" in 1907 for credibiity and "the essence of nationalism was conceived with co-founder Sergio Osmena. It gave birth to another major party to compete and prevent the dominance of the 1904 Federalista Party of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera.

I was expecting in your analysis how Quezon came to concoct a phrase that appeal to nationalist feelings that he would rather see "government run like hell by Filipinos rather than run like heaven by Americns". Was he indebted to an American who wished to be buried in the Philippines and who even baptized his son with the name "Francisco" so that it will sound more Filipino? Such was the story of Francis Burton Harrison Jr who let loose the idea, "Philippines For Filipinos" thus leaving the reins of government to Filipinos to enjoy hunting wild boars of Mountain Province Was it not during his term as governor general when PNB scandal was exposed and where the men and veterans of Agunaldo were involved?

In other words any mistakes or corruption committed by Filipino politicians and buraucrats while under training are the "unavoidable" characteristics of apprenticeship, therefore justified because "the essence of nationalism" is, however, fulflled?

Jose Sison Luzadas

Bert M. Drona said...

Hello Jose,

Thank you for your response.

I think it is safe to assume that Quezon, Osmena and most of the leadership and members in then Philippine Commission, which later became the Philippine Commonwealth, were highly educated, either self-made "ilustrados" or not. In particular since Quezon was with the Aguinaldo group, he knows what nationalism is all about, what "sells", etc. regardless of any personal and political ambitions he and his compatriots at the time may have.
I do not know whether Quezon was indebted to Francis Burton Harrison (1837-1957), the American governor general (1913-1921), who was considered an anti-imperialist Democrat appointed by US President Woodrow Wilson. You are right in implying that Harrison encouraged Philippine independence, for which local Americans with vested interests in the islands and ruling elite who benefit from the "free trade" agreement with the USA became worried.

I think one has misread/misinterpreted the essence of nationalism when it is inferred that "mistakes or corruption...are justified because.....".

I would say that honest mistakes may be understandable and forgivable but not to be forgotten while corruption should never be forgivable (especially in a scale where it extremely and adversely affect the lives of the majority).

If you have time, please check out my blogs on nationalism, and you'll get a better idea as to how I understand what Filipino nationalism should be. Take care


See also: http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what-is-filipino- nationalism-mrs.html ,
http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/05/what- nationalism-good-article-by.html ,

Anonymous said...

Dear Bert,

Here is the complete quote of Manuel Quezon from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Quezon .

"I prefer a country run like hell by Filipinos to a country run like heaven by Americans. Because, however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it."

Akbayan Secretariat

PS: More quotes.

"My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins."

"Social Justice is far more beneficial when applied as a matter of sentiment, and not of law."

Bert M. Drona said...

Hello Enteng,

Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps we might also give some thought to the fact that 8 million Filipinos, in addition to your "self-proclaimed former Filipinos", are working abroad in different countries not because they don't love their country, but because they have too.

For most of them, it was not a question of choice but of necessity, forcing them to vote with their feet in the face of dire economic conditions. And in the process,helping prop up the economy with their remittances, to the delight of the leadership of the country who often only pay lip service to their sacrifices.

Peace and Joy Every Conscious Moment!

Tom & Ruth de Guzman

Anonymous said...

Bert -

Many of our misinformed kababayans have bought into the mumbo-jumbo that the "American" system is the best ever, hence, their tendency to pull the Quezon "wild card" to support their arguments. Assuming that what we have in the Philippines is really a dose of Hell, what these new "Americans" still refuse to see is that the American system is largely responsible for creating that Hell.

Though these admirers are always quick to point out that the U.S. granted us "independence" in 1946, they refuse to see that Uncle Sam kept our poor country - coming out of the ruins of World War II - shackled by unequal treaties such as Parity Rights and the U.S. military bases.

In short, the U.S. "left" the Philippines in 1946, but didn't really leave. On the contrary, every generation since "independence" has been educated under a colonial educational system that glorified America's "greatness", that made America the "model" to emulate.

Add to that the forced teaching of English and the Philippines' getting saturated by American pop culture and we see a nation that has lost its soul. There was no way we could have had a system that truly reflected our genuine aspirations as a people and as nation, when we had leaders and "pillars of society" who were educated and brainwashed by an American-dictated educational system.

To this day, the Philippines is still beholden to US and western-mandated prescriptions such as globalization, trade liberalization, and "security" arrangements such as the VFA.

No nation can possibly move forward as long as it is hogtied by its former colonial ruler via political, economic, cultural and linguistic domination. The Philippines may have similarities with most Latin American countries, but at the same time, we don't have what most Latin Americans have - a firm grasp of their identity and history, as well as a burning spirit of nationalism.

Addi Batica

Bert M. Drona said...

Hello Tom & Ruth,

Thanks for your response.

I appreciate what you said about our OFWs/CFWs. Personally, I know the hardships and sacrifices to themselves and their families they are made to endure; I worked with them in Kuwait back in 1992 (I think and believe that the working conditions nowadays are worse than then, especially those who work as non-professionals in the Middle East).

OFWs are not heroes though. They are simply a group of ordinary citizens exploited by some of our government people/politicians, who continue their corruption and see the revenues as replenishment for what they steal from the government coffers, as you correctly stated.

Regards, Bert

Bert M. Drona said...


I agree with all you wrote. The task is to educate/inform the majority as to "what's really going on." Easier said than done since internal(natives) and external force (foreigners/TNCs), with vested interests in the status quo, will fight to keep the majority ignorant.

With mass education, understanding and appreciation of our common heritage through nationalist history will lead to national unity and united action for effective and fundamental changes for the common good, ewither peacefully or if everything else fail, through a bloody revolution.

271828183141592654 said...

"But what all too few recalled was the essential sentence that came next: "Because, however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it."

The above statement has been proven false. The Filipino CANNOT CHANGE it. It has already been so long since this speech. Nothing has changed. It is still run like hell.