Amidst repression, injustice, and crisis: working women, rise up!

Amidst repression, injustice, and crisis: working women, rise up!

Warm greetings to all working women whose contributions brought significant changes in the society, and now in one with the masses in its struggle for better political, social and economic change.

 As every year the role of women in all spheres of life of society increases, this message may first sound ideal especially in a time old issues like exploitation, oppression, inequality, darkness and ignorance still continues to prevail even in this ever modern times- especially amid the rapidly worsening economic crisis marked by a sharp fall in standards of living of millions. That sweatshop labour, white slavery, low wages and less benefits, to that of harassments and various forms of injustices remains a problem towards women in particular and in working people in general. 

 But, this doesn’t hamper the growing struggle as various forms of actions, be it in the halls of congress to that of the streets demand fairness and justice at home, school, markets, and in the workplace: They must vehemently demand immediate rollbacks in the costs of fuel, food, and other necessities, as well as jobs, livelihoods, higher wages and better workplaces, land, the abolition of land rent, higher farmgate prices, lower taxes, a halt to complete import liberalisation, and other necessary actions. 

 Furthermore this day also commemorates women heroes who, with their contributions and sacrifices in the field outweigh their hardships and pain all in promoting and fighting for a just society where women contribute in all spheres. That with all their lives defending theirs and the people’s welfare and interests and resisting policies that worsen their oppression their heroism serves as an inspiration to many in the face of systemic oppression with its brazen acts of state terrorism in its desperation to silence the people and secure its power. 

 Hence, with their contributions these make way for women to rise up in greater numbers, of organising in communities and in workplaces, carrying just calls, and making way to a new and dynamic generation who will dutifully carry the torches of struggle all for national and social liberation.

“In solidarity with the Jeepney drivers against sham ‘modernisation’”

“In solidarity with the Jeepney drivers against sham ‘modernisation’”

Kat Ulrike

On this first day of the statewide transportation strike, this note stands with the people in support of the jeepney drivers. Drivers, operators, and even concerned commuters alike appeal to the government to heed their pleas not to take away their source of income but rather to rehabilitate their vehicles, restore their routes lost during the pandemic, and offer urgent and just support. 

From the start, the “Jeepney Modernisation Program” is an object of ridicule despite its supposed “benefit”. By claiming that the program would improve road-based mass transportation, this is obviously a corporate phase-in wherein interests in the transportation sector, in connivance with banks and self-proclaimed concerned public officials trying to exploit the situation, be it reasons of the environment, safety, “traffic” control, but obviously to rake profits and control routes if necessary. 

It's true that the drivers wanted a new, modern jeepney to replace that of the old ones, but given the high costs of each modernised vehicle and the fact that the drivers are primarily still recovering from the pandemic, they cannot afford these expensive vehicles, whereas commuters will pay more out of their own pocket when fares go up. Forcing to set up “cooperatives”, no matter it appears beneficial according to its supporters doesn’t suffice the problem, as drivers themselves still cannot afford 2.5-2.8 million worth of “modern jeepneys” even with measly-funded installments. 

Furthermore, the expensive vehicles made available by this modernisation program, the majority of which are minibuses from China, simply benefited the profiteers stated above using "modernisation" as an excuse, while undermining the ability of local jeepney assemblers to produce vehicles that meet the standards offered by the program, whether they be new safety standards or engine requirements. Companies like Francisco Motors, Sarao offered their own local alternatives, yet authorities continue to cling to their imported “alternative” that affects not just the driver, operator, and the commuter- but also the assembler who tries to improve the Philippines’s “king of the road”.

Supporters of the program may still cling to the thought that their concept of modernisation “benefit everyone” regardless of its problems, but the realities behind the program doesn’t stop the concerned from its prevailing worriness as drivers and operators, still trying to recover from the pandemic, wanting first to regain their lost franchises for their livelihood. 

And to think that this note supports the objective of giving people access to cost-effective, efficient, safe, secure, and efficient modes of transportation, this change must be open to everybody, just, and focused on people. Key stakeholders should be recognised by the government as collaborators in developing and executing programs, policies, and solutions linked to urban mobility. It is not sufficient to just confer with them on modernisation issues.

“Towards a sound transportation modernisation program that benefit all stakeholders”

“Towards a sound transportation modernisation program 

that benefit all stakeholders”

Thoughts on the recent Jeepney strike 

This note at first supports the struggles of the Jeepney drivers, operators, as well as passengers who supported the recent strike in response to the one-sided “modernisation plan”. 

The government has been adamant about modernizing public transportation, but they have forgotten that having modern, improved, clean and sustainable transportation should entail more than just having new and modern engines as well as better fleets. Such attempts without considering today’s state of jeepney drivers and operators, nor its inclusivity in its plan will simply lead to unemployment and loss of livelihood as well as lessen the number of public transport options to the commuting public especially at a time when the country is still reeling from the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic. 

For both operators and drivers, as they are still attempting to recover from the recent coronavirus pandemic and want to regain their lost routes and franchises cannot afford to gain such expensive “modern” jeepneys. Furthermore, the increasing prices of oil and other commodities even hinder them from buying as such, forcing them to choose between immediate needs and thar of expensive “modern jeepneys” sponsored by bureaucrats and profiteers alike. The latter even insisted that drivers and operators alike should form cooperatives, but this doesn’t suffice the problem of resolving their livelihoods if not obviously making them exploited by interest seekers using jeepney modernisation as its alibi. 

Additionally, proponents of the modernisation program assert that they want to modernize mass transportation in order to provide clean transportation networks as aging jeepneys themselves are a source of smoke spewing and pollution. But the solutions they are putting forth simply do not deal with structural problems in the urban and transportation systems. They only represent a change from an older, polluting technology to a more modern one that benefits affording few at the expense of the have nots. 

True that both drivers and operators, as well as passengers wished for modern, safe, and improved mass transportation systems, and even see and hear their calls for inclusion in transport system planning. But this one sided, anti-poor “Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program” (PUVMP) doesn’t resolve but instead aggravate the problem regarding mass transport as it benefits entrenched interests- that even local jeepney assemblers, who willing to take part in a modernisation program are also sidelined in favour of importers whose expensive, imported “jeepneys” from China disregarded chances of improving, if not developing a still young local mass transport industry that’s beneficial to all stakeholders especially drivers and operators. 

Thus, in order to be effective and equitable, any plan to improve the transportation system must be a component of a larger effort to make the urban setting more livable, and people must be the primary focus of those efforts. All stakeholders should be included in such idea that’s driven by the desire to improve mass transportation without leaving behind vulnerable sectors. Urban mobility inequities should be addressed by exploring outside of the realms of technology, infrastructure, and even rules. As well as must consider on how to incorporate mobility equity into urban planning and development.

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”?