Elegies to the martyrs

Elegies to the martyrs

Despite their deaths 

Their calls still resounding 

That in the hearts and minds of folks 

The struggle is still worth fighting 

That no matter they're gone 

The flames still burning 

As fighters continue resisting 

Doesn't mind the risk- the cause is worth fighting. 

The fields may be silent for now 

And news outlets remained mum 

While the order and its press releases 

Trying to shut the concerned down 

But the folk knew how cruel the order is 

Should these tyrants deserve trust?

Their slanderous messages steer anger 

Only fools would belive them most. 

But again no matter they're gone 

The flames continue to burn 

There is no need to mourn 

To fight for them yes as the cause has made them reborn 

As they themselves offered their blood, sweat, lives 

To the homeland tht's deserved of love 

And to the folk who still cries for help 

To the concerned who's willing to uprise 

Call it idealistic, or foolish 

As the order dismiss their views 

Of calling as subversives and misfits 

All because of their sociopatriotic beliefs 

Their love of home is more than the land 

But also that of the its kindred folk 

Thus no wonder why every tool becomes a weapon 

That realities turned bullets pointing to the tyrant as direction 

As their blood have tainted the land 

Soon comes another band 

With flames that bear in their hearts 

And Principles that etched in their minds 

The willingness to jump into the abyss 

As they endure the pain, suffering, hardships 

Death is only beginning to them 

As the concerned will traverse the road less taken

The news says they've died fighting 

And troll farms kept churning 

Statements enough to call a slander 

Comments justifying that gruesome matter 

By those claiming to be winning the peace 

At the expense of the deaths of papers torn into pieces

 The country presented new still at the appendage of the old 

Of tyrants pretentious appearing to be "remold" 

 The ones died in the scene enough to call heroes 

Despite dismissed as bandits like those from long ago 

Their passion and love for one's home has driven them to battle 

Winning the oppressed's hearts and minds in a protracted struggle 

They all came from various backgrounds rich or poor may say

 But the love of homeland and folk meant crossing the less taken way 

As turning their passions into weapons in this holy war 

Willing to jump into the abyss as that of reaching the stars 

 And now as they've left countless memories 

 Of numerous actions for those forging destinies 

Fighting over the They may be dead in eyes of this rotten order 

But no! They all live in the hearts of those who remember 

The friendship, love, passion, and will to revolution 

Against the endless cycle of injustice and oppression 

Like the heroes of the past, uncommon is their valour 

Amidst the risk, the pain, the fear and terror 

As notes turning into bullets by those whose hearts burning 

Striking the tyrants and its attack dogs, nightmares in this land of the morning

Making Filipinnovation Technonationalistic

 Making Filipinnovation Technonationalistic

By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro

On the occasion of the death of Professor Roger Posadas, this note is ought to say that today's Filipinnovation should be aligned with Technonationalist goals in making Science and Technology  closer to the people and its aspirations.

Dr. Roger Posadas, PhD

Today, the Philippines stand at a crossroads where the forces of innovation and industrialization are not just shaping its current setting but also defining its future. For these two powerful drivers of progress have transformed societies, economies, and lives in ways that were once the realm of science fiction.

Looking back at the aspirations of the past, the Philippines has wished development that provides opportunities and fulfills societal wants and needs. It had looked at the examples of both east and west and having chances of proving its own direction only to be hindered by interests dismissing such ventures as some lofty ideals. 

That even in this current setting it is not surprised that whilst accepting such terms like "innovation", "digitalisation", "development", "efficiency", "technology", among others, these are but words meant to consolidate the status quo rather than to blossom people's aspirations. In fact, the national policy on science and technology is seen by many as a showcase.  For be it the monorail to that of its hybrid electric trains (both road and rail), and its recent microsatellite launch,  everything's presented to the people is poorly received if not responded with skepticism. Furthermore, established views like globalisation downplays the need for localised development- even to the extent of dismissing as having "regrettable outcomes in the name of good" such as industrialisation, and the even promotion and cultivation of localised knowledge and technology to create a localised setting for innovation.  

Some years past, the government talks about a concept called "Filipinnovation." At first, it sounds promising that would make the country promote to the world more than the usual tourist destinations and its festivals as it showcases the Filipino's capability to create new and sustainable means to steer an  inclusive economic growth.

Obviously, Filipinnovation represents an attempt to merge Filipino ingenuity and technological advancement. Driven by a desire to address local challenges with homegrown solutions, Filipinnovation highlights the need for local talent, homegrown idea, and the cultivation of local expertise and creativity for the benefit of the people and sustained development.

But in this current situation, Filipinnovation cannot be truly "Filipinnovative" without a sound industrialisation and utilisation of local resources to really empower homegrown talents, inventors, scientists, and various sectors alike to further advance a truly innovative and creative setting. 

For sure critics may dismiss this venture as ideal, especially when the country is too tied with neoliberal policies especially globalization. But with recent events such as the COVID19 pandemic, and with other neighbouring countries adopting semiprotectionist measures, it seems that the country should seriously rethink about continuing "established" views- that includes revisiting past ventures that may also provide opportunities for current and future developments. And this involve industrialisation and the innovative utilization of local resources for local needs. 

Speaking of revisiting past ventures, individuals like Salvador Araneta showed that the country can able to utilize its own resources and providing local alternatives to the extent of facing heavy pressure from outside entities. Araneta had to face challenges as the Americans imposed heavy pressure on the Central Bank of the Philippines not to grant his Republic Flour Mills the required dollar allocation. Obviously, the Americans and local compradores disagree on a venture that would disrupt the established setting- that even someone made article on how stupid the Filipinos were to think the would succeed despite the fact that wheat is not grown in the Philippines. But Araneta's desire of a flour mill was more than just having a flour mill alone- he desired for a progressive country that can stand on its own economically- and that involves a long term task of industrialising and promoting sound innovative and creative means of development. 

Salvador Araneta

According to Araneta, industrialisation must be rapid and self-generating. Looking at the examples of other countries that undergone industrialisation, he said that the country could be achieved development by establishing key industries, namely the steel industry, shipbuilding, water resources, chemical and fermentation industries, as well as machine and tool industries. These ventures may sound too ideal in a local setting such as the Philippines, with critics dismissing the idea as stupid as they favour keeping the country agricultural and import-dependent while staying afloat on foreign investments and the dominance of foreign-owned establishments. But imagine how countries like Germany, France, and Japan recovered after World War II in record time because their reconstruction was self-generated and because they started building their basic industries? They did have support from the west courtesy of Marshall Plan and other related recovery programs, but the existence of a local manufacturing base, and having enough labour power made reconstruction easier for these countries and easily able to invest further on innovative and creative ways, modes, and means to sustain and develop new products and services.

Furthermore, industrialisation would imply that the nation must take the initiative to protect these divinely bestowed resources, including its soil, water, and forests, as well as its labor force, which consists of both brains and sinew. Why would other countries want to extract these and profit from it? The folk does not receive the income earned from resource extraction which depletes the region's mineral resources nor from agriculture which doesn't even fed its people. Instead, the profits either go to other countries and nationals or end up in the hands of financiers who claim to be "investing" and therefore reaping its "return of investments", not the people who toil in hazardous conditions to produce those goods. Again, call it political in this note that talks about innovation, but the country's need for innovation is not reinforced with the pressing need for industrialisation as to making the nation really utilise its resources for its own benefit.

Quite disrupting during those times the idea of undergoing industrialisation for again the country's agricultural and commercial setting has benefited local and foreign entities. Various presidents talked about national development, even promoting science and technology as any other campaign promises and statements during yearly "State of the Nation Address", but as national policies be complacent on an established foreign diktat does it really benefited people? Supporters of the establishment may've insisted that the country has undergone industrialisation, but this "industrialisation" was and is limited to consumer goods and assembly-line products. Attempts to pursue heavy industry such as integrated steelmaking and shipbuilding remained on the backbencher despite numerous promises to revive it. As what Ramon Jacinto said some years ago: "Our industrial backwardness has huge adverse implications. It results in massive domestic joblessness. Buying imported goods supports jobs abroad rather than in the country. Exporting our raw minerals and agricultural resources for processing in other countries creates jobs in those countries rather than here." 

Hence, Filipinnovation should become technonationalistic in order to make a country's innovative setting really benefiting the Filipino. True that the country has its capacity to be innovative, but with the absence of a robust, integrated Filipino industrial sector has kept local science and technology backward, depending on foreign goods and services, and preventing the country from benefiting its own natural resources. It is not surprising that in the establishment's viewpoint "Filipinnovation" is simply "Unlock Filipino Potential to Unleash Philippine Progress", but in the absence of strong foundations, such venture to utilise Filipino potential is but half-baked. Right was the late professor Posadas that the country's absence of industry and complacent to an unfair established diktat doesn't blossom local science and technology regardless of numerous researches and "creations" provided by local scientists and engineers. 

What more to see an establishment treating terms like "innovation" as to consolidate rather than to disrupt the status quo. "Digitalisation" for instance, the Philippines really needs it as means to reinforce efficiency and hasten innovation in implementing ideas into realities resulting to improved production and distribution of goods and services; but those terms, without having reinforced by programs meant to benefit and uplift the folk and community makes such ideas crucial for the country's success meaningless- let alone "benefited" the status quo and its ruling class. The establishment speaks evenly of those terms yet policies remained tied to that of entrenched interests, be it the local oligarch to that of a foreign interest-seeker. How could this note say so? Thus note wouldn't be surprised if in pursuing something such as "digitalisation" without addressing important ones is simply "skipping" an important process that would foster development and creativity through utilisation of its resources the nation has. True that in digitalisation as a greatest, powerful tool in increasing productivity and efficiency in the workplace and in society, is it also really for the people? Or simply to consolidate the status quo?
Today's order in the Philippines has included "innovation" and "creativity" in promoting efficiency and development- but obviously, mostly to reinforce the status quo and its antiquity, which is really contrary to the attributes of Innovation as challenging the status quo and opening doors to new possibilities improving people's lives and communities. That, as big landlords with existing feudal production relations, adopting capitalist-style "efficiency" has reinforced feudal oppression because the country relies on capital goods imports that are paid for by exporting certain agricultural crops, mineral ores, semi-finished products, and even cheap labor. It is hardly unexpected that "efficiency," whether in management or the use of law for the ruling class against the masses, has escalated repression, as has the use of the knout in the past. 

Back to the main topic, local innovation under this current neoliberal setup makes the country depend much on the whims of the International market. Those preaching about “development” yet clinging on to the current economic norms of neoliberalism and globalisation made the country “staying on its own place” than truly having a place in the sun and enjoying its benefit. In countries like “people’s” China would say that technology and industry has to be tied to national interest. 

According to an article from the London School of Economics, China has a two-pronged approach to achieving global technological leadership: (1) in the short term, utilise ‘mercantilist’ strategies and policies to close the technological gap between China and her competitors; and (2) in the long term, invest heavily in a multifaceted restructuring and development of its domestic innovation ecosystem. This venture is driven by Technonationalism, which can be understood as an ideology that “links technological innovation and capabilities directly to a nation’s national security, economic prosperity and social stability.” This idea would say that in pursuit of making the fruits of local Science and Technology be closer to the people, it becomes necessary for a nation to undertake an arduous task including that of reverse engineering and requiring transfer of technology from foreign firms operating in the country.

Of course, these policies are in staunch opposition to the current liberal international order which advocates free market principles, and have recently led to increased international scrutiny. The United States even advocating for a coalition of “like-minded nations” to force China to comply with its WTO commitments and to contest China’s innovation-mercantilist strategies. If one may ask, should the world conform to a single policy in the economy such as neoliberalism and globalisation? Does being a self-reliant or self-sustaining country makes one a pariah? People failed to understand that being self-reliant or having its economy tied to local needs doesn't mean isolationism. 

Perhaps this post-pandemic scenario means a struggle between keeping or changing the entire economic system. Given this context would say that China’s venture into technonationalism, of strategically decoupling from its own competitors is also an attempt to counter that of the United States and institutions like the World Trade Organization. But come to think of this: whereas China wants to set an example, then why not the Philippines as well? No offence but China’s experience in development shouldn’t be downplayed but instead to be seen as an example of development regardless of the issues. But the Philippines, a country being averse to sound industrialisation and to local technology sourcing or technology transfers from domestic research and development laboratories cannot simply depend on outside aid on the long term, and with its resources would say that there’s an opportunity for a nation to sustain- it simply needs a policy that requires know how and effort from the grassroots than relying on outsiders with its flowery promises in exchange for economic dependence. As a consequence, according to the late professor Posadas: “the Philippine economy has remained a mere importer and consumer of industrial and high technologies and has not yet learned to become a producer and exporter of advanced technologies.” 

Thus, it makes Industrialisation necessary to utilise resources and labour power, and in it create an atmosphere of innovation one of which is to lessen dependency on foreign materiel in favour of localised technologies. For sure neoliberalists tend to disagree this venture whilst at the same time preaching about emphasising science, technology, and the knowledge economy, dismissing developmentalism as idyllic and passe in favour of being dictated by banksters through organisations like the World Trade Organisation whose promises meant compromises favouring entrenched interests. And although true that the country for now needs foreign investments, appropriating foreign based knowledge and skill for local needs, reality has made a supposed “newly industrialised country” heavily dependent on foreign assistance, investment “just to keep afloat the economy” even it requires unjust policies like commercialisation, privatisation, and deregulation of services instead of promoting a sound socioeconomic program to create a real atmosphere for innovation and development. 

Also to think that neoliberalists also cite China and Vietnam, these countries “opened up” not merely to integrate to the International Market altogether but to accommodate foreign investment (and be subjected to regulations and interventions) to the extent of promoting joint ventures and adopting market reforms as means to advance productive forces with the state acts as a residual claimant on the profits generated by enterprises that are operated independent of government management (citing James Meade through Cui Zhiyuan), thus, it made market economy rather subordinated to the socialist system and its vision.

In citing examples from other countries and by heeding people's clamour for genuine national development would say that the idea of unleashing Filipino potential should be more than just unleashing but making Filipinnovation itself transformed into an instrument of Technonational revitalization as it taps scientists, engineers, inventors, MSMEs and communities as active contributors  such as in research and development in the basic and applied sciences; upgrading existing indigenous technologies; adapting technology advances in other countries and ensuring an adequate supply of skilled and competent scientific and technical human resources, while allowing foreign firms and capital to enter provided it is aligned to national goals and in respect to workers' rights and welfare as well as the environment.  
 

As the country moves forward, the intersection of innovation and industrialisation will be crucial for national development. Innovation without industrialisation remains an idea regardless of the works given, while industrialisation without innovation risks becoming obsolete the institutions that should cater the needs of the nation and its people. True that the people wished for a future that benefits from the creativity of its compatriots, and thus needs to ensure that industries are not just efficient but also adaptable, leveraging new technologies to meet the needs of a rapidly changing society. 

Innovation under ContemporAntiquity

Innovation under ContemporAntiquity

At first, this note deals with a topic that deals with the attempt to forge a future in a time of a continuing past. For as the nation still stood at a crossroads where the past and present converge to forge the future. It is a time of remarkable innovation wherein ideas meant to be transformed into realities yet it is equally a time of deep reverence for one's own historical roots, of its numerous feats and sacrifices to be remembered and taught as lessons. As this note explore the theme of innovation in support of ContemporAntiquity, let everyone embrace the powerful synergy that arises when one or another blend the old with the new.

It is obvious that in Innovation often conjures images of futuristic technologies and cutting-edge breakthroughs. Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Computers, and anything that reflects a promising future humankind has to deal with. Yet, the essence of innovation is not solely in the new; it is also in how one reinterpret and reimagine the old- that of the paper, printing, and even the automobile and the dynamo. This is where the concept of ContemporAntiquity shines—a harmonious fusion of contemporary creativity and historical wisdom.

Especially in this continuing past, countries like the Philippines has ideas to invest with to build a future, however, the existing social order has been either treating such ventures with contempt, as a curiosity, or outrightly downplaying localised, indigenised innovation in favour of things foreign. It is not surprising tho with the latter especially when imposed policies are in favour of multinationals and transnationals- along with local compradores benefiting from an unjust venture at the expense of the people. Of course, the ruling order would claim these as for the good of the people despite limiting local knowledge and creativity to simply "technical" aspect catering "the needs of the world" than by blossoming and applying appropriate local technologies and knowledge to the current and future needs of the country. 

And in speaking of blossoming and applying, consider how the renaissance of old, if not ancient techniques can lead to groundbreaking advancements. In architecture, for example, modern buildings are increasingly incorporating classical principles such as symmetry and proportion. Engineers, Architects, to that of Masons and Carpenters studied those to create structures of "perfection"; but, by blending these time-tested designs and know-how with advanced materials and technologies, these same people create structures that are both timeless and innovative. This is not merely an aesthetic choice but a reflection of how time-tested wisdom can enhance modern functionality.

So is in the realm of technology, this note see this fusion vividly in the way one revisit historical practices and ideas to address contemporary challenges. Take, for instance, the resurgence of ancient agricultural techniques like crop rotation and permaculture. These time-honored practices are being integrated with modern technology and modern methods to create sustainable farming solutions that address today’s environmental concerns. That by adopting renewable energies and even nuclear power, these provide communities sources of electricity and to hasten development, akin to the way ancient cultures sought to master natural phenomena for their benefit. 

The modern emphasis on sustainability can also be seen as a reflection on historical practices of resource stewardship. As ancient societies often had to adapt their energy use to local environmental conditions, today’s focus on sustainable practices echoes these historical adaptations. By studying ancient methods, as well as their impacts and lessons, contemporary society gains insights into creating a balanced approach in various uses. All these would say that marrying old-world knowledge with new-world innovations, this union have paved the way for a more resilient and sustainable future.

Cultural expression too benefits from this fusion. The revival of traditional art forms through modern media creates a rich tapestry of experiences.

Musicians, artists, and designers are drawing on historical motifs, techniques, and narratives to infuse their work with a sense of depth and continuity. This melding of past and present not only enriches cultural landscape but also ensures that ancient traditions find new relevance in our rapidly evolving world. 

In the field of design, everyone witness how historical aesthetics can inspire contemporary creations. From fashion to digital interfaces, the integration of classical elements with modern functionality results in designs that are both innovative and familiar. This approach acknowledges the value of historical influences while pushing the boundaries of what is possible today.

But, despite advancements, challenges persist. In an instance, the legacy of fossil fuel dependence (coal, oil, even gas) continues to impact the environment and humankind itself, illustrating the long-term effects of historical energy choices. The culture of "consumerism" whose "consumption" created waste at the expense of creativity. Addressing these issues requires a nuanced understanding of past practices and their consequences, underscoring the importance of integrating historical insights into future energy strategies.

The lessons of history offer valuable insights into modern challenges. By studying past successes and failures, this gain a clearer perspective on how to navigate one's current landscape. The wisdom of previous generations can illuminate new paths and solutions, blending the past’s experiences with today’s advancements.

In conclusion, innovation is not a departure from history but a dialogue with it. By embracing ContemporAntiquity, this acknowledge that one's own progress is deeply rooted in one's heritage. The past and present are not opposing forces but complementary elements that, when united, drives folk and society towards a richer, more informed future.

Let everyone continue to honor its own historical roots while pushing the boundaries of what is possible. By integrating the wisdom of the past with the creativity of the present, this pave the way for innovations that are not only groundbreaking but also deeply meaningful.

In pursuit of Technonationalism and Science for the people: thoughts after Roger Posadas

In pursuit of Technonationalism and Science for the people: 

thoughts after Roger Posadas

Roger Posadas, PhD

It's been years passed since former professor Roger Posadas passed away last August 20 2017.  

Known for his staunch patriotism and the desire to make science and technology a major part of national Policy, Roger has left a legacy that not just provided development in the academe but also in cultivating younger minds the value of Science and Technology for the people. 

A Graduate of bachelor’s degree in Physics from the University of the Philippines in 1964. Roger earned a PhD in Relativity Physics from the University of Pittsburgh through a scholarship grant from Rockefeller Foundation in 1970. However, he earned that doctorate without taking a master's degree. His dissertation, “The Motion and Structure of Singularities in General Relativity”, was written under the guidance and supervision of Emeritus Professor Ezra T. Newman, an American physicist known for his many contributions to general relativity theory.  

He taught for several UP Diliman academic institutions, including the College of Science, the Technology Management Center, and the College of Business Administration. He also held many administrative positions at the University, most notably as Department Chair of Physics from 1980 to 1992, dean of the College of Science from 1983 to 1993, and Chancellor of UP Diliman from 1993 to 1996. 

During his term as Chancellor of the University in Diliman he was also credited for the establishment of the Technology Management Center (TMC), an institution offering advanced studies on science and technology management, in February 1995. In TMC, the Master of Technology Management program was first offered in June 1996. Furthermore, the Center for Environmental Research, Education and Services, the Archaeological Studies Center, and the Materials Science and Engineering Center were also established during his term. 

But his quest for making science and technology for the people a matter of national policy is more than an academic-related nor a technocratic issue. An activist during the First Quarter Storm and Martial Law periods, he, as member of "Samahan ng Makabayang Siyentipiko" (Society of Nationalist Scientists), wrote papers on various social issues, such as on the oil crisis and the state of science in the country during the Marcos regime- and was seen as subersive forcing Posadas and other members to go underground, until 1975, when he was caught by the military. There were even stories that Posadas was once known for making Molotov bombs that can’t be put out by water. Its existence (and the reasons behind it), however can’t be verified.  

But even during Martial Law he continued to push forward his patriotic vision for science and technology. In 1976, he was recruited by Francisco Nemenzo jr., who was then dean of University of the Philippines College of Arts and Sciences, to teach in the College again. There, he and other known scholars actively pursued the advancement of science in the country. With Fr. Ben Nebres of Ateneo de Manila University, Salvador Gonzales from De La Salle University, and William Padolina from UP Los Baños, they formed the Kapisanan ng mga Siyentipikong Pilipino (KSP) or the Association of Filipino Scientists. The KSP made plans for science in the country, which included the PhD consortium program, the establishment of the UPD College of Science (from the former College of Arts and Sciences) and the creation of a council for natural science and mathematics that eventually became the Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development (PCASTRD). Posadas was at the helm of these projects. In 1979, he founded the Samahang Pisika ng Pilipinas (Physics Society of the Philippines).  

Outside UP, Posadas served as managing director of the Research and Innovation Center of Lyceum of the Philippines in Cavite. He was also hired by the University of the East during the time of President Ester Garcia (his colleague in UP and in SMS), albeit briefly, as its professor.  

Doc Roger Posadas has a long history of coalition-building.
Left-Right: Juan Ponce Enrile, Roger Posadas, Etta Rosales,
Rafael Baylosis, Joselito Jacinto, Leo Romero.
The picture was from an event entitled: "National Consultation on Philippine Industrialization"
with the theme: "Industry for the Nation, Progress for the People".

Altogether, his life as a scholar, scientist, patriot, and nationalist has been rather interesting. He was a visionary and institutional builder who preferred to pursue something higher than being content in a bureaucratic post and following the customary path. His bluntness, insensitivity, and maybe arrogance in his professional interactions with others may have produced big problems and cost him his reputation. The biggest irony is that the Technology Management Center, which is now fully operating and has produced many graduates, was founded on a curriculum devised by a man who nearly went to prison for it- only to be vindicated in 2013 yet "too late" for him as the scholar already lost his job, career, and practically everything else that he had because of the graft case he had to fight for many years.  

A radical to the end, Posadas seriously urged the government to adopt a technonationalist position, by "throwing overboard neoliberal policies forcing the country to depend on multinationals" and to pursue technological self reliance. Based from his writings, including his comments on social media would say that the bluntness in his statements is based on truth- that science and technology should first meant to address the nation's needs than to impress others. And some even controversial in nature. In an instance, Posadas, as a Nuclear Physicist supported nuclear power in the Philippines as a long-term option for power generation that would bring supply security, stability, and reliability along with other renweable energy sources like Solar, Geothermal, and Hydroelectric. Furthermore, nuclear electricity will boost the Philippine government's push for industrialistion and urbanisation "as outlined in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP)" according to the Physicist, and is critical for the country on the path to growth to have the accessible and necessary capacity to satisfy the nation's expanding demand requirements. 

Pardon if to recall about his life based on the notes this writer read as well as his commentaries in social media although sometimes his views differ from that of his fellow patriots in the academe and in the "sci-tech scene", some of which often debatable and even assailable because of his recent political beliefs. But his principlism on science and technology may find it radical and even assailing to some that even the recent microsatellite launch or the projects from the Department of Science and Technology was dismissed by Posadas himself as "irrelevant" to the primary needs of the Filipinos. How come? True that these achievements deserve the praise, but how about the practicality? The relevance to the needs of many? Is the UP Monorail or the hybrid train able to be used to prove its efficiency and its suitability? How about having an industry that's more than just creating banana chips, banana ketchup, and fish sauce? The scholar had passed on to history long ago, but his sentiment continues to linger as patriotic and nationalist scientists and innovators expressed the same statements as his.  

As previously stated, he envisioned a country that is economically independent by becoming energy self-sufficient and by making industrialisation as a matter of national policy, promoting further local innovation and creativity, as well as self-sufficiency and development through the efficient and wisely use of local resources, manpower, and the application of knowledge.  

Sources:

https://marichulambino.com/2017/08/22/prayers-for-the-passing-on-of-former-u-p-chancellor-world-renowned-physicist-roger-posadas/

https://upd.edu.ph/chancellorposadas/

https://upd.edu.ph/dr-roger-d-posadas-72/

The Allure of Simpler Times: Brundage’s Ideals and the Filipino's yearning for virtue over "glory"

The Allure of Simpler Times: Brundage’s Ideals

and the Filipino's yearning for virtue over glory

In today’s fast-paced, hyper-commercialized world of sports, many Filipinos find themselves yearning for an era when athletic competition was less about monetary rewards and more about the pursuit of personal and collective glory. This sentiment is closely aligned with the ideals once championed by Avery Brundage, the controversial former president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who insisted that athletes should remain amateurs, untouched by the lure of money and fame. For Brundage, sport was sacred, a celebration of human excellence, not a commercial enterprise.

This vision of sport as an expression of virtue resonates with a cultural ethos found in many parts of the Philippines, where traditional values like hard work, discipline, and sacrifice are often revered. In a society where economic inequality is pervasive, the belief that athletes should achieve greatness through grit and perseverance, rather than financial gain, strikes a deep chord. This mindset mirrors Brundage’s famous declaration that “the Olympic Games are for the athletes, not for the profits,” echoing the Filipino appreciation for humility and integrity over material success.

Brundage’s Vision of Amateurism (and how it still resonates)

To fully understand why Brundage’s ideas hold such appeal in certain circles, one must delve into the origins of his philosophy. Influenced by the teachings of Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympic Games, Brundage believed that sport should transcend the materialism of the modern age. De Coubertin envisioned the Olympic movement as a way to cultivate moral character, promote international peace, and inspire individuals to reach their fullest potential. He famously stated, “The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.” This message of valuing effort over victory resonates deeply with the traditional Filipino ideals of hard work and discipline.

Coubertin’s ideals of amateurism and moral education also resonate with many Filipinos who admire athletes for their discipline and dedication rather than their financial success. In this view, cash rewards are also seen as potential distractions, tempting athletes to focus on material gain rather than the love of the sport itself. This belief aligns with Filipino values that emphasize modesty, humility, and self-discipline as the true markers of success.

Brundage often reiterated similar sentiments, arguing that “the essence of sport is its moral and ethical basis.” He insisted that financial rewards could corrupt athletes and undermine the true spirit of competition. This view resonates with Filipino culture, where the saying “It is better to die poor but with dignity" or "better to be poor with wealth yet rich in law" reflects a shared belief that success achieved without integrity lacks true worth. In a world increasingly dominated by commercial interests, this idealization of amateurism becomes a refuge for many, echoing the values of sacrifice and moral fortitude that have long been celebrated in Filipino society.

Demetrios Vikelas, the first president of the IOC and a key figure in the early days of the Olympic movement, also contributed to this philosophy. Vikelas emphasized that sports could act as a unifying force, bringing people together through shared values of fair play and discipline as well as shaping moral character. He once remarked, “The Olympic Games should be an education in life, not in the pursuit of wealth.” In heading the IOC, Vikelas viewed athletic competition as a way of developing individuals who were both physically and morally strong. This idealistic view of sport as a tool for character-building resonates with Filipinos who believe that athletes should be models of virtue and discipline.

This echoes the ideal Filipino cultural narrative that elevates moral character and discipline over material gain, reinforcing the idea that the true essence of sports lies in personal development rather than financial success. The romanticized image of the humble, hardworking athlete who competes for the love of the game is seen as the epitome of success, while the financial rewards that accompany modern sports are often having mixed reactions.

The Filipino Yearning for Virtue through Simplicity and Discipline

The ideals of Brundage and de Coubertin find a peculiar resonance in the Philippines, where many still romanticize a simpler time when success was viewed as a product of discipline and sacrifice. In Filipino culture, there is a long-standing admiration for those who rise from humble beginnings through sheer hard work, whether in sports or other endeavors. The notion that an athlete should endure hardship and make personal sacrifices to achieve greatness, rather than being rewarded with substantial financial gain, is consistent with the country’s traditional values.

This admiration is reflected in stories of national heroes like José Rizal and Andrés Bonifacio, who are celebrated not just for their achievements but for their sacrifices in the pursuit of a greater cause. Their dedication to the nation and its ideals serves as a model for athletes who aspire to embody similar virtues. The Filipino collective memory values individuals who prioritize the community’s well-being over personal gain, reinforcing the belief that true greatness is measured not by wealth but by one’s contributions to society.

Brundage’s vision resonates within this context, where the athlete’s journey is seen as a testament to personal integrity and societal values. He argued that “the Olympic athlete should exemplify the highest moral character,” a sentiment that aligns with the Filipino worldview, where honor and dignity are held in higher regard than the pursuit of wealth. The belief that athletes should aspire to become role models for the youth echoes a broader societal expectation that those in positions of influence must uphold the values of hard work, perseverance, and integrity.

The Filipino saying, “What good is the grass if the horse is already dead?" highlights the futility of pursuing wealth and fame without the foundational virtues of hard work and discipline. This reflects a broader understanding that material success is meaningless if it does not stem from genuine effort and dedication.

The Moral Tensions of Modern Sport

But while this vision of amateurism holds strong appeal, particularly among those who long for simpler times, it is increasingly at odds with the realities of modern sports. Today, competing at the highest levels of international competition requires far more than just discipline and hard work. Athletes must have access to world-class training facilities, specialized coaching, advanced nutrition, and comprehensive medical care—all of which come with significant financial costs. The demands of modern sport have made it nearly impossible for athletes to excel without substantial financial support from sponsors, governments, or sporting organizations.

Consider the case of Filipino gymnast Carlos Yulo, whose rise to international prominence has captured the admiration of many Filipinos. While Yulo’s success is a testament to his discipline and hard work, it is also the result of substantial financial investment in his training and development. Without the backing of corporate sponsors and government programs, Yulo would not have been able to access the facilities and coaching needed to compete at the Olympic level. His achievements are a product not just of his personal dedication but of the financial support that has enabled him to train at elite levels.

On the other side of the spectrum, Manny Pacquiao amassed millions as a professional boxer, yet his career epitomizes a departure from the Olympic ideals celebrated by figures like Avery Brundage. While Pacquiao’s achievements in the ring are undeniably impressive, they reside within the realm of professional boxing—a domain often viewed through the lens of entertainment rather than the pure love of sport. Brundage, who championed the values of amateurism and moral integrity, might see Pacquiao’s success as emblematic of a commercialized sports culture that prioritizes financial gain over athletic purity. The spectacle surrounding Pacquiao’s matches, marked by extravagant promotions and pay-per-view events, reinforces the notion that professional boxing has evolved into a form of entertainment, contrasting sharply with the Olympic spirit, which celebrates competition for its own sake, fostering a sense of camaraderie, dedication, and respect for the sport.

This is where the tension lies. For those who romanticize the past, the idea that athletes should be rewarded with financial compensation for their efforts can seem like a betrayal of traditional values of an olympian. Lucky for Pacquiao tho as he's in sportainment and therefore it's his "profession."  For in their view, financial rewards to an olympian have the potential to corrupt an athlete’s commitment to their craft, shifting their focus from the joy of sport to the pursuit of wealth. Brundage himself once argued that “money and sport do not mix,” a sentiment echoed by those who fear that modern athletes are losing sight of the values of discipline and sacrifice.

The Practical Realities of Financial Rewards

However, this view overlooks the practical realities faced by modern athletes. In today’s globalized and "practical" world, the level of competition is far more intense than it was during Brundage’s era. Athletes are no longer competing on local or national stages; they are representing their countries in a global arena that demands complete dedication to their craft. To compete at this level requires not just talent and determination but significant financial resources.

For athletes like Yulo, financial rewards are not just an incentive; they are a recognition of the immense effort, time, and resources required to compete at the highest levels. In many cases, these rewards are not luxuries but necessities that allow athletes to focus entirely on their training without the distraction of financial instability. The notion that athletes should have to take on additional jobs, as Brundage suggested, is simply not feasible in today’s sporting environment.

Moreover, financial rewards are a way of ensuring that an athlete’s sacrifices do not go unrecognized. In a country like the Philippines, where financial success is often hard to come by, rewarding athletes for their achievements can serve as a form of social justice, providing them with the means to secure a better future for themselves and their families. Financial rewards, in this sense, are not corrupting but empowering, enabling athletes to continue pursuing their passion without fear of financial hardship.

The practical reality of athletes like Carlos Yulo or EJ Obiena attaining financial rewards through their successes at international competitions poses a challenge to those who hold the ideal of amateurism, as championed by figures like Avery Brundage. For those who adhere to the purity of the Olympic spirit—where sports are pursued for personal growth, national pride, and the sheer love of competition—the notion of financial gain can seem incompatible with the ethos of the Games. Brundage, in particular, was known for his rigid stance on amateurism, believing that athletes should reject the lure of materialism and maintain an austere lifestyle dedicated solely to the pursuit of excellence.

In contrast, Manny Pacquiao’s career as a professional boxer is often viewed differently. His boxing matches are seen as “entertainment”—a form of sports that has long been intertwined with commercial interests. Pacquiao, as a professional athlete, does not carry the burden of Olympic ideals. His career, guided by promoters like Bob Arum and Don King, was built around the pursuit of championships, fame, and financial success, all of which are openly acknowledged as part of professional sports. For this reason, Pacquiao’s financial rewards, sponsorships, and fame do not seem out of place; rather, they are part and parcel of professional boxing’s nature, where the sport serves as a form of mass entertainment.

However, when one considers Olympic athletes like Yulo and Obiena, the financial rewards and fame they have gained can seem, from Brundage’s purist viewpoint, to be corruptions of the athlete’s role. In Brundage’s world, the amateur athlete represents the pinnacle of virtue: someone who competes out of love for the sport, not for material reward. This contrasts with professional sports, where the athlete’s success is often judged by the size of their paycheck or the number of sponsorships they secure.

In the Filipino context, Brundage’s ideals of austerity and moral discipline might resonate strongly. Many Filipinos place high value on virtues such as humility, discipline, and decency, qualities that reflect the notion of moral integrity over material gain. The idea of an athlete who competes for the sake of the country and for personal honor—without succumbing to the temptations of wealth—can seem noble and virtuous. This belief is tied to broader cultural values that emphasize the importance of morality, simplicity, and restraint in the face of materialism, a mindset that aligns well with Brundage’s vision of the Olympic Games.

In the Philippines, where materialism is often viewed with suspicion, and where traditional values such as "good moral character" and "discipline" are held in high regard, Brundage’s views might sound especially virtuous. His emphasis on the internal moral character of the athlete—who should train and compete out of love for the sport and for personal improvement—aligns with the common Filipino idea that true greatness comes not from financial reward, but from embodying values such as discipline, humility, and integrity.

While sports today are undeniably affected by commercialization, many Filipinos still cling to an ideal of athletes as exemplars of moral virtue. The nation’s admiration for athletes who persevere despite adversity, who remain humble in victory, and who represent the country with honor reflects this ideal. Figures like Yulo and Obiena are celebrated not only for their athletic achievements but for the discipline and hard work they put into their craft. Yet, the financial rewards and sponsorships that come with their success may inevitably raise questions about how to balance the purity of competition with the realities of modern sport.

Ultimately, the Filipino viewpoint, informed by traditional values and Brundage’s vision of the Olympics, sees sport as something more than just entertainment or a means to wealth. It is, at its core, a pursuit of excellence that requires moral integrity, discipline, and humility. As much as professional athletes like Pacquiao might be celebrated for their success, there remains a lingering admiration for those who seem to compete for something greater than financial gain—for the love of the sport, for personal honor, and for the good of the nation.

Striking a Balance: Preserving Virtue in a Commercial World

The challenge, then, lies in striking a balance between preserving the values of discipline and humility while also recognizing the importance of financial support in modern athletics. For many Filipinos, the ideals of hard work and sacrifice will always be central to their understanding of what makes an athlete great. But this does not mean that financial rewards must necessarily undermine these values.

As modern sport continues to evolve, it is possible to envision a future where athletes can receive the financial support they need without losing sight of the love of the game. This requires a rethinking of the relationship between money and sport, moving beyond the rigid ideals of Brundage’s era to embrace a more nuanced understanding of how financial rewards can coexist with the values of dedication and discipline.

In the end, the key may lie in recognizing that financial compensation is not inherently corrupting but can serve as a way of ensuring that an athlete’s hard work and sacrifice are properly recognized. The purity of sport, in this sense, need not be compromised by financial rewards; rather, it can be enhanced when athletes are given the tools they need to succeed on the world stage.

As more athletes like Carlos Yulo continue to rise to prominence, the tension between traditional values and the realities of modern athletics will still likely persist. For now, those who yearn for “simpler times” may find themselves at odds with the demands of contemporary sports. But by rethinking what it means to reward athletes, it is possible to create a sporting culture that honors both the virtues of hard work and the practical necessities of competition.

In conclusion, the intertwining of Brundage’s ideals with the Filipino pursuit of discipline and excellence in sports serves as a rich tapestry reflecting the broader values of Filipino society. The journey ahead may require adjustments to reconcile these seemingly disparate perspectives, but in doing so, there lies the potential for a sporting culture that honors the past while embracing the future.

Ultimately, as Brundage articulated, the true spirit of the Olympics lies not merely in competition but in the pursuit of human excellence, a pursuit that resonates deeply within the Filipino soul. It calls upon individuals to strive for greatness while never forgetting the ideals that bind them to their heritage. This harmonious balance can pave the way for a thriving athletic community that honors its roots while aspiring to new heights.

"The Hyperrealist Divide and the degradation of humanity: On Actors, Spectators, and Bystanders in the Age of Apathy"

"The Hyperrealist Divide and the degradation of humanity:

On Actors, Spectators, and Bystanders in the Age of Apathy"

In the tumultuous and ever-shifting landscape of modern society, the time-honored notions of victor and victim, so deeply rooted in classical thought, have all but vanished. Where once it was possible to delineate triumph from defeat, the complexities of this age now demand a more nuanced interpretation. To view the world through the hyperrealist lens is to abandon the comforting moral binaries of old and instead embrace a reality where actors, spectators, and bystanders are the sole occupants of the stage. In this theater of life, there are no victors, no victims—only those who play their part, those who observe, and those who remain idle in the face of history.

The actors, as they are understood here, are those who possess the agency to shape events, either through force of will, intellect, or circumstance. Their actions, however, do not guarantee triumph, for in the hyperrealist view, the very notion of triumph is irrelevant. The actor's importance lies not in the outcome of their deeds but in their participation itself. As Baudrillard so vividly describes in "Simulacra and Simulation", modern society has reached a point where the simulation of events has eclipsed the events themselves, where the act of participation is more important than any real consequence. The actor, then, is one who exists in this simulation, playing their role regardless of the ultimate impact or moral outcome of their actions.

Yet for every actor, there are spectators—those who stand apart from the fray, observing with a critical or disinterested eye. These spectators, often the arbiters of public opinion, shape the narrative of events. Marshall McLuhan's assertion that "the medium is the message" reverberates here. The spectators are not merely passive observers; they are integral to the act itself, for the medium through which they consume and reinterpret events alters their very nature. The actor’s deeds are reshaped, repurposed, and commodified for consumption, becoming "content" in the vast machine of modern spectacle. The spectators, then, while not participants in the traditional sense, exert an invisible force upon the action, framing it for those who observe at a distance.

It is in this space of consumption and mediation that we encounter the bystander, a figure more prominent than ever in this age of apathy. The bystander neither acts nor observes with any degree of engagement, but rather, exists in a state of quiet detachment. Zygmunt Bauman’s "Liquid Modernity" offers insight into this phenomenon, where individuals, overwhelmed by the complexity of the modern world, choose instead to withdraw, to slip into the role of bystander as a defense mechanism. In a world of constant flux and overstimulation, the bystander retreats into passivity, hoping to avoid the moral and emotional labor of involvement. Yet, even in this retreat, the bystander cannot escape the pull of the hyperreal. Their detachment, rather than granting them freedom, reduces them to mere objects of the spectacle, commodified as "views" and "likes," unwitting contributors to the content-driven machine.

This process, wherein individuals are reduced to mere consumable content, speaks to the transformation of human engagement in the digital age. Guy Debord, in "The Society of the Spectacle", presciently describes a world in which “all that was once directly lived has become mere representation.” It is not the content of actions that matters, but the spectacle they produce, and in this context, the bystander is a necessary figure. The hyperreal world thrives on disengagement, for it is through the passivity of the many that the spectacle is sustained. Those who remain innocent, claiming to avoid the fray, unwittingly contribute to the proliferation of apathy, as their very disengagement serves as fodder for the content-driven engines of modernity.

This raises a troubling paradox: in the hyperreal world, to act or to observe is to risk becoming commodified, yet to disengage entirely is to fall into the role of bystander, where one is still consumed by the spectacle. The choice, then, is no longer between victory and defeat, but between agency and irrelevance. Those who act must do so with the knowledge that their actions will be mediated and reshaped by the spectators, while those who choose passivity become part of the faceless mass of content consumers, contributing to the very system they sought to escape.

Thus, as apathy deepens and the lines between actors, spectators, and bystanders blur, the question of moral agency becomes ever more pressing. Michel Foucault’s concept of power relations is instructive here. Power, Foucault argues, is not something that can be possessed, but rather something that exists in a network of relationships. The actors, spectators, and bystanders of the hyperreal world are all enmeshed in this network, their roles not static but constantly shifting. Even the bystander, seemingly removed from the spectacle, is implicated in the exercise of power, for their passivity allows the spectacle to continue unchecked.

In this hyperrealist world, therefore, the categories of victor and victim lose their meaning. What remains are the roles people play—willingly or unwillingly—in the grand spectacle of modern life. The actors, those who still assert their agency, do so not with the hope of victory but with the knowledge that their actions are part of a larger simulation. The spectators, through their gaze, shape the narrative and thus exert their own subtle form of power. And the bystanders, who may claim innocence in their passivity, are perhaps the most implicated of all, for their apathy feeds the very machine that reduces them to mere content.

The current century, with its rapid advances in communication and the proliferation of information, has only deepened this divide. Where once a man might remain aloof from the affairs of the world and be none the worse for it, today, even the passive bystander is swept up in the flood of content. He may profess innocence in his detachment, claiming that he seeks only to avoid the corruption of action or the bias of observation. Yet this innocence, if it ever existed, is but an illusion. For in the modern world, to remain uninvolved is to surrender one’s agency entirely, and thus to become nothing more than a cog in the machinery of spectacle—an anonymous face in the crowd.

Thus, the age of apathy gives birth to a new order: an order in which the hyperrealist vision reigns supreme. No longer do men seek to become victors or victims, but instead to avoid the fate of becoming mere content. Yet in their avoidance, they often lose themselves in the very thing they sought to escape. The actors and spectators remain, as they always have, but their power is now diminished, constrained by the overwhelming presence of those who simply stand by, untouched by ambition or understanding. The great question of the age, then, is not who will triumph or who will fall, but who will act, who will observe, and who, in the end, will simply fade into the background of history.

Thus, to speak of victors and victims is to speak of a past era, where notions of success and failure were bounded by moral codes that no longer bind the world today. Instead, one must speak of agency, influence, and apathy, as the new determinants of a hyperrealist world where the actors and spectators play their parts, and the rest remain bystanders to their own insignificance. This is the world people now inhabit: a world of actors, spectators, and bystanders, where the boundaries between action, observation, and apathy are increasingly porous. It is a world in which the hyperreal has overtaken the real, and where our roles, once distinct, have become interchangeable. The question, then, is not who will emerge victorious or who will fall, but rather, who will continue to act, who will observe, and who will fade into the background of history, unnoticed and forgotten, mere bystanders to their own irrelevance.

The Medalist and the “Moralists”

The Medalist and the “Moralists”

Carlos Yulo has long been celebrated as one of the Philippines’ most talented athletes, a gold medalist whose dedication and discipline in gymnastics have earned him international acclaim. Yet, in recent times, his stellar career has been overshadowed by controversies surrounding his personal life, particularly involving his relationship with his parents. As is often the case in the Philippines, moralism has found its way into the conversation, and suddenly, Yulo’s achievements are being downplayed in favor of defending so-called “Filipino values.”

While many countries focus solely on an athlete’s performance, separating personal lives from professional accomplishments, the Filipino public tends to apply a moralistic lens to figures in the spotlight. This cultural trait can make it difficult for individuals to be appreciated solely for their work, as their character and family dynamics often come under intense scrutiny. This is where Carlos Yulo, despite his international success, has found himself—caught in the middle of a debate that has little to do with his athletic prowess.

In the case of Yulo, some voices in the public sphere have expressed disappointment, not in his performances, but in his perceived failure to adhere to certain familial and cultural expectations. These reactions stem from a deep-rooted aspect of Filipino society that places great importance on familial ties, respect for parents, and adherence to traditional values. For many Filipinos, to succeed publicly means to uphold these values privately, and any deviation from this script can trigger waves of criticism.

What is striking, however, is how quickly the conversation about Yulo’s abilities as an athlete has shifted. Suddenly, his triumphs on the world stage—his representation of the country and his hard-earned medals—are sidelined in favor of a moral debate. In the broader international arena, this seems almost absurd. After all, when Usain Bolt dominated track and field, the world celebrated his speed and agility. When Michael Phelps shattered records, it was his swimming that made headlines, not his personal life. Yet in the Philippines, it seems Yulo’s personal controversies have become more important than his legacy as an Olympian.

The irony, however, is hard to miss. The same individuals who are quick to judge Yulo based on perceived moral shortcomings are often the very ones who continue to reelect corrupt politicians, turning a blind eye to the ethical failings of public officials. In a country where corruption and political scandals are rampant, it’s curious that so much energy is spent scrutinizing an athlete’s personal life while known corrupt figures continue to hold positions of power. If these critics are so concerned with “virtue” and “morality,” one must ask—where is this moral compass when it comes to those who truly affect the nation’s well-being?

This dissonance raises the question of whether these criticisms are genuinely rooted in upholding Filipino values, or if they’re merely a form of clout-chasing. In an era dominated by social media, virtue signaling has become a popular way for individuals to gain attention or content, often at the expense of others. It’s easier to jump on a moralistic bandwagon and tear down someone’s achievement than to confront more uncomfortable truths, like the systemic corruption that continues to plague the country.

In the case of Carlos Yulo, this misuse of “morality” seems like an opportunistic way to downplay his success, diverting attention from his impressive athletic feats to focus on something far less relevant. His role as an Olympian should be viewed in the context of his sport—his dedication, discipline, and skill—rather than through a moralistic filter that has little to do with his professional achievements.

The world doesn’t care much about these controversies; they see Yulo for what he is—a world-class gymnast and a representative of the Philippines on the global stage. His personal life, while it may be of local interest, has little bearing on his standing as an athlete. It’s time for the country to recognize that Yulo’s contribution to sports transcends these moral debates and acknowledge the immense pride and honor he brings through his performances.

But then, the conversation gets even more cringeworthy. Some commenters, instead of focusing on the actual issue, start talking about “sharing blessings” or even quoting the Bible—perhaps unwittingly gaslighting the entire situation. They position themselves as mediators, but one must wonder if they’re truly advocating for a just reconciliation or simply pushing for submission to prove their “uprightness” or “virtue.” The idea that Yulo should somehow share his blessings as a way to resolve the situation raises the uncomfortable question: if he does, will it even be repaid?

Perhaps, in a survivalist context, where many Filipinos struggle daily just to make ends meet, it’s likely that any form of “repayment” would be possible. The reality is that calls for "sharing blessings" often come across as thinly veiled demands for submission—insisting that the athlete must prove himself morally “worthy” of his success by giving back. But should Yulo’s generosity—or lack thereof—be the measure of his worth as an athlete? Is it his duty to appease the critics by showing public acts of benevolence? To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with an act of benevolence. In fact, giving back to one’s community, what more the parents, can be a deeply fulfilling experience for both the giver and the recipient. However, the issue arises when such acts are no longer voluntary, but instead become an expectation—or worse, a form of compulsion. It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If Yulo shares his blessings, it may never be enough for those demanding it, and if he chooses not to, he risks being branded as ungrateful or selfish. So much for those who claim to be virtuous and moral—are they truly seeking reconciliation, or simply trying to maintain their perceived moral high ground? In a survivalist situation that many Filipinos endure, the idea of “sharing blessings” can be unrealistic and burdensome, especially for those who are struggling to make ends meet. The expectation that successful athletes should act as role models and share their fortunes can overshadow their hard work and dedication, creating an environment where their achievements are overshadowed by moral judgment.

Looking back at Brundage

Wouldn’t be surprised if, soon, the conversation shifts from criticizing Yulo to blaming the financial rewards athletes receive for “corrupting” the values of an Olympian. In such a scenario, those who cry moralism and virtue might find an ally in the late Avery Brundage, the former president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who staunchly advocated for amateurism in sports. Brundage famously stated, “The Olympic Games must be kept free of any taint of professionalism,” reflecting his belief that athletes should compete primarily for the love of their sport rather than for financial gain (Brundage, 1963).

Brundage further elaborated, saying, “I believe that in the long run, we will return to a more pure form of athletic competition,” emphasizing his ideal that athletes should embody “the spirit of competition and the joy of participation” (Brundage, 1961). This perspective paints a picture of the athlete as a selfless competitor, driven by passion rather than the allure of monetary rewards. However, this viewpoint also raises questions about the practicality of such expectations in the modern context, especially in countries with limited sports funding, like the Philippines.

The romanticized notion of amateurism ignores the complexities of today’s athletic landscape, where financial support is often necessary for athletes to thrive and compete at the highest levels. Filipino athletes, including Yulo, face not only the pressures of international competition but also the burden of expectations that their success should come without the accompanying financial rewards.

In the historical context such as that of the Great Depression, the expectations placed on athletes mirrored those faced by Yulo today. Athletes of that era competed under harsh conditions and were celebrated for their perseverance, yet they too grappled with societal expectations that prioritized the sport over personal gain. As Yulo navigates the contemporary pressures of competition, he faces the dual challenge of excelling while contending with societal expectations that prioritize moral purity over financial success.

As the discourse around Yulo continues, it is inevitable that some will say, “a medal is enough,” or even a "stipend and a simple living", echoing sentiments like “better to be poor in wealth and rich in law.” Such phrases encapsulate a prevailing Filipino ideal that often valorizes suffering and humility over tangible success. For today’s self-proclaimed moralists, the pressure often seems contradictory: it is either “share the blessings” of success or be condemning the financial rewards that supposedly corrupt the values of an Olympian. This simplistic view reduces the complexities of athletic achievement and imposes unrealistic expectations on athletes to conform to a particular moral standard that may not align with their realities.

Brundage’s ideology, which sought to preserve the purity of amateurism, may resonate with those who advocate for a more ascetic approach to athletics. He insisted, “The athlete must rely on his own resources and develop his skills through hard work and dedication rather than financial gain,” a sentiment that appeals to the Filipino ideal of resilience and self-sacrifice (Brundage, 1964). This notion, while noble, does not account for the contemporary reality that athletes require financial support to pursue their passions and compete on a global stage.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the narrative surrounding Carlos Yulo serves as a microcosm of a broader cultural discourse about morality, success, and the role of athletes in society. By fostering an environment that champions athletic achievement while acknowledging the realities that come with it, society can allow athletes to thrive both in their sport and personal lives. It is essential to celebrate athletes like Yulo for their dedication, talent, and the pride they bring to their nations, free from the constraints of some moral judgments that rather serve only to undermine their successes.

Perhaps the conversation would be better served by allowing Yulo to be seen as the adult he is, rather than as a child trapped in a familial dispute. The continued infantilization of Yulo undermines his autonomy, suggesting that he is not capable of making his own decisions or navigating his own path. In truth, he is an accomplished, world-class gymnast who has the right to be recognized for his achievements on his own terms, without being burdened by societal expectations of morality and virtue.

In the end, if Filipinos can continue to reelect corrupt officials while claiming to uphold “morality,” perhaps it’s worth questioning what moralism really means in this context. Is it truly about values, or is it just another way to detract from someone’s success? Carlos Yulo deserves to be celebrated for what he has accomplished—without the weight of some moralistic judgments. Let the medalist be judged by his achievements, not by some self-proclaimed moralists. Let him be seen as the adult Olympian he is, not as a child caught in a moral drama.

References:

Brundage, A. (1961). The Olympic Games: A History.

Brundage, A. (1963). The Olympic Games: A History.

Brundage, A. (1964). The Olympic Games: A History.