Will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street?

Will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street? 

(Or “thoughts after dilemma for Filipino Nationalists after EDCA and China”)

Some weeks ago this writer was reading an opinion regarding “dilemma for nationalists”. For in a time the Philippines is facing problems over its sovereignty, it seems that today’s nationalism is again at the backburner with an administration, assuming to be “patriotic” in its promises, has renew its unequal agreements with the United States (US) through an updated “Enhance Defence Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA). And from that 2022 agreement, originally made since 2014 has includes plans to allow US armed forces to add five more locations chosen by the US to construct its military facilities within existing or to be constructed military camps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: two in Cagayan province, and one each in Isabela, Zambales and Palawan. 

And such accords are consistent with the Pentagon's goal of encircling China and prepositioning its forces within the so-called first-island chain, in which the US maintains military bases and ruling governments that are subordinate to US interests in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. The construction of these military facilities in the Philippines form part of the heightening war provocations against China which include increased presence of American naval forces in the western and eastern Philippine seas, in the eastern Japanese seaboard and in the Taiwanese strait. 

Territory, nation, and state are the three major components of nationalism. For all three dimensions, Filipino nationalism has been marked by ambiguity. In terms of state-building, the government has struggled to impose effective national sovereignty despite achieved de facto independence from the US after the war and in early 1990s after Subic and Clark handover. Filipinos are also divided as a political community ("nation") along ethno-linguistic lines, not to mention political families ruling and squabbling over regions as fiefdoms. And in terms of geography, the Philippines is a sprawling archipelago rather than a single landmass, which has become a highly charged political issue with its Chinese neighbour in light of the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands dispute in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

But there are times people dismiss Filipino nationalism as idyllic in these modern times, as people think that Filipino nationalism has been anti-American ever since. Be it because of its history from 1898 to that of current events after 1946 and 1992, of unequal agreements to cases of sexual harassments, this anti-American nature has continue to resonate even in this current situation where the enemy is about an expanding China. Of course, there are people who despite trying to maintain its patriotism but this time “begging to differ” by claiming that this anti-American rhetoric is to be at the backburner regardless of these existing truths, with China that has forcefully and illegally deprived the Philippines of some of its territories. 

Indeed, with an expansionist China would say that the country that usually takes its pride on its artists as a source of nationalism suddenly change its tone and instead ran towards its former colonial master in the name of “the free world”. Sounds cold war isn’t it? There are times these people mum as protesters demand justice after cases involving US military servicemen to that of a US Navy boat destroying a coral reef in the West Philippine Sea, yet crying red as protesters also demanding national sovereignty over the contested isles in that same West Philippine Sea! That by letting nationalism, no matter how anti-American it is in the backburner all in favour of wholesale globalisation for years, with unjust agreements signed whether it is American, Chinese, Japanese thinking all these meant development and peace, in exchange for being subservient and its enforced hopelessness. The updated EDCA of 2022 that supplanted its 2014 original and its earlier “Visiting Forces Agreement” reminds of the “Mutual Bases Treaty” of the past; same as that of economic agreements with the Chinese under the past Duterte administration that would lead to debt traps at its worst, worse, it was Chinese money that funded the controversial Kaliwa dam that could flood Dumagat communities and mountains while claiming that is for “national development”! Even the soil used in building China’s artificial islands is itself coming from Filipino mountains, making those artificial isles Filipino than that of Chinese over a Filipino sea.

***

And in speaking of being anti-American in the face of growing Chinese threat, does it follow that Filipino nationalists protesting in front of the US Embassy as "pro-China" given the talk about how anti-American they are? No matter how these “beg to differ” kind of “patriots” yet limited in their perspective, reading Mao Zedong does not automatically make someone pro-Chinese, so in that case, does worshipping Jesus Christ and reading the Bible automatically make someone pro-Israel as well? As far as a concerned knows is that those who protest against unjust agreements with the United States are also against China too- not just because of struggle for sovereignty over Scarborough and the Spratlys, but also for the fishermen and its right to fish over the West Philippine Sea, and also against the unequal economic agreements that meant chances of debt traps as what happened in Africa and in Sri Lanka! Again they do read Mao Zedong or even Sun Tzu, but does reading from these men makes them pro-Chinese as reading Alexander Hamilton would make one pro-American? 

Anyhow, from their perspective, a worried patriot asks: If Filipinos want to defend themselves as a nation, then when will they give up their forced hopelessness? Should Filipino nationalism be confined to cultural identitarianism, as demonstrated by promoting national attire and carrying out local activities to appreciate tourists? Or going beyond and start rolling sleeves and build modern and stronger foundations an independent nation should have ever since? It had the chance to seriously consider industrialisation during Garcia's administration in order to support his "Filipino first" policy, but detractors instead accuse the idea of industrialisation as supporting the oligarchy while remaining silent about the unfair agreements his foreign overlords from Wall Street imposed on the nation. Nowadays it’s not about Wall Street, but also from Beijing who can dictate those from Malabon! It's absurd, isn't it? In addition, even Americans themselves are prepared to renounce their role as global policemen in favour of prioritising their own national interests, specifically the protection of their jobs and businesses and the maintenance of their own homeland security, as opposed to interfering in the issues of others, whether it be China or the Ukraine! Even Taiwan, in trying to be the “legitimate China” is trying its “best” to stand on its own despite minimal US military aid- including that of making its own plane and tank, while its southern neighbor treats its own local manufacturers (such as Steelcraft or those from Danao) a showcase of their “self reliance” while depending on outside aid.

Perhaps, faced with an ever growing Chinese expansionism, and that of unequal agreements brought by the Americans, this note expect those people rather willing to put nationalism at the backburner thinking that is impractical to be a patriot, and instead choosing “the lesser evil” such as that of representing “the free world”. But will a true patriot just accept it that way? Even Koreans and Japanese have enough of being seen as Yankee stooges and instead trying to prove themselves in the face of growing Chinese threat. From their examples would say that far as concerned patriot knows is that better to give up that enforced hopelessness brought by the very order and start rolling sleeves, forge, plough, and build this still developing nation as what supposed to be since 1898 or 1946. Yes, the country has enjoyed the fruits of modern life from cellphones to skyscrapers thanks to those foreigners, but doesn’t mean problems as old as the carabao-driven plough has long forgone, what more its desire to stand on its own and having its place in the sun. 

The question is, will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street? 

“God defend our homeland”

“God defend our homeland”

Words: P. S.

Melody: J. J. Woods

God of nations restless being 

Hear our plea and our hopes bring 

Grant our prayers and give us grace 

And defend our land and race 

Guard Orient’s majestic pearl 

From the strife and of peril 

May heavens respond thy appeal: 

God defend our homeland. 

Folks of different colour and creed 

All sworn as one to fulfill our deed 

In this home chosen and loved 

Paid by mind sinew and blood 

O Lord bless this cherished place 

Amidst trials we folks must face 

Keep us free like our sun, stars raised: 

God defend our homeland 

Keep our home in beauty and truth 

And in virtues instill in our youth 

Like our heroes and martyrs past 

We will keep thy lessons last 

To the sun, stars hope we aspire 

In this nation forged in fire 

Accept this plea o Lord to we admire: 

God defend our homeland

“When his words were pointing against the messenger himself”

“When his words were pointing against the messenger himself”

It is not surprising if the “Revolution” in EDSA was also itself a product of Marcos’s own words. Be it the desire for Political Liberation, Economic Emancipation, and of Social Concord, his words were rather pointing against himself as the people themselves were trying their best to shift from the politics of personality towards politics of principle. 

However, despite change of leadership and even changing the constitution this doesn’t make way for the changes people desired, let alone to hear them trying to express in the spirit of having freedom and democracy in the country. Wages remained low, prices continue to increase, Of course these people who marched and demand major social changes in the streets are also engaging in gainful work in order to assure a life worthy of dignity, but reality becomes otherwise as society itself is an arena wherein exploitation and survival as its truths- as seen by today’s subservience to neoliberal capitalism, globalisation, and a government forcing people to pay taxes to pay debts. Marcos and his successors did preach alot of “nationalism” as if to placate the feelings of the people, but will the people get contented in the superficial as promoted by the administration? 

Perhaps society forgot that the people didn’t oust Marcos for the sake of ousting him and his circle; for it was itself a product of an irreversible process that’s sweeping the developing world- whose demands both morally and historically, the mitigation if not the elimination of mass poverty, injustice, want, ignorance and illnesses, which can be accomplished by an empowered populace and in turn transformation of societies into adequate environments for development. Again, Marcos said that just to claim “a new society” takes place in the country, but the situation becomes otherwise as the very administration itself sworn to upheld the social order people detest with. Having one oligarch, despotic landlord or warlord for another, while rephrasing existing reforms and laws if necessary to show that change has undergone. 

That until today remains a “standard operating procedure” regardless of denials. Of course they would say that “no democracy can be authentic if it the captive of an oligarchy whose interests are at cross purposes with those of the majority”, but again becomes otherwise the way Marcos dismantled the old congress to destroy the accumulation of privilege, corruption, and oligarchic captivity- yet his Batasang Pambansa consists of those from the old order itself, happened to be supporting Marcos and Marcos provide them the privileges he himself “sworn to remove it” if not playing one clique after another. And these traits remained even after 1986 until present. 

In one of Marcos’s notes he said about the need for “capitalism with a human face”, but reality shows that capitalism has no conscience let alone pretending to have one. There are those who promote fair trade even under capitalism, but there are also those who simply riding in it and claiming they’re promoting fairness and justice while obviously exploiting, hence corrupting the very nature of fair trade or any idea that tries to give capitalism a semblance of fairness and justice. Marcos would even show that “capitalism with a human face” as better than that of welfare statism or any other alternative idea - no wonder why the budget being spent on edifice complexes as a showcase of “development”, initially eschewing need for mass housing, better healthcare and education, only to be needed as political leverages and in exchange for loyalties. The trade and loan agreements that claiming to be for national development during his time and those of his successors brought short term growth that turned out to be bubbles waiting to be bursted and thus affecting every walk of life as it pays every peso for it. 

For sure loyalists strongly disagree in this note given their strong support towards the past administration and its present day counterpart. The current administration promised to make the country great as that of the past administration with its promise of change. But find it ironic that they themselves adhere to personality based form of politics than seriously adhering to their idol’s so-called desire for a politics of principle. On second thought since they wished for radical changes, the problem is does radical changes limit to that of top to bottom decrees? Of pressing need for constitutional amendments? They hated oligarchs yes, but did they talk about the need to remove the very order that benefited the oligarch? Or just because that oligarch happened to be in an opposition against their idol? 

For sure there are a lot of questions to answer, but to cut this note short the need for a politics of principle is in fact manifested through an empowered populace- and not from self-proclaimed leaders whose intent is to perpetuate power while claiming to be improving the well being of the people. After all, of what is politics of principle if reality shows its otherwise? As far as a concerned person knows was that the call for land reform, national industrialisation, an end to unequal agreements, freeing political prisoners, freedom of press, speech, and expression, and self determination for national minorities is itself the struggles for economic emancipation, political liberation, and social concord- and these doesn’t simply end in EDSA, Mendiola, or even in the mountains of Cordillera. 

For as ever concerned folk are still taking some time to seek truth from facts as the order’s narrative is countered by its inconvenient facts, and if time comes, a time of reckoning against an ever rotting order may occur once again.

“Whatever he says we must obey and do” - is it so?

“Whatever he says we must obey and do” - is it so? 

Or “The ‘Two Whatevers’ of Duterte-Marcos duo” 

and how people dare to criticise it

Some days ago, this writer was reading a post about the “Two Whatevers” of former Chinese leader Hua Guofeng.   

This statement, which said "We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave" became a policy after Mao Zedong’s death and before the rise of Deng Xiaoping as paramount ruler of China.   

However, this author applied the adage in a another context, focusing on Filipinos who backed Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte months after they were elected president and vice president, respectively.   

That by employing the "Two Whatevers" in a local context, supporters of the so-called "Uniteam" believe that under the current Marcos regime, this means a chance to restore order, that of strongman rule, and by employing his predecessor's policies and instructions, albeit modified to suit his cause. However, seeing policies and instructions being modified (or mellowed down, distorted, or whatever according to some observers) proved to be different from what they had expected, especially when supporters from both the Marcos and Duterte factions began to emerge their differences, resulting in arguments despite claiming to be "united" in their goal of order and stability. Sorry to use the late Chinese leader’s words technically for knowing in the local context, people at first think that the current Marcos regime would also share some aspects of a Dutertist, especially when supporters wanted a strongman to remain “strong” in the eyes of many, driven by the need to restore order after decades of “yellow misrule” and therefore “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave” even it end riddled by intrigue and scandal amongst allies.   

Quite ridiculous isn’t it? Especially when supporters would think the regime would just retain decisions and instructions brought by its predecessor, if so, then how come Duterte’s supporters end sidelined by that from the Marcoses? How come their favorite agendas end rephrased as those from the past administrations if not discontinued? And now as the International Criminal Court moves ahead with the investigation related to Duterte’s extrajudicial killings, will the current administration defend his predecessor the way Duterte defend Marcos’s tarnished legacy in face of widespread criticism? These and others may also show the limits of these “whatevers” being observed by the current administration. Also wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t accept Duterte’s agendas as that of rephrased Aquino’s and Aquino’s from Arroyo’s, these include most decisions and instructions that end having its content rephrased yet the essence remains same. Of course supporters would beg to differ on this but reality bites- for these still benefit the same interest seekers while claiming to be that of “benefiting the people”. And therefore means ridiculous.  

For sure supporters would try to downplay this criticism as they cling to their perception that Marcos will “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave”- even it is tarnished due to scandal, intrigue, and its notoriety. But for the concerned who sought truth from facts, will this charade ever continue? As such, those who want the uniteam coalition to be the one to pierce the veil either have two choices; to double down or to drop out of this spectacle completely in the face of growing criticism. They’ve wished for a thermidor after the “yellow misrule”, what more of a restoration under the “new society”, the question is: which is which? Or will it be “as it is” in accordance with their own “two whatevers”?  

On critical thinking and artificial intelligence

On critical thinking and artificial intelligence  

Jose Mario D. De Vega   

The public, specifically the academe, has recently been confronted by both shock and awe at its latest challenge: artificial intelligence (AI). The issue started when a faculty from the University of the Philippines (UP) posted on social media the rambling essay of a student, expressing suspicion that AI might have been used to write it.   

The post prompted some UP faculty members to call for a review of the state university’s policies on academic integrity to include the use—or misuse—of AI in meeting class requirements. The faculty of UP Diliman’s AI Program “condemned the misrepresentation of AI outputs as valid scholarly works,” while also pushing for the use of the technology “to improve and encourage student learning.” Noted the faculty’s statement: “Manuscripts, graphic designs, videos, computer programs, and other academic requirements must be solely created by the student or group of students, as required by the instructor of the course. However, the use of AI tools to enhance and facilitate the students’ learning should be encouraged.”   

In my view, the enemy is neither the machine nor this latest technology, but rather individuals who refuse to think for themselves. Despite the possible danger of this app, the far more dangerous scenario is a society or body politic composed of unthinking members.   

Instead of shunning ChatGPT, professor Ramon Guillermo did something that to my mind is absolutely brilliant: he engaged the app in a conversation. The same was true of professor Randy David; not only did he download the app, but also tested its “intelligence.” His verdict? “Although it bore clear attempts at embellishment, the poem I prompted (about gray mornings and the stillness of the forest) came out flat and formulaic. The story I requested (on the pros and cons of AI) was too general, almost as if it was an attempt to expand the headings of a Wikipedia entry. But the outline (on the concept of globalization) was quite useful—at least as a starting point for a sensible discussion on the topic. Here, perhaps, is a way of repurposing a tool like this—use it to tease out your own thoughts on a given subject, a means to get out of the barren object fixation that a blank page can often induce.” (“AI and the challenge to education,” Public Lives, 1/22/23).   

I concur with the recommendation of the UP Diliman AI Program to conduct open forum discussions on the use of AI and its implication on academic matters, and for their peers to educate students on the proper use of AI tools, and embed these in their courses. UP must also revisit its definition of academic integrity to include AI, while also improving class requirements to include more critical and in-depth thinking. Of the four recommendations, the most important is the last one which is composed of three elements, namely: the improvement of academic requirements to include more in-depth critical thinking, scholarly discourse, and sound judgment.   

In his book, “The Critique of Judgment” (1790), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant laid down the three rules of thinking, namely: to think for ourselves, to think on the place of another, and to think objectively. The first rule is sapere aude or dare to know, which means that we must have the courage and the boldness to use the power of our own reason. The second rule refers to empathy or human solidarity. When we think for ourselves, we must also think of others. The last rule simply means that we must think and use our reason in a consistent manner, not only in an individual aspect but in a cosmopolitan or universal sense.   It is my belief that if we internalize these three rules, it will lead to the spark of critical thinking that will eventually generate scholarly discourse and reflection that will lead us to just, reasonable, and sound judgment.   Professor John Rawls in his book, “A Theory of Justice” (1971) continued Kant’s tradition: aside from thinking for ourselves, on the place of another, and consistently, he advanced the idea or the challenge of thinking that excludes accidental or historical labels. This is thinking that is no longer just critical but of a higher order, and one we need not only as individuals but as citizens of a fast-changing world.   

It is thus my ardent contention that no matter how great, fast, and powerful these latest apps and technologies are, as long as we use our head, maximize our reason, and think for ourselves, there is no way that machines will overwhelm or defeat us. In fact, I will reiterate: it is not us against the machine. How can a mere creature overpower its creator? Machines are not the enemy. Our opponent is the person who does not think. Our enemy is laziness, cowardice, indifference, pride, prejudice, and misplaced arrogance.   

***

Jose Mario D. De Vega is assistant professor at the Philosophy and Humanities Department of the National University’s College of Education, Arts, and Sciences.

This commentary was originally featured in Inquirer.net last January 25, 2023. 

“A warm ginger brew is enough”

“A warm ginger brew is enough”

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To stave hunger and thirst 

All after a new years walk 

And seeing folk’s joyful outburst 

Of seeing them in the streets 

Seeking good luck charms and treats 

Despite protocols one missed 

Luckily authorities ain’t pissed 

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To ease some of my worries 

After lighting up the incense 

And praying for my misery 

I pray to the sacred spirits and figures 

As to remove numerous obstacles 

Reminiscent of those seen in history pictures 

Such as those hoping for a miracle 

A warm ginger brew is enough 

To satisfy one’s mind and heart 

For I find it good to taste 

No matter how spicy it is from the start 

The merging of spice and sweetness 

Enough to ease one’s lingering illness 

If not a treat to stave away sadness 

Such as after a burst of madness

“36 years of struggle for land and justice: remembering Mendiola Massacre and the need for genuine agrarian reform”

“36 years of struggle for land and justice: 

remembering Mendiola Massacre and the need for genuine agrarian reform”

By Kat Ulrike 

Despite downplays and slander, peasants continue to assert the right to peace, land, bread, and justice in this 36th commemoration of Mendiola Massacre. Known as “Black Thursday” by journalists, this incident made last January 22, 1987 showed the order’s response to the growing clamour of peasants for agrarian justice- that of bullets and truncheons all in the name of “peace and order”, and still continues to be felt by its victims. 

For, like the Aquino administration and its “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program”, the current Bongbong Marcos regime "promised" land reform and farmer support in the same manner as CARP, but reality demonstrates that the interests of peasants and landowning politicians can never be reconciled, with exemptions granted to landlords thst have left thousands of peasants empty-handed and resigned to lives of poverty. 

Worse, to see farmers as they complained end harassed by state agents in the name of “counterinsurgency” and “antisubversion.” The passage of the Anti Terrorism Act and the creation of the NTFELCAC under the past Duterte administration led a string of harassments against the peasantry has showed that the peasant question remains regardless of how agrarian reform is being treated- that of silencing dissent as it only laid the groundwork for landlord-legislators and subsequent governments to maintain their grip over the rural population. Much like the aftermath of the Mendiola Massacre, for which no one was ever held accountable, local convictions of rogue law enforcement officers who in support of entrenched interests remain extremely rare.  

And it is not surprising that these may occur, just like under previous administrations. As the peasant question including Land reform has long been a contentious issue in the Philippines. Those who oppose agrarian reform even blame the program for slowing down productivity while applauding neoliberal economic policies for “providing access to food” in a form of imports- while forcing farmers to give up their land to developers for conversion to residential/or commercial purposes. Last year, Senator Cynthia Villar justified land conversion by saying that "farmers who sell their land to developers can buy agricultural land elsewhere and cultivate there instead," displaying her conceited attitude in light of issues relating to food security and sovereignty. The Rice Tarrification Law, which she defended on the grounds that it "liberalised rice importations and collected tariffs to fund development of the rice industry," would "benefit farmers in the long run," has caused farmers' earnings to decline in the face of less expensive rice imports.  

Such actions by the administration would imply that, regardless of their half-baked actions, the lack of justice and accountability for atrocities against the people (whether in Mendiola, Hacienda Luisita, or elsewhere), as well as persistent landlessness and agrarian unrest in the countryside, will continue to bring generations of farmers and the masses concerned to Liwasang Bonifacio to Mendiola year after year. And regardless of paper “laws” and half-baked/or empty promises, the long-standing concentration of land ownership among large landlords and agribusinesses traps smallholders, landless farmers and agricultural workers in a cycle of poverty, preventing them from controlling production or benefiting from their labour and produce. 

At present, prices of locally-produced foodstuffs such as onions rose high as middlemen and even markets trying to exploit the situation whether by artificial scarcity to that of depriving farmers accessibility for their produce. Authorities promised farmers and consumers to address the matter, but this becomes more than just smuggling, middlemen, or land developers exploiting the situation, but rather how the government treats food security, food sovereignty and the peasant question both agricultural reforms and land use seem to run inconsistent with the best interest of the farmers.  

In this commemoration, the struggle for land rights and better working conditions has once again been met with State and non-State repression, leaving farmers and the masses with no choice but to take their plight to the streets. Because the people who toil the land are also the ones who are most likely to suffer from hunger and food insecurity, they are at risk of being labelled as subversives for demanding land and justice, as their expressions of grievance are not always met with solutions, but rather with brutality. 

This note reiterates its support to genuine agrarian reform, rural development, and in protecting the rights of the people to life, food, and free speech. Authorities may parrot it two and fro these word stated, but given the realities that run contrary to their promises, the people’s struggle for peace, land, bread, and justice will ever continue even at the expense of their lives.