When her "health-conscious" post creates negative feedbacks

When her "health-conscious" post creates negative feedbacks

In a society where perfection becomes the standard, the pursuit of beauty frequently takes us down less-examined roads with less thought given to their ramifications. 

 Following the viral photo of a drip session inside Senator Robinhood Padilla's Senate office, Mariel Rodriguez-Padilla found herself at the focus of a contentious discussion. 

 The controversial photo illuminates a larger conversation about the extent people will go to achieve beauty, the risks involved, and the laws governing such treatments. 

 Understandably, Mariel Rodriguez-Padilla's post about having an intravenous treatment (IV) drip session inside her husband's office, has sparked concern to the public. The now-deleted post demonstrates that Mrs. Padilla's IV session is motivated by vanity rather than "promoting good looks and good health" as her husband claims, and is viewed by many as "disrespectful" and a "mockery" of the upper house. This comes from the fact that it happened inside the office of a public servant. 

 Moreover, despite the senator's attempts to downplay the controversy or assert that his wife had no intention of disrespect, that bothersome Instagram post raises questions about the use of intravenous fluids as it raises ethical, moral, and institutional concerns in addition to safety and health-related issues. Lawyer Chel Diokno and several dermatologists have voiced alarms over the potential health risks associated with gluta drips. These risks include toxic impacts on vital organs, skin diseases, and the threat of severe infections. 

 The Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines also previously warned against the use of injectable skin lightening agents, emphasizing that the distribution of unregistered health products is illegal and dangerous. No wonder Mrs. Padilla suddenly spoke out that she's taking a Vitamin C drip to dispel criticism, with her husband further noting that his wife's intention "was just to inspire others that wherever they are, they can still prioritize their health by taking vitamins.” 

 But again, Mrs. Padilla's post did cause serious worry since it promotes something that is prohibited and illegal according to the Department of Health (DoH). It raises important questions about the appropriateness of conducting such procedures in unauthorized settings, such as a Senate office. 

Sen. Binay was right when she said that being famous had drawbacks, particularly when Mrs. Padilla's spouse is a senator. Furthermore, the senator should be reminded that great power comes great responsibility, public service is a public trust, and that, in his capacity as a legislator, he bears the additional obligation of upholding the institution's integrity as a public servant. 

 Otherwise, why is he there? Is he truly serving the public or is he just trying to impress just like his wife?

"When changing the tune doesn't stop the irritating music"

"When changing the tune doesn't stop the irritating music" 

 After making strong remarks about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in late January, former President Rodrigo Duterte moderated his hostile tone during a "prayer rally" at South Road Properties in Cebu City on Sunday, February 25. 

 From using terms like "drug addict" to that of opposing Marcos's plan for charter change, the former president, known for making contradictory statements and sarcasm, end calling Marcos as a "dignified man" and saying he had nothing against the Marcos administration’s charter change efforts, provided they didn’t serve to advantage the current President. 

 However, these changing tunes doesn't soften the stances of his supporters towards the current regime if not trying to salvage that goddamned "unity" betwen the Marcos and Duterte factions- especially knowing how the current regime indicate increasing support for the drug war investigation despite undecided on cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

 Ironically, that "prayer rally" Duterte led ain't even a prayer rally but an effort to rally support towards him in a time he's in danger of getting arrested. Prayers? For sure people remember how that former president called God "Stupid" and lambasted the Pope for the traffic, what more of seeing Willie Revillame's dancers on stage dancing during that "prayer rally". Besides, why instead of prayers would be that of rants? 

 Perhaps this note doesn't find any basis to see both factions in need of "unity", Imee Marcos and others within the administration may've tried best to maintain that "unity" despite the obvious dissolution due to major differences. Not surprising if these two factions through its online influencers willing to hurl mud at each other just to defend their idols and its controversial policies; Otherwise, both Marcos and Duterte sworn to upheld the status quo that's already tainted, what more soiled by entrenched interests- and in the face of growing opposition due to the corruption, injustice, and oppression that's condoned and tolerated by these two. 

 To cut the thought short, Duterte's change of tune doesn't stop the irritating music people wanted to stop. Those who once snared by Duterte's tirades are nothing but empty rhetorics as they saw the obvious soiled facts justified with terms such as peace and order. He may find Mindanao separatism, charter change, or Marcos's alleged drug abuse as empty words to babble with, but these cannot save an already crumbling structure called "unity". It also makes no sense in changing the tune as the concerned find his view shallow and pretentious from the start, by claiming himself to be patriotic as that of the patriots yet the same Duterte who kowtows with the Chinese; what more cries separatism after getting troubled by the refusal of the Marcos regime to block the ICC from proceeding with its case against him and his cohorts for crimes against humanity. 

 But for the concerned this pretentious bullshitry needs to stop as they want to take back the future from the unjust and the corrupt. As patriots the need to expose and oppose the crackpots and gangsters in the bureaucracy becomes imminent with words like "Bombard the Headquarters" starting to churn in everyone's minds.

The beginning and end of Beijing's "Forbidden City" reconstruction plans

The beginning and end of Beijing's 

"Forbidden City" reconstruction plans

Wang Jun 

 On October 14, 2005, Zheng Xin, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Culture and President of the Palace Museum, published an article "Looking Back, Inspection and Prospect - Written on the 80th Anniversary of the Founding of the Palace Museum" in Guangming Daily, disclosed: "In the early 1960s, someone proposed that the Forbidden City was vast and sparsely populated. It's backward construction, it should be right. It was transformed; in the early stage of the Cultural Revolution, there was also an absurd and terrible 'rectification plan' in the Forbidden City. 

 For these little-known historical facts, the article has not been elaborated, but it is already surprising: how did such a thing happen?

A confusing nightmare 

Zheng Xi's book "Eighty Years of the Palace Museum" was released in October 2005. It mentions other topics covered in an article of the same name. 

"Build an east-west road inside the Forbidden City and transform the Wenhua Hall and Wuying Hall into entertainment places" was the renovation concept that was put forth in the early 1960s. 

The "rectification plan" for the "Cultural Revolution" calls for "erecting two large placards in front of the Taihe Hall, one east and one west, the Taihe Hall, which is more than 18 meters high in ancient height, and using it to overwhelm the 'king spirit'; the Taihe Hall's throne should be moved down and sealed; the statue of a farmer with guns should be shaped on the throne, with the muzzle aimed at the overthrown emperor." The emperor's temporary resting spot, which was neutral and served as a place of repose before to the Taihe Hall ceremony, was transformed into a "people's lounge." Additionally, all the palaces and doorways that symbolized feudal consciousness were destroyed. The 'People's Lounge' has been set up, the projects in these plans have been completed, and the rest have been overlooked since they are too busy to handle them. 

 He analyzed: "The architecture of the Forbidden City is magnificent and magnificent, and most of the Forbidden City is a treasure, so the Palace Museum was established. But the Forbidden City is also a feudal palace. In the minds of many revolutionaries who oppose the overthrow of the imperial system by feudalism, there is always a shadow that lingers: is it right to value the Forbidden City so much? Is the protection of the Forbidden City consistent with the anti-feudal purpose? 

Jing Hengyi, a member of the National Government, proposed in 1928 to "abolish the Palace Museum and auction or remove all items of the Palace respectively," claiming that the museum was engaged in "the study of how to equip the palace and the things used by the emperor." The palace is only Tianzi's first reverse production. "Isn't it preparing to be the emperor in the future and set up a preparatory office for the ceremony in advance?" one may ask. It is appropriate to auction reverse production. Hengyi's suggestion sparked a contentious debate before the National Government sent a letter requesting reconsideration to the Central Political Conference. Ultimately, the plan was rejected. 

"Yet Jing's perspective has not vanished." Since the People's Republic of China was established, this line of thinking has never stopped and is frequently articulated in a variety of ways. Treating our history and traditions with respect remains its fundamental aspect. Though the state values the Palace Museum highly, many people are still astounded by the relationship that exists between the palace, the emperor, and the "feudal" class.

"The Forbidden City will start to be rebuilt" 

 In September 1958, the Beijing Master Plan (Draft) stated: "The Forbidden City will start to be rebuilt." 

  The "Planning Instructions" specifically proposes: "Organize Tiananmen Square, the Forbidden City, Zhongshan Park, Cultural Palace, Jingshan, Beihai, Shichahai, Jishuitan, Qiansanmen moat and other places, demolish some houses, expand the green area, and make it a large garden in the city center, and enjoy the joy of millions of people at the festival. The place. 

  In 1959, the Beijing Municipal Urban Construction Commission proposed that "Tiananmen Square and some buildings in the Forbidden City" could be protected, and "the Forbidden City should be transformed into a mass cultural and rest place". 

  Previously, Mao Zedong delivered a speech at the Nanning Conference and the Supreme State Council in January 1958: "I feel uncomfortable with the houses in Beijing and Kaifeng." "The walls of Nanjing, Jinan and Changsha have been demolished very well, and the old houses in Beijing and Kaifeng should all be turned into new houses." 

  Mao said this when he mentioned Zhang Xiruo twice. On May 1, 1957, Mao solicited the opinions of Zhang Xiruo, a political scientist and Minister of Education, on his work. Zhang summed up his usual feelings as "good joy, quick success, contempt for the past, and superstition in the future" and put it up in person. 

  "'Good joy to return', what is the great achievement, whether it is the great joy of the counter-revolution or the great joy of the revolution. It's not big, isn't it so small?" Mao said at the Nanning meeting, "China's revolution, such a big cooperative, such a big rectification, are all great achievements, and they don't like merit. Have you liked it?' Be eager for quick success and quick profit. Don't work hard. Do you want to pass? It's not good for the people. Is it harmful? Isn't it good to despise the past, despise the little feet, and despise the braids? 

  Mao set the tone: "Antiques should not be bad, nor too good. Beijing demolished the archway, made a hole in the gate, and also cried. This is a political issue. 

  On April 14, 1958, Zhou Enlai sent a letter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to convey the spirit of the executive meeting of the State Council, proposing that "according to the instructions of Chairman Mao, the urban landscape of Beijing should be completely changed in the next few years." After that, Beijing quickly formulated a plan to complete the reconstruction of the old city for about ten years, and the "Forbidden City should start reconstruction" was immediately proposed. 

  Tao Zongzhen, the architect of the Beijing Municipal Urban Planning Administration, recalled the speech of a leader of the bureau at that time: "He said, why can't it exceed the ancient times? Tiananmen Square can demolish and build the State Council building to give a powerful blow to the feudal and backward things!" 

  "At that time, Peng Zhen said that the Forbidden City was built for the emperor. Can it be changed into a central government office building? Have you ever thought about it? The technician drew a few strokes casually and didn't take it seriously. During the Cultural Revolution, this matter was found out. Some people said that you were going to build a palace for Liu Shaoqi. In fact, what Peng Zhen said is actually what the chairman said. Zhou Yongyuan, deputy director of the Beijing Municipal Urban Planning Administration, made such an explanation to the author before his death. 

When Mao Zedong climbed the palace wall for three times 

(and did not enter the palace)  

  Zhang Xiruo, who made Mao Zedong angry, once took the People's Liberation Army cadres to ask Liang Sicheng, an architect and professor of Tsinghua University, to draw a map of Beiping cultural relics when he was forced to attack the city on December 18, 1948.  

  The day before this, Mao personally drafted a telegram from the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China to the General Committee of the Pingjin Campaign, demanding full attention to the protection of the Beiping Industrial Zone and cultural monuments. 

On January 16, 1949, Mao again drafted a telegram from the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China on the protection of cultural monuments in Peiping, which mentioned the Forbidden City: "This In the second siege, a precise plan must be made to avoid destroying the Forbidden City, universities and other famous and valuable cultural monuments. On January 31, 1949, Beiping was peacefully liberated, and the capital planning was launched immediately. Liang Sicheng, who participated in the planning work, disagreed with the Soviet experts invited to Beijing to guide the work. Liang Sicheng and Chen Zhanxiang, an urban planning expert, jointly proposed that the central administrative region should be built in the western area outside the ancient city in order to achieve balanced development between the old and the new. Soviet experts proposed that the central administrative region should be built in the central area of the ancient city and start the reconstruction of the ancient city. Mao  supported the latter.  

  Ancient buildings such as city walls, towers and archways in Beijing have begun to be demolished one after another. In August 1952, the left gate of Chang'an and the right gate of Chang'an on the east and west sides of Tiananmen Square were demolished. In May 1956, the Beijing Municipal Planning Bureau and the Beijing Municipal Road Engineering Bureau repaired Zhushi Street (now East Fourth West Street and Wusi Street) to the north entrance of Beichang Street, and demolished the Xili Pavilion and archway in front of the Dagao Xuan Hall, the north doorway of the Forbidden City and The east-west houses and the increasingly fierce demolition of the ancient city finally led to Zhang Xiruo confess his opinion to Mao Zedong in 1957.  

  Mao Zedong had a relationship with the Forbidden City. Yi Peiji, a teacher at Hunan Provincial First Normal School in his early years, became the president of the Palace Museum in 1929. In December 1919, Mao Zedong led a delegation to Beijing to petition the expulsion of Hunan warlord Zhang Jingyao, who lived at the foot of the Forbidden City.  

  In April 1954, Mao Zedong climbed the wall of the Forbidden City three times in four days.  

  On the afternoon of April 18, 1954, Mao took a bus to Shenwumen of the Forbidden City, from Dongdeng Road to the Shenwumen Tower, along the city wall to the northeast corner tower to the south, through the Donghua Gate and the southeast corner tower, to the Meridian Gate, from the Wumen Tower to the city wall, back to Zhongnanhai.  

  On the afternoon of April 20, Mao took a bus to the Meridian Gate of the Forbidden City, climbed the Meridian Gate Tower, visited the exhibition of cultural relics unearthed in the historical museum there, and went down to the tower and returned to Zhongnanhai.  

  On the afternoon of April 21, Mao took a bus to Shenwumen of the Forbidden City. He went west along the city wall from the Shenwu Gate Tower on Xideng Road, and went through the northwest corner tower, Xihua Gate and southwest corner building to the Meridian Gate.  

  After three routes, the Chairman just took a detour on the wall of the Forbidden City. This is the only record of Mao Zedong's three times to the Forbidden City, and these three times he only climbed the wall and did not enter the palace.  

  How does Chairman Mao feel about walking slowly on the wall? Did he think of the plan to rebuild the Forbidden City? Why didn't he walk in the Forbidden City?

No one knows the inside story.  

  "Plan to remove dross buildings"  

  In October 1952, the Beijing Municipal Government held a meeting to discuss the project. Liang Sicheng recorded the opinion of a speaker in his notebook: "I don't agree with the central government in Tiananmen."  

  In July 1953, the Beijing Municipal Construction Department and the district committees expressed their opinions on urban planning. Most of the people advocated the demolition of the city wall, believing that the Forbidden City was enough to protect antiquities, and proposed that "the main organs of the Central Committee are distributed in the inner ring, extending the Party Central Committee and the Central People's Government to the south of Tiananmen Square, and losing the Forbidden City. Build high-rise buildings in the back and around it, forming a pressure.  

  In 1955, Liang Sicheng's architectural ideas were criticized. He Zuoxu, who was working in the Central Propaganda Department at that time, published a critical article in the magazine Learning, saying: "Why is the urban construction of the old Beijing city without even any shortcomings? For example, the city walls of Beijing have greatly hindered the traffic in the suburbs and in Beijing, so that we have to open up many gaps in the city wall. For example, there is a large Forbidden City in Beijing, so that pedestrians have to take a detour, and the traffic is very inconvenient.  

  The "three-year difficulties" in the "Great Leap Forward" period forced Beijing's plan to rebuild the Forbidden City in 1958 and complete the reconstruction of the old city in about a decade. However, during this period, the Palace Museum put forward a "plan to remove dross buildings" - while implementing the repair and finishing of ancient buildings step by step, it also began to plan the reconstruction project to prepare for the clean-up and demolition of some "dross" buildings in the courtyard that do not reflect the "people's nature".  

  The Beijing Municipal Bureau of Culture put forward a request: "(1) If it can be used temporarily, it may not be demolished; (2) Select a few typical places to retain the houses and duty rooms where the palace servants (eunuches, maids, etc.) lived in the past, and mark the text description, so as to compare with the emperor's luxury life and level the audience. Level education; (3) When dismantling indoor walls, attention should be paid to the safety of buildings; (4) materials that can be used, attention should be paid to protection when demolition, and should be properly preserved and used after demolition; (5) Demolisted buildings should be taken.  

  The implementation of the plan is that "a number of dross buildings such as Jiangxuexuan Shed, Yangxing Zhai Shuan, Jihui Pavilion, Luqi, Jianfumen, Huifeng Pavilion, etc. will be demolished within a year."  

  The reconstruction plan was brought up again.  

  In 1964, the Report on Beijing's Urban Construction mentioned the reconstruction plan of East and West Chang'an Street, and the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City was put up again and studied. Opening up an east-west road in the Forbidden City is only one of the plans.  

  Wu Han, Vice Mayor of Beijing, changed the construction of the Forbidden City in his article "Talking about Beijing City":  

  The historical development of Beijing City tells us that neither the city construction, the political center, the street layout, the height of the house, etc. are immutable. The opposite conclusion is that it must be changed. We must have such a historical understanding so that we can not be shrouded in the shadow of our predecessors and move forward in a healthy way.  

  In 1964, after six design units came up with a plan, Beijing held an exhibition, and the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City was exhibited in the internal room. Several schemes are internally discussed and do not form decisions and facts. Liu Ren, the Second Secretary of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, looked at the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City and left with a smile.  

  During the exhibition, Wu Han listened to the guests in the Oriole Hall in the Summer Palace, and some city leaders and planners were present. During the banquet, Wu Han talked about the Forbidden City and quoted the scriptures, saying that the Forbidden City has been changing since ancient times. Pu Yi also sawed off the threshold of the Forbidden City for cycling.  

  The Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture of Tsinghua University in January 1965, the Collected Collection of Discussion on Teaching Thoughts (1) included an article entitled "Analyzing the Architectural Art of the Forbidden City and Tiananmen Square from a Class Perspective", saying that "the Forbidden City has no 'people's nature'" and "Today, the working people are the masters, and the Forbidden City is no longer feudal rule. The palace of the class has become the wealth of the people, so we also transform it and use it to serve today's socialism.  

  The article lists the views of the "working people" on the Forbidden City: "It's empty and loose, with a broken chair on the stage and looking at the 'greasy'! It's more tiring than marching!" What we are not interested in is just not suitable for our needs." With a stack of big wood, they can build fifty rooms. It can only build one room, and it can't stay for a few people!" It occupies such a large space, and it is still in the middle of the city." In the past, some of us were scared by the architectural style of the Forbidden City and fell at the feet of the feudal emperors, and we still haven't got up yet." Such a big country should have a good center.  

  "Smash the Forbidden City!"  

  In 1966, the "Cultural Revolution" broke out, and the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City was listed as the "crime evidence" that the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China wanted to give Liu Shaoqi the palace.  

  In the reconstruction plan, the Forbidden City did not have peace. On May 23, 1966, the clay sculpture "rent collection house" exhibition opened in the Shenwumen Tower, and then moved to the Fengxian Hall of the Forbidden City to continue the exhibition. For this reason, from June to July 1966, the I-shaped hall of Fengxian Hall was changed to a square. The statue of Mao Zedong was hung in the Fengxian Hall. The silk furnace used for the sacrifice of ancestors in the Qing Dynasty in front of the hall was considered to be inconsistent with the content of the exhibition and was demolished.  

  On August 3, 1966, eleven clay statues and a pair of clay-shaped horses in the Forbidden City God Temple were destroyed. On August 16, except for the "rent collection house" exhibition, all other parts of the Forbidden City were closed and closed.  

  The marble door plaque of the Palace Museum is covered by paper, and the ink pen book "Blood and Tears Palace" is three words; on the brick wall outside the Shenwu Gate, "Burning the Forbidden City!!!" Smash the Forbidden City!" The big-character newspaper is posted.  

  The "rectification plan" of the Forbidden City was immediately released. The forehead of the door of Shunzhen Gate, Tianyi Gate, Wenhua Hall and Qianlong Garden was removed, and the throne of Zhonghe Hall was demolished.  

  Other projects of the "rectification plan" have not been implemented, that is, they encountered the tide of "criticizing the bourgeois reactionary line". In May, they entered the Palace Museum and led the staff of the military propaganda team to criticize the "black line" and implement the "red line". In a blink of an eye, they became the object of criticism and struggle. In October, they had to withdraw from the Forbidden City, "the rectification party The case is over.  

  On May 26, 1967, Premier Zhou Enlai sent a battalion from the Beijing Garrison to the Palace Museum to implement military protection to protect the Palace and cultural relics from direct destruction.  

  In 1970, five rooms in front of the Qin'an Hall of the Forbidden City were demolished (restored in 2005).  

  In July 1971, the Palace Museum reopened. The museum compiled the Introduction to the Forbidden City and printed the "Quotations of Chairman Mao": "You see, for thousands of years, the palaces of those feudal emperors were not strong? The crowd came together and fell down one by one.  

  On March 27, 1973, due to the need of Luoyang White Horse Temple to receive Prince Sihanouk, according to the instructions of the superiors, all the cultural relics of the Great Buddha Hall of the Cining Palace of the Forbidden City were transferred to Luoyang White Horse Temple and have not been returned so far. When carrying cultural relics, the architectural paintings of the Great Buddha Hall of Cining Palace were destroyed.  

  In 1972, the East Building of the Beijing Hotel, which was designed with a height of more than 100 meters, was built on the east side of the Forbidden City. During the construction, it was found that it constituted a peep into the South China Sea, and the height of the East Building was reduced to 876 meters. On February 10, 1974, with the approval of the State Council, five obstructive buildings began construction on the north and south sides of the Xihua Gate of the Forbidden City. The following year Completed on November 22.  

  Previously, it was suggested that the Meridian Gate of the Forbidden City should be raised to act as a shield, which was rejected by Zhou Enlai.  

  Zhou Enlai proposed that the height of the old city of Beijing should not exceed 45 meters.  

  "Lu Dingyi rushed and angrily protected the Forbidden City!"

  "Lu Dingyi protected the Forbidden City and made great contributions!" Referring to the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City that year, Xie Chensheng, a consultant of the China Society for the Protection of Cultural Relics, said.  

  Wang Yeqiu, then director of the Cultural Heritage Bureau, was notified by the meeting of the Central Propaganda Department that the topic was to discuss the reconstruction plan of the Forbidden City. Wang Yeqiu became angry as soon as he heard it and refused to attend. Xie Chensheng recalled, "Later, when he saw me, he regretted it and said that he really should attend that meeting!" I thought that the meeting held by the Central Propaganda Department had been set, but it turned out to be a meeting to protect the Forbidden City. Lu Ding gave the plan to it!"  

  What Lu Dingyi left out was the plan to open a road in the Forbidden City. This road is planned to cross from Xihua Gate to Donghua Gate, and the two halls of Wenhua and Wuying will be used as entertainment places. Xie Chensheng said, "The plan was proposed by Beijing. The two major reasons for reconstruction are that the Forbidden City is 'the land is vast and sparsely populated, and the feudalism is backward'."  

  At this meeting, Lu Dingyi was furious.  Lu Dingyi said, 

"'feudal backward', the Forbidden City is feudal backwardness. If it is not feudal backward, how can it be called the Forbidden City? The land is vast and sparsely populated. What's wrong with leaving a place for the people to visit and rest? In my opinion, don't light the light bulb in the Forbidden City for 10,000 years. Our cadres above the department level of the Central Propaganda Department are all 'Royalists'!" 

At that time, the opinion of two central leaders was to dismantle the Forbidden City to repair the road, but Lu Dingyi's advice made the Forbidden City safe.  

  On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Palace Museum, Lu De, the son of Lu Dingyi, wrote in Beijing Daily: 

"Regarding the protection of the Forbidden City, my father said: In the 1950s and 1960s, in order to carry out construction, Beijing needed to demolish some ancient buildings. Some experts and scholars disagree, and some have cried bitterly about it. We reported this situation to the Chairman (Mao), who said: 'These old and young people, when the subjugated slaves (Note: when Japan invaded and occupied Beijing) they did not cry, and demolished several archways, they would cry?!' No one dares to reflect this kind of thing easily in the future. It seems that in order to protect the Forbidden City, my father took a great political risk in the early 1960s."

***

  (Extracted from Reading Library 0602, May 2006 edition of Tongxin Publishing House)

EDSA "Revolution": Reclaiming Democracy through a Marcosian Paradox?

EDSA "Revolution": Reclaiming Democracy through a Marcosian Paradox?

 Introduction

The EDSA "Revolution" of 1986 marks a pivotal moment in Philippine history, symbolizing the struggle for democracy against authoritarian rule. While it is celebrated as a triumph of the people's will, a deeper examination reveals an intriguing paradox: the revolution can be interpreted through the very lens of Ferdinand Marcos’s own ideologies. This note explores the EDSA "revolution" as both a "revolution from the center" and as a movement that skillfully employed Marcosian praxis against him. By critically analyzing Marcos’s writings and proclamations, we uncover how his vision of democracy and societal transformation became a double-edged sword, ultimately serving as a foundation for the people's uprising. In doing so, we highlight the resilience of the Filipino spirit in reclaiming their rights and assert that true revolutionary change arises from the collective actions of the citizenry, even when such actions challenge the authority of the very leaders who claim to represent them.

Background: Martial Law- autocracy guised as "revolution?"

The declaration of martial law in the Philippines remains a contentious topic, interpreted through various lenses that reveal the complexities of power and governance. On one hand, thinkers like Remigio Agpalo view martial law as an embodiment of the "pangulo" principle, suggesting that it justified an autocratic, if not authoritarian, rule rooted in Filipino values, culture, and tradition. Agpalo argues, “The authority of the pangulo is derived from the collective will of the people,” implying that in times of crisis, strong, centralized leadership might be deemed necessary for the nation's stability.

Conversely, Ferdinand Marcos sought to frame martial law in a more palatable, pseudo-progressive light. He positioned himself as a revolutionary leader, asserting that his imposition of martial law was essential for the nation’s transformation and stability. Marcos claimed, “Martial law is a means to a peaceful, orderly, and progressive society.” By presenting himself as the initiator of a "revolution," he aimed to legitimize his actions, framing them as a response to societal chaos and moral decay.

However, this narrative raises critical questions about the authenticity of his revolutionary claims. Critics argue that Marcos effectively hijacked the concept of revolution for his own political gain, manipulating the discourse to justify his consolidation of power. Rather than embodying the democratic aspirations of the Filipino people, his regime often stifled dissent and curtailed freedoms, undermining the very values he claimed to uphold. As he infamously stated, “In a democracy, the people must be allowed to choose their leaders; however, in times of crisis, extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary,” conveniently providing a rationale for his authoritarian rule.

Agpalo’s perspective emphasizes the cultural underpinnings of leadership but also faces scrutiny. While he may argue that strong leadership is justified under the "pangulo" principle, he acknowledges the risks involved, asserting, “Power must always be checked by the will of the people.” This admission underscores the paradox inherent in martial law: while it may be portrayed as a means to achieve order, unchecked authority can lead to tyranny and oppression.

The lived experiences of many Filipinos during martial law starkly contrast with Agpalo’s theoretical justifications. The harsh realities of human rights abuses, enforced disappearances, and the suppression of dissent under Marcos’s regime reveal a betrayal of the democratic ideals that should underpin any legitimate authority. The disconnect between the "pangulo" principle and the authoritarian practices enacted by Marcos illustrates the dangers of conflating strong leadership with autocracy.

Marcos himself expressed a contradictory stance, stating, “The welfare of the people is the highest law,” yet his administration's practices often belied this claim. The erosion of trust and the prevalence of fear during his rule demonstrated that while a leader may claim authority derived from tradition, the failure to uphold democratic principles ultimately alienates the very populace they purport to serve. Marcos’s statement, “We must take decisive action to preserve our nation,” reflects a view that justifies his autocratic measures, yet the consequences of such actions led to widespread suffering and disillusionment.

In this dual interpretation of martial law, we see a stark contrast between the ideals espoused by proponents of the "pangulo" principle and the reality of Marcos’s authoritarian rule. The complexities surrounding martial law highlight not only the challenges of governance in the Philippines but also the enduring struggle for genuine democracy. By critically engaging with both Agpalo's and Marcos's narratives, we can better understand the historical implications of martial law and the ongoing efforts to reclaim democratic values in the Philippines.

The legacy of martial law remains a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability in governance. The duality of these interpretations serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing that the pursuit of order should never come at the expense of fundamental human rights. As the Philippines continues to navigate its political landscape, the lessons from this tumultuous period serve as a guiding principle for future generations committed to safeguarding democracy and ensuring that power is always aligned with the will of the people.

EDSA: was it a "Revolution 'from' or 'against' the Center?"

At first, it may sound "ridiculous," if not dismissible, to interpret the Edsa Revolution using Ferdinand Marcos’s own views. However, a critical examination of his writings reveals that his ideas can be seen as both a reflection of his vision for the Philippines and a risk to his perpetuation in power. Marcos claimed that “democracy is the revolution” and envisioned a “revolution from the center,” yet the realities of his regime often belied these ideals, mocking the very people who demanded their rights.

Marcos’s assertion that “the state shall guarantee the dignity of every human person” and ensure “full respect for human rights” stands in stark contrast to the oppressive actions of his administration. The declaration of martial law and the systematic silencing of dissent illustrated a deep disconnection between his rhetoric and the lived experiences of Filipinos. This contradiction laid the groundwork for the uprising that characterized the Edsa Revolution, as the people sought to reclaim their rights and assert their agency against a regime that had long neglected their democratic aspirations.

Marcos’s idea that “revolution is not merely an act of violence; it is a transformation of society” becomes particularly ironic when considering the actual transformation that took place during the Edsa Revolution. The uprising represented a profound collective response to a regime that betrayed the principles of democracy. The phrase “the revolution devours its children” serves as a poignant reminder of how revolutions can turn against those who initially support them. In this context, the Edsa Revolution was not just a rejection of Marcos’s authoritarian rule but also an assertion of the people’s “right to revolution,” a right that Marcos himself articulated, albeit in a different context.

By framing their actions as a rightful reclaiming of democracy, the people demonstrated that the revolution he envisioned was not only his to dictate but also theirs to actualize. The Edsa Revolution was thus a realization of the very democratic principles that Marcos professed to support. His own philosophy became a tool for the people to rise against his regime, transforming his words into a powerful justification for their actions.

When the Poor Takes Back the Rebellion Against its Hijacker

"People power" stands as a monumental event in Philippine history, symbolizing a profound expression of the Filipino people's collective struggle for democracy, economic emancipation, and political liberation. This can be framed as a “rebellion of the poor,” as this uprising showcased how marginalized groups asserted their agency against systemic oppression. It was not merely a political change; it was a powerful declaration of the long-suffering populace, particularly those who had been historically neglected and oppressed.

Under Ferdinand Marcos's rule, the poor, who supposed to benefit in that "rebellion" Marcos initiated, still faced significant economic hardship and social exclusion. Marcos’s assertion that “the state shall guarantee the dignity of every human person” starkly contrasts with the lived experiences of many Filipinos, who endured human rights violations, poverty, and violence. This disconnection between his rhetoric and reality fueled widespread frustration, culminating in an uprising that sought to reclaim dignity and rights. The irony in Marcos’s claim that “democracy is the revolution” becomes evident when considering how his regime systematically silenced dissent and suppressed true democratic expression.

And thus, this Edsa "Revolution" was a collective realization among Filipinos that they had the right to challenge the prevailing social order. It represented a reclaiming of agency, where those historically marginalized took an active role in shaping their futures. While Marcos proclaimed that “revolution is not merely an act of violence; it is a transformation of society,” this transformation desired by the people was to break free from the chains of oppression he had imposed. The uprising allowed the poor to take back the rebellion as transforming their struggles into a powerful force, challenging the status quo and asserting their rights. Mobilizing en masse, they contradicted Marcos’s narrative of benevolent leadership, illustrating their determination to demand genuine representation and justice.

However, its legacy remains complex. Many systemic issues affecting the poor persist today, prompting critical questions about whether disillusionment should lead to abandoning democracy in favor of autocracy. The entrenched interests that benefit from various regimes—many echoing injustices from Marcos’s era—continue to frustrate the quest for economic and political liberation. As Marcos himself noted, “the revolution devours its children,” a reminder that revolutions can betray those who initially support them.

Despite the challenges, the ongoing struggle for social justice remains urgent. Surrendering democratic aspirations would be a grave mistake. The reality that unjust policies, some instituted during Marcos’s rule, continue to prevail contradicts the promise of economic emancipation and political liberation. As the Filipino people confront these challenges, the spirit of Edsa must be reignited, emphasizing that democracy is not merely a political system but a continuous struggle for rights and justice.

Instead of retreating into autocracy, the focus must be on reclaiming democracy for the people. The lessons of the Edsa Revolution remind us that real change requires collective action and an unwavering dedication to social justice. Those historically sidelined, particularly the poor, must be at the forefront of this movement, demanding accountability and real change.

Ultimately, the path forward lies not in giving up on democracy but in renewing commitment to its principles. As "people power" illustrates that true democracy must involve the voices and needs of all citizens, especially those who have been marginalized. By taking back the rebellion of the poor, the Filipino people can challenge entrenched interests and work toward a society that genuinely reflects the values of economic emancipation and political liberation. Thus, in this ongoing struggle, it is crucial to honor the people's legacy of struggle and ensure that the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality resonate in the hearts and minds of future generations. By reclaiming their narrative, asserting their rights, and embracing their right to revolution so the Filipino people can continue to advocate for a more just and equitable society, reaffirming that the fight for nationalism, democracy, and social justice is not just a historical event but a vital, ongoing journey.

The "revolution" as using Marcosian Praxis 

Against the maker himself

The Edsa "Revolution" can also be analyzed through the lens of "using Marcosian praxis against Marcos." This perspective highlights how the uprising not only critiqued the failures of his regime but also employed his philosophical framework to justify the revolution. In his writings, particularly in "Revolution from the Center," Marcos articulated a vision that placed the people at the center of societal change. He stated, “The people must be the architects of their destiny,” a notion that became ironically subverted as the people mobilized to challenge the regime that sought to define their destiny for them.

While Marcos envisioned a revolution that was meant to uplift the masses, his authoritarian governance negated that vision. The realities of his regime—characterized by repression, human rights abuses, and a failure to respect the very democratic principles he espoused—culminated in the Edsa "Revolution". The people, united in their demand for justice and accountability, acted upon the very ideals he articulated, reclaiming their right to self-determination.

Marcos's assertion that “democracy is a way of life” stands in stark contrast to the oppressive reality faced by Filipinos during his rule. The Edsa "Revolution" was thus not merely a rebellion against tyranny; it was a profound reassertion of the democratic values that had been undermined. The uprising exemplified the notion that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the governed. When that consent is violated, as it was under Marcos, it becomes the people’s responsibility to reclaim their agency.

In this light, the Edsa "Revolution" serves as a powerful testament to the resilience of the Filipino spirit. It illustrated how the very ideals that Marcos espoused could be transformed into a rallying cry for change. By using his own words against him, the people not only exposed the contradictions of his regime but also redefined what it meant to be a revolutionary in the context of Philippine society.

 Conclusion

The Edsa "Revolution" serves as a pivotal moment in Philippine history, where the concept of revolution transcended mere opposition to a regime; it became a powerful assertion of the people's agency. This can indeed be seen as a "revolution from the center," strategically employing Marcos’s own rhetoric against his dictatorial regime- and this ironic utilization highlights the deep contradictions in his leadership and reinforces the legitimacy of the people’s uprising. By framing their actions within the context of Marcos's own rhetoric—such as his claims about the "right to revolution", as well as democracy and human rights—the Filipinos exposed the inherent contradictions in his leadership. This irony not only underscored the legitimacy of their uprising but also highlighted how the very ideals Marcos professed were subverted by his authoritarian practices.

At its core, the Edsa "Revolution" was a collective response to years of oppression. Filipinos yearned for the democratic principles that had been promised but largely unfulfilled under Marcos. The movement was not just about overthrowing a dictator; it was about attempting in reclaiming dignity, rights, and a genuine democratic space for Filipinos. This affirmation of democratic values stands as a testament to the resilience of the Filipino spirit, showcasing how a populace can mobilize to reclaim its agency against systemic injustices.

However, the revolution’s legacy has faced significant challenges. Over time, various interests, including those from the remnants of Marcos’s regime, have attempted to co-opt the narrative of Edsa for their own purposes. This has often resulted in the reduction of its revolutionary aspirations to hollow rhetoric and piecemeal reforms aimed at placating public discontent. Such actions undermine the original goals of the revolution, leading to disillusionment among many Filipinos who feel their struggles have been diluted with some even looking back at the dictatorship itself as providing even a semblance of stability. 

But, should this disillusionment be lead to an outright giving up of democracy for autocracy? True that entrenched interests continue to prevail- most of which benefited from various regimes pre-and-post martial law and "people power", what more seeing unjust policies that continue to prevail-some of which done during Marcos's era itself, running contrary to the idea of "economic emancipation" and "political liberation" of the people. Why did "people power" happen? Again, it's more than the change of regime as the establishment and its supporters promote, but a realisation of "economic emancipation" and "political liberation" by subverting the prevailing social order- taking back the rebellion of the poor by the "poor" itself.

Despite these setbacks, the Edsa "Revolution" remains a profound example of collective agency. The ironical act of transforming Marcos’s own philosophical framework into a tool for resistance illustrates the power of the people to reshape their political landscape. This act not only challenged the authority of the dictator but also redefined what it meant to strive for democracy in the Philippines. By embracing and asserting their right to revolution, the people collectively and effectively turned the tables on the very ideas that were meant to justify their oppression- an attempt in reshaping the political landscape and in asserting their place in society and history.

Ultimately, the Edsa "Revolution" serves as a vital reminder of the importance of civic engagement in the ongoing struggle for justice and democracy. It encourages future generations to reflect on the lessons learned and to continue advocating for genuine change. The echoes of "people power" and the continuing struggle remind Filipinos that the fight for national liberation, democracy, and social justice is not merely a historical event but an ongoing journey, one that requires vigilance, participation, and a commitment to the ideals of justice and equality. In doing so, that legacy of struggle can inspire a renewed commitment to the principles it championed, ensuring that the revolutionary spirit lives on.

"Neither their whine nor their reaction" (Now's the time continuing the revolution)

"Neither their whine nor their reaction"

(Now's the time continuing the revolution)

Old yankee money is now no longer shining 

While goddamn mainlanders whose cancer is quite threat'ning

The hand of the both imperialists is not so scary 

 For the dawn of the people will scare them badly 

 Amidst the order, its state-led terrorism 

 Resistance is rising no place for defeatism 

 The Unity of people will sweep them badly 

 In every front until they're gone, come join the party 

 Neither their "whine" nor their reaction 

 Now's the time continuing the revolution 

Advance, fighting masses their threat is deemed no meaning

Neither law nor truncheon will beat the battle coming 

 The congress nor the courts even police and army 

 Together slaves of the order: to hell so badly 

 Advance, fighting masses, together striking in flanks 

 Despite stabbing our backs this ne'er tire our ranks 

 The blade of the old tyrants now stabbing their own throats

 While their attack dogs now fleeing searching for new hosts 

 Neither their "whine" nor their reaction 

 Now's the time continuing the revolution 

 Amidst the hardships, betrayals and of infamies 

The road to our freedom still taken and surely 

 Even thousands of traitors who join in this journey 

 Only the few will see the sun rising with its glory 

 We're the vanguard of the sovereign people 

 Taking the weapon continuing the struggle 

 The same revolt of past ages will end the error 

 We will reboot society to end their terror 

 Neither their "whine" nor their reaction 

Now's the time continuing the revolution

Peace, Land, Justice, Jobs, Decent Wage not "Charter Change!"

Peace, Land, Justice, Jobs, Decent Wage 

not "Charter Change!"

 By Kat Ulrike 

 Instead of addressing numerous challenges of the Filipino people the current Marcos administation, in connivance with Speaker Martin Romualdez and others prioritises amending the constitution with the goal of opening and depending further the country to Foreign Direct Investment. This venture tends to downplay that of basic social problems like low wages, rising costs of commodities, slow-paced industrialisation and domestic-based development, lack of genuine agrarian reform, and pseudo-"sovereignty". 

 By pursuing this "Charter Change", the Marcos administration wanting to enact 100% Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Ownership of local businesses, domestic utilities, and national patrimony, making the national economy be at the hands of foreign profiteers in connivance with local despots and at expense of the stuggling masses. 

 Contrary to the establishment's blame on the current constitution for national woes, it is not in the constution but rather in this continuing-past of subservience to entrenched interests both local and foreign. By looking back at history previous administrations been subservient to unequal agreements and enacting oppressive policies at the expense of the people, while pretending to uphold justice and democratic rights. And contrary to these proponents, the Philippines is lenient if not lax when it comes to Foreign Direct Investment, yet far from its neighbours in South East Asia. It is not surprising if these advocates wished for unbridled, unregulated kind claiming these what the international market needed in today's societies. 

 Regardless of the statements coming from the administration and its apologists, the toiling masses demand for right wages, better jobs and working standards, genuine agrarian reform, national industrialisation and domestic based development, and defending human rights and national sovereignty. The current regime may've promised and parroted such sentiment, but the neoliberal-oriented "Charter Change" being peddled as a panacea for social ills but rather consolidates interest-seekers at the expense of the toiling masses. Those being "left out after EDSA" are rather fooled by the very rotten order whose personages wanting not just "through and through" economic liberalisation but also political power through term extension while pretending promising the vulnerable with "social justice" through "Charter Change". 

 Folk! Changing the charter by the very rotten order is not reform! It is consolidation of interests! A counterreaction to an existing reaction! 

“Is that so? Everyone doesn’t think so.”

“Is that so? Everyone doesn’t think so.” 

The recent events that brought division between the Marcos and Duterte factions has clearly showeth that their unity becomes a farce. Be it issues regarding Marcos's alleged cocaine use to Duterte's use of Fentanyl, to that of threats of arrest from the International Criminal Court and alleged clamours for Mindanao's secession from the Philippine state, these recent events doesn't stop people from seeing them both as accomplices of maintaining a rotten, decadent social order that benefits themselves and its camarilla- all at the expense of the labouring people whom they promised a "comfortable life for all" in the "new Philippines."

 How come this note say so? Duterte's statement is not borne out of principle but of his own fear, as news about the International Criminal Court entering the Philippines has fueled much of angst by his supporters, and further justified by the current regime's reluctance to expel investigators from further doing such actions. Duterte would churn rumours of Marcos's alleged use of Cocaine- that made Marcos churn about the former president still using Fentanyl. With these would say shows that this "Mindanao separatist" issue is not driven of principle as Duterte and his ilk claim- but of fear and of still keeping interest. 

  Even the so-called amendments to the constitution caused controversy; those who had previously been "pro-charter change" turned against it, while others who had supported it pushed the agenda through "People's Initiative." This was the case even though both sides pushed for the charter change because it contained "economic amendments" that enshrined the neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization and further reinforced the dominance of foreign capitalists over the country's resources and economy. Why would Duterte oppose those "economic provisions" in that "initiative" yet he and his camarilla forcefully advocated for the passing of neoliberal laws and policies? Or is it a result of the present regime's reversal of course and return to US military action against China, which the previous administration attempted to favour with? Once more, there is no principle in what Duterte and his allies are attempting to convey in their criticism of Marcos—especially considering that both are willing to sacrifice the nation's patrimony for powerful interests and are subjects of foreign tyrants.  

 But as the rift continues thus exposes Duterte becoming desperate- that by babbling "Mindanao separatism" and his supporters strongly supporting him especially in the face of possible arrest by the International Criminal Court shows trying to gain leverage (and credibility) to push back against the Marcoses’ schemes to degrade their economic and political power. His "Federalism" scheme, just like the attempt for "revolutionary government" failed and still Duterte have misled Filipinos by banked his presidential campaign on federalism because he and some of his key allies are now against constitutional reforms. 

  However, supporters of both camps would argue that this is irrelevant because they continue to uphold "unity" in spite of this being the clear right and in spite of recent events where both factions have wasted public funds on busing in supporters to create the appearance that they have widespread support. The deplorable conditions of the people were used by both warring groups, who seemed to be advocating for "unity" and "change" while entertaining them and promising them government assistance. Bullshit and mudslinging are being used by social media experts and vloggers to mislead readers as the rift gets worse. Sounds familiar in order to avoid acknowledging the reality, which is that the nation is still far from fulfilling people's dreams due to an order that falsely claims to speak for the Filipino people. 

In the meantime, Duterte's sockpuppets showed off the notion that his remarks—who is well-known for making absurd claims—should not be taken seriously. It was hard for journalists to cover him because of his tendency to startle people. According to the article from the Manila Times, it said: "They were used to heads of state who can be taken literally, without the need for adding context."

By flaunting such nonsense would say that the former president tries to rally Mindanaoans to his standard thinking they voted for him; but did these people voted for him simply because he's a Mindanaoan who promised change? Peace? Development? Not all would say voted because of his background nor his promises, let alone how he snared them by his antics and his "hands on" kind of politics as they would say "he relates to the common people" the way he uses expletives and sarcasm to convey his thoughts and thus becoming policies. However, he's the same Duterte who chose to swore upholding a rotten, oppressive social order. He even intensified it by making laws that put burden to the common folk for the interests of the few. And now he talks about separatism that even the Moros and most Mindanaoans beg to disagree on him in the name of "national unity".

For the concerned these bullshits doesn't water down the fact that he babble it out of fear- that his case against the folk are being investigated for his crimes and therefore he and his ilk facing arrests. Even Dela Rosa, his trusted henchman who once led the Philippine National Police chose to side with the current administration than his master, is it because of principle as a legislator supporting the administration? Or simply by fear because he's part of the Duterte camarilla?

“On my part, personally, right now I don’t want to because I don’t want to get a visa if I go. I will visit my grandchildren here in Batangas,” dela Rosa said in an article from the Inquirer, speaking partly in Filipino, when asked if he is in favor of the “One Mindanao” proposal.

"From Davao, I will fly here. I will have to get a visa because it turns out that Luzon and Visayas are already different countries." Dela Rosa added. 

With these words would say that one of Duterte's henchmen rejects his boss's words, despite claiming that those who promote Mindanao separatism "were just sending a message that they would be forced to encourage a separate state if pushed to the wall"; however, dela Rosa said he would back Mindanao's secession in the "worst" case scenario as he said. But, is Duterte much so dela Rosa and those supporting the past administration really for the Mindanaoans much so as Filipinos? Or just because they're feared of being investigated further, much so arrested by the International Criminal Court for their actions? No wonder why Congressman Raoul Manuel said Duterte should not treat Mindanao as if his own realm much so an escape bunker amid investigations by the ICC.  

Wouldn't be surprised if there are others who supported Duterte also changing their tones, if not end mum as interfering costs their so-called political integrity. 

 Despite this, some would argue that the warring camps are still committed to upholding a corrupt social order, and that nothing has changed. Whether the legislators continue to clamour for "charter change" or Duterte with his "separatist" agenda, that the Filipino people are still forced to deal with issues like growing costs, low wages, unemployment, landlessness, economic dispossession, widespread corruption, declining social conditions, a lack of public services, and other issues brought on by the nation's vassalage to powerful foreign powers and entrenched interests. Once more, the "new Philippines" is nothing "new" other than reworded statements and programs, but the goal of upholding the status quo and uniting interests is still the same- and wouldn't be surprised if the rift between two camps continues to be aggravated.  

 As said a year ago the country is still in a state of "Vivere Pericoloso" thanks to those whose interests trying to hinder the aspirations of the people whether by amending the fundamental law, churning state funds for "malicious purposes", to that of slander in social media by its supporters, or by the bullet as attack dogs in various forms trying to silence growing dissent. Yes, the folks are living dangerously despite promises of stability, whereas the past administration loves to gaslight, the current one will "kill us softly with his words".

And since the country and its people is still living dangerously, then why not have the will to resist? For sure they have enough of tyrants and scoundrels, of incompetents and those spewing with hollow phrases. No bullet, law, nor "heaven" of theirs will stop the people's call for just aspirations. 

"Chinese New Year's ramblings"

"Chinese New Year's ramblings"

The smoke of incense fills the air 

Out of tales that this would evade spirits from every lair 

Whilst casts a fragrant scent such delight 

Enough to say casts out the horrible blight 

I hear the continuous incantations and prayers 

As of trying to bring comfort to the one suffers 

After enduring a days, weeks, to years full of strife 

That makes one think when to have a good life? 

As I traverse the streets expect them wishing luck 

Despite trying to escape from hardships themselves locked 

Be it through prayers to that of various sweetmeats 

Sold by vendors to passers-meet 

Of course, the majority would have smiles 

Trying to stave off the problems even awhile 

As they see the dragon and lion dances 

To that of beggars trying to imitate the former's prances 

If not looking at the bright lights 

Again enough to stave everyday blights 

Especially after lighting all the fireworks 

Bringing storms against hell and its work 

In seeing such events makes me wonder 

That as the yesterday's rabbit finally prances out and the dragon breaks heavens astunder 

How come it is still the same with various blunders 

Seeing same bullshit published in the papers? 

Perhaps I have to pray and work better 

Trying to count blessings even further 

Despite everything that makes life harder 

The dictum is clear: counter fire with water 

 For the fact that behind their joy is worry 

Behind their glee is sorry 

Behind their wishes is a supplication, a plea 

Behind the festivity a call for freedom as we seek 

 Pardon if my thoughts becoming political 

For reality itself made us less biblical 

Especially when those words trying to be "practical" 

Trumps that of those whose foundations as "moral" 

 But in the end these observations turned one's tradition into ours 

As Chung-Hua's new year is as same holiday's as Christmas and Labour's 

 Especially in this godless order whose continuity is injustice and oppression 

Let there be dragons as we say we'll bring hell into their delusion!

Reviving Intramuros, old Manila, and its surroundings: is it really for the community or just to please the eyes?

Reviving Intramuros, old Manila, and its surroundings:

is it really for the community or just to please the eyes?

By Lualhati Madlangawa-Guererro

It's been a recent topic these days the idea of reviving Intramuros and its surroundings in Manila. Be it the pedestrianised streets to that of the reopening of the river esplenade, reviving the "city within the walls" has been a topic in heritage circles and has created mixed reactions to it. However, if one may ask, is the reviving benefited the community itself? Or for aesthetics sake?

In one article entitled "Make Intramuros a living history museum" yours truly wonder since the author talks about history, heritage, and the need for reviving, why it has to emphasise aesthetics at the expanse of the community that made the walled district living? Impressive would say the thought of reviving for the sake of history and heritage, but should it be at the expense of the people that kept the district moving?

Comparing Intramuros and Colonial Williamsburg

As yours truly was reading the paper, Joel Ruiz Butuyan, the author gave Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia as an example. According to him, Colonial Williamsburg's historic district, which perfectly captures the ambiance and way of life of the 1700s, is regarded as the largest living history museum in the world. Scattered across a 122-hectare expanse are several hundred structures that were reproduced or refurbished in accordance with colonial-era architecture, in addition to 89 restored 18th-century buildings. Among the buildings from the colonial era are the Governor's Palace, the Capitol, the courthouse, the prison, the military camp, the hospital, the church, and the inns.

However, Butuyan finds it fascinating that the location allowed visitors to experience life as it was in the 18th century. In addition, he claims that there are pubs that serve historical fare and beverages, a market square where goods from the era are offered for sale, and a theater that hosts or exhibits entertainments from the 18th century. Craftsmen during the colonial era include carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, wigmakers, blacksmiths, and silversmiths. Their creations can be purchased or displayed. Many of the workers in the historic region are trained to speak in archaic English, and they wear clothing from the 18th century as they go about their daily lives, doing chores, and conducting business.

Nice if one may say, but to put the example of Colonial Williamsburg in the still-living and working district of Intramuros seems to be an ideal thought- for behind the beauteous setting of spanish-era buildings is a community that kept the district living and thriving. Of course the district needs regulations to keep the place in order, but to replicate? Again find it ideal if not idyllic for tourism's sake as Colonial Williamsburg is really presented as a living-history museum managed by a private foundation presenting a part of the historic district in the city of Williamsburg, Virginia. Everything is all but "rehearsed" as it tries to reflect the setting of the colonial era as that of the restored buildings. Intramuros, on the other hand, although managed by the government-led "Intramuros Administration" is more than just a city within the walls full of old and rebuilt, or recreated structures- it is a working living community that's in need of recognition and inclusivity in its quest for revival. 

Both places did truly committed to promoting history and preserving its heritage, but there are major differences that's to recognise upon. Whereas Colonial Williamsburg is managed by a private institution, a “theme park” that’s populated with historical reenactors to compliment the restored if not rebuilt setting, whereas Intramuros is not, but rather a working district both managed by a government agency whose purpose is to to orderly restore, administer, and develop the historic walled area; while its barangays representing Manila’s Local Government, carries the task of ensuring order and providing services to its local constituents residing within and surrounding its walls. Together, the Intramuros Administration and the Manila City Government, along with the private sector, did sound efforts to revive, preserve, and uphold for present and future generations, benefiting its inhabitants, tourists, and other sectors involved; but, in reading Butuyan's suggestion- that of a "cultural Disneyland" it sidelines, if not forgets the community that keeps the district living in favor of the idyllic setting Intramuros should be.

And that also means a prolonged debate.

Recognising the community within the walls

(and how the community is willing to support efforts for reviving)

Why yours truly did say that Butuyan's suggestions forgets that of the community within the walls? That by saying he wants a "Cultural Disneyland" patterned that of Colonial Williamsburg in Intramuros shows how ideal would be especially "in the name of tourism". True that the intent is to showcase the surrounds of the past, but, the demographics of the district has been changed for generations- with seamen, students, middle-class employees and owners of variety stores, eateries, and dormitories  replacing that of its supposed residents who once served as the bureaucrats serving both the city and the country. The latter have all moved out to districts like Ermita or Malate during the American era, or that of Forbes and San Lorenzo during the early years of the Republic; So, out of something that's ideal should the ones existing, benefiting, and contributing be removed in favour of what is pleasing to the eyes? It's no different from proclaiming that Intramuros is an enclave of the rich simply because of its lawns as a golf course- while within the walls a "cultural Disneyland" for those who can afford to enter.

Besides, there’s Acuzar’s “Las Casas” that according to its developer tries to replicate the historical setting although controversial as this involves houses that meant to be part of a specific community such as Manila’s- of old houses being moved piece by piece and be “restored” to its past condition. This may sound closer to Colonial Williamsburg mr. Butuyan was pondering upon- especially that there are those who able to replicate the period complete with horse-drawn carriages, replicas of tranvias, even old jeepneys. There’s also drama featuring the life of Jose Rizal, as well as serving the food that tries to replicate that of the olden times. 

But since there are those who think this project brought by Mr. Acuzar should also happen in Intramuros, then it means debate as it affects various sectors. For as the never-ending issue deals about the enclave, its community, and its quest for architectural revival- for what kind of revival Intramuros or its surroundings within Old Manila should be? Yours truly may've read various suggestions some of which are considerable and involves inclusivity; but Butuyan's suggestion may sound quite extreme and exclusive for others, knowing that it means recreating everything 19th century for tourism's sake- but again, there's Las Casas to begin with if he wishes that way, he can pay a certain amount just to enjoy the setting he thinks "that should happen in Intramuros".

For despite recognising how tourism brings income to the walled enclave, then how about the schools, the stores, restaurants, the logistics and shipping offices as well as dormitories and even parking spaces that benefits the community? Tourists can go on a weekend walk visiting every church, paying a fee to visit a museum, or buy in a souvenir shop and dine at a restaurant within the walls; but everyday students from Letran, Mapua, and the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila attend their classes in the campuses located within the walls- so is some staying in its dormitories, eating at roadside eateries, lucky enough if there's a fastfood chain or a convenience store for some air-conditioned setting. Just find it question provoking the thought why for the sake of beauty the district has to become a gentrified space, a "cultural Disneyland" that benefits tourists at the expense of the community. Wouldn't be surprised if this happens to be Las Casas, but despite efforts to revive, to revitalise the city within the walls, Intramuros is no Las Casas of Bagac- for despite having old houses and iconic structures, these carries a purpose other than pleasing the eyes and minds of tourists: it is a community where everyone lives, works, studies! Why would these people be sidelined in favour of those who just go to see a rehearsed surrounding? 

How about motor vehicles in the area? Should be “Car-less?” “Car-free?”

On the other hand, this note acknowledges the need for limits in motorised vehicles passing over Intramuros. Especially with the recent developments to improve tourism would say that the pedestrianisation of some streets find it helpful to make the place walkable and to protect the integrity of the structures built, as well as some roads can be narrow only to see cars driving around. although there are some tend to be quite extreme particularly conveying the thoughts of making the walled district “car-free”- and that would say quite idealistic.

However, it's a common misperception that car-free cities and districts forbid car ownership altogether, particularly in areas that were intended to be pedestrian-only. “Car free” or for accuracy’s sake, “car less” generally mean fewer cars rather than no cars so vary from restricting the use of vehicles in certain areas or designated streets to removing parking spaces. Reduced car usage or restrictions in particular areas are common features of car-free programs. Car ownership and driving is still permitted for locals and businesses. However, there are other options that are more accessible and actively encouraged, like ride-sharing, walking, cycling, and public transportation. 

People would like to live in towns with less air pollution, fewer accidents, and more areas set aside for pedestrians. Cars take up a lot of urban space, therefore it's important to take that into account. Additionally, fewer personal cars can ease the chronic space shortage felt in districts. 

For instance, in Manhattan, parking lots and roadways take up around 25% of the total area of the borough, this of course is a major problem to begin with; on the other hand, Oslo has transformed over 700 parking spaces into bike lanes, parks, and benches. Similarly, Paris plans to remove 70,000 parking spaces in the city to make way for active transport lanes. These are driven by the need to make cities livable and inclusive for all, rather than those who own automobiles of sorts- and of course, this should also happen in the Philippines, especially in the old districts. 

 To be honest, people may find the idea riddled with misconception especially when private car ownership is at odds with those who have not, what more that there are other motor-driven vehicles such as pedicabs and motorcycles that also share the roads as that of pedal-driven ones. If to take the thought literally simply because of “hating the presence of automobiles” then this may also include that of other motor-driven vehicles as well due to environmental and safety reasons. But since they happened to be part of the community the thought of "low-traffic neighbourhoods" in old communities and districts is likewise than literally banning cars or any motor vehicles in the said area- for having limits on passing motor vehicles within the area in favour of pedestrians would be better than making the entire district prohibiting cars or any motor vehicles all for tourism’s sake. 

Or is it because they hate cars or any motor vehicles? Pardon for the thought knowing that the idea of having the entire district prohibit passing motor vehicles sounds extreme. Why? Haven’t they forgot that the district also has offices dedicated to logistics and shipping? As well as having printing offices located there? Even the buses of schools located at Intramuros also passed within the area too. Should these establishments be moved out as well? Again these happened to be part of the community- and they obliged to observe regulations regarding vehicle use within the vicinity. Furthermore there are also paid parking areas for car-owning visitors who ought to visit the walled district particularly churchgoers who wanted to visit the Manila Cathedral on Sundays. True that these folks would say are being advised by authorities to have alternative means of transport especially on days certain roads being dedicated to pedestrians in order to improve mobility in the area. 

Perhaps it would agreeable on the idea that of limiting access on motor vehicles the way the Duke of Gloucester Street and other historic area thoroughfares in Colonial Williamsburg are closed to motorized vehicles during the day, in favor of pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, dog walkers, and animal-drawn vehicles. Mr. Butuyan and others would agree on this, that visitors may park at the Visitor's Center, as automobiles are restricted from the restored area, while wheelchair-accessible shuttle service is provided to stops around the perimeter of the Historic District. In the case of Intramuros would say that a dedicated shuttle service will do, aside from prioritising pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller vehicles whilst limiting that of motorised ones on days or hours in certain roads. 

***

It is not surprise that there are people wanted a Potemkin town for tourism reasons, so expect them to talk about whatever appeals to their eyes, even at the expense of the community that supports it. They would suggest that by expelling the existing “squatting” residents for a Potemkin town would flourish tourism alone and therefore means developmenr, having “existing structures inside Intramuros that can be restored to their 19th-century grandeur with colonial-era homes and business establishments can be reconstructed in vacant lots.” If so, let it be. But, for the sake of reality, would one suggest that by imposing their ideas on an already existing community? It appears that they are more concerned with the beauty than with the life that makes the location worthwhile. Being a guest for a while would suggest that there is a real need for order in that place, while also understanding the need for inclusivity in that particular community, especially since without them, the site is very useless, regardless of the history carved in it. 

 In this remark, yours truly mentioned that, while admitting the need for improvement, it must go beyond aesthetics and focus more on livability and community in light of the recent developments in Intramuros and its environs over Old Manila. Expect it to be selective—some things are agreeable and worthy of discussion, while others are debatable and, therefore, subject to some disagreement.  It is quite agreeable that Colonial Williamsburg states its objective with these words: "That the future may learn from the past" and so must be followed by people who value legacy and identity. However, as time passes, expect changes in the said area and the community that keeps it living, particularly those that ensure the place's sustainability regardless of its status; otherwise, it will become a shell of what it once was. They simply need to be included in the development process since they are willing to put things in order as if that benefits themselves.