Honour, Excellence, Service: Characters to be Developed with Intellect

 Honour, Excellence, Service: Characters to be Developed with Intellect

In the profound labyrinth of human society, where the interplay of virtue and intellect shapes destinies, the values of honour, excellence, and service emerge as pivotal pillars upon which the edifice of character rests. To cultivate these qualities within the individual is not merely an aspiration but an imperative for the flourishing of both personal integrity and communal harmony. This note endeavors to explore how the harmonious development of honour, excellence, and service can be achieved through the judicious application of intellect, supported by the wisdom of ancient thinkers and sacred texts.

The Essence of Honour

Honour, a concept deeply rooted in the moral fabric of society, transcends mere reputation; it embodies a commitment to truth, integrity, and respect. Confucius astutely notes, "The man of honour is not a man of words, but a man of actions." This understanding of honour as action underscores the necessity of aligning one’s words and deeds, thus cultivating trust and respect within the community. In an age marked by rapid advancement and change, the pursuit of honour demands a steadfast adherence to one’s principles, which requires an informed and discerning intellect capable of navigating complex moral landscapes.

The implications of honour extend beyond personal ethics; they influence societal cohesion. As Proverbs 22:1 eloquently states, "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold." This highlights that honour, while intangible, is invaluable. A life lived honourably inspires others to uphold similar values, creating a ripple effect that fosters integrity and trust within the community. The exercise of intellect fosters a keen awareness of the ramifications of one’s choices, urging individuals to engage authentically with the world. Thus, the development of honour through intellect is not solely an individual pursuit but a communal obligation, enriching society as a whole.

The Pursuit of Excellence

Excellence, the relentless quest for the highest standards in all endeavors, is another essential trait that demands intellectual engagement. In the 19th century, characterized by industrialization and intellectual movements, the pursuit of excellence is more urgent than ever. Confucius reminds the people, "It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." This continuous striving for improvement underscores the importance of discipline, perseverance, and an insatiable curiosity.

Excellence is not merely a destination but a journey. It demands that individuals critically evaluate their work and the methods they employ. The intellectual pursuit of excellence compels individuals to question the status quo and innovate, as exemplified in the spirit of scientific inquiry and artistic expression during this transformative era. This aligns with the biblical exhortation found in Colossians 3:23: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men." Such a perspective elevates the pursuit of excellence to a spiritual endeavor, imbuing everyday tasks with greater significance.

The intersection of honour and excellence is crucial; the pursuit of high ideals flourishes only in the presence of integrity. Those who seek excellence must also cultivate honour, ensuring that their aspirations are aligned with ethical principles. A commitment to excellence, when guided by honour, results in the creation of innovations and advancements that benefit humanity, rather than serving mere self-interest.

The Imperative of Service

Service, the altruistic endeavor to uplift others, completes the triad of honour and excellence. In a world often marked by self-interest, the act of serving others requires both moral conviction and intellectual clarity. Jesus Christ teaches in Mark 10:45, "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve." This profound statement underscores the essence of service as a fundamental human obligation and illustrates the transformative power of humility and generosity.

As those who undergo the painstaking task of studying, of applying theory into practise, the values embedded has made the learned having an innate sense of duty-  possessing an ideal that's "noblesse oblige" to help others, what more having a social contract with society which justifies a noble duty to serve the people. 

The development of a service-oriented character calls for an empathetic intellect, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of humanity. To serve effectively, one must engage in critical thinking, assessing the needs of others and the best means to address those needs. This requires not only compassion but also a well-informed perspective that can adapt to the complexities of human experience. Confucius reinforces this notion with the insight: "To see what is right and not do it is the greatest cowardice." Therefore, the cultivation of service through intellect becomes a vital means of fostering a more just and equitable society.

Moreover, service extends beyond direct assistance; it encompasses a commitment to social justice, advocacy, and the well-being of the broader community. Individuals who develop a mindset of service become catalysts for positive change, embodying the principles of honour and excellence in their actions. As they engage with the world around them, they inspire others to follow suit, creating a culture of empathy and cooperation.

Conclusion

In the pursuit of honour, excellence, and service, intellect serves as the guiding light, illuminating the path toward a well-rounded character. The interplay of these virtues is essential for the development of individuals who can navigate the complexities of the modern world with grace and integrity. As people strive to nurture these qualities, one must recognize that the cultivation of honour, excellence, and service is not merely a personal endeavor; it is a collective responsibility that shapes the very essence of our society.

In this noble pursuit, one must remind ourselves that the true measure of intellect lies not in knowledge alone, but in its application towards the betterment of humanity. As the apostle James said, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). This calls us to action, emphasizing that our beliefs must be reflected in our deeds. The characters humanity develop through honour, excellence, and service will ultimately define the legacy that's to leave for future generations, ensuring that the values one hold dear continue to thrive in a world increasingly in need of principled leaders and compassionate souls.

In conclusion, the cultivation of honour, excellence, and service through the lens of intellect is not only a personal journey but a societal imperative. It is through the diligent application of these virtues that people may hope to forge a future enriched by integrity, creativity, and a profound commitment to the well-being of others. Let us aspire to embody these principles, striving to leave an indelible mark upon the world, one grounded in honour, excellence, and selfless service.

Celebrating Rizal's birth by reaffirming ideals in the face of struggle

Celebrating Rizal's birth 

by reaffirming ideals in the face of struggle 

 "Hold high the brow serene, 

O youth, where now you stand; 

Let the bright sheen 

Of your grace be seen, 

Fair hope of my fatherland!" 

- Jose Rizal

As this note is in one with the folk in commemorating the 159th birthday of National Hero Dr. Jose Rizal, let the folk remember his courage and commitment to serve the country that gave freedom and identity as Filipinos. 

Dr. Jose Rizal taught his people the importance of having love and patriotism for their nation. All after recent events be it the past Covid19 pandemic, of seeing same personages with empty and half-baked promises, and the inconveniences brought by politics and socioeconomic problems, as the country attempts to adapt to the new normal, may the folk cultivate the same fortitude and resiliency that Dr. Jose Rizal demonstrated in his struggle for the independence, freedom, and equality of all Filipinos.  

However, Rizal's message was and is, not limited to that of the Filipino. To cite Elias Fuentes (Tan Malaka), Rizal is a radical that has the right to question the current status of Asia and to assert the right of Asians to self-determination, something that today's Filipinos have to assert back in the face of being besieged by local and corrupt despots and of foreign lords. Fuentes even considered the "great Malayan" as an "Indonesian" before Indonesia was created, all because of his aspirations of a free and united Nusantara (archipelago). The inclusivity, according to Professor Ramon Guillermo, reflects the Indonesian Revolutionary’s belief that “Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines actually formed a single nation before European colonialism tore them apart" and that "Rizal and Andres Bonifacio are at the "summit" of the "mountain of Great Indonesia" because “they still have a significant role to play in raising the Indonesian people from the inferiority complex caused by European colonialism.”  

Call Rizal's works and aspirations to the Filipino folk as idyllic if not irrelevant in this current setting of institutionalised forgetfulness and reductionism, but to the concerned, Rizal's message as well as that of other heroes and martyrs is itself a flame that has to be ignited back and give light, warmth to the nation that needs a profound sense of self determination. Why did this note say so? Believing that through today's contemporary mindsets of crass consumerism and the bankruptcy of intellectuals, the treatment of heroes and its lessons are being reduced to some totem poles if not rendered irrelevant, moot, and academic. Will those truly concerned simply disregard and "move on" as most so? As stated in a previous post from a month ago, the existing order, in treating heroes as totem poles, would parrot Rizal or any other personality expressing hope for the present and future generations. But, given the current inconveniences, should these generations be contented to continue being exploited? 

Let this note that commemorates his Birth all strive to be as courageous and resilient as Rizal was, willing to go beyond parameters by any means as to overcome the current obstacles facing the country.  

When Educators and Artists oppose Marcos's "Bagong Pilipinas" hymn and pledge as "political propaganda"

When Educators and Artists

 oppose Marcos's "Bagong Pilipinas" hymn and pledge 

as "political propaganda"

The mandate by Malacañang to have schools, and national government agencies, sing and recite the "Bagong Pilipinas" hymn and pledge in weekly flag ceremonies was met with opposition from artist and teachers groups, who described it as "awful," "forgettable," "impractical", and a move "reminiscent of the political propaganda tactics seen during the Martial Law years." 

 As last Monday, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin signed Memorandum Circular 52, which was approved by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and attempts to instill the ideas of "Bagong Pilipinas." The directive covers national government agencies, government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), and educational institutions, including state universities and colleges (SUCs). 

 “To further instill the principles of the Bagong Pilipinas brand of governance and leadership among Filipinos, all national government agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCCs and educational institutions, such as SUCs (state universities and colleges), are hereby directed, and LGUs are hereby encouraged, to integrate the recital of the Bagong Pilipinas Hymn and Pledge in the conduct of weekly flag ceremonies, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations,” Memorandum Circular No. 52 said. 

However, not all people find the hymn and pledge inspiring, but rather cringy and served a particular interest such as the current administration, especially from that of an educator or an artist whose duty is to inspire people, especially the youth in order to contribute in various fields for the nation. 

 Admin need not to enforce brand of governance 

but work honestly for the common good - TDC 

According to the group Teachers Dignity Coalition (TDC), claims that the memorandum order is unneeded, unworkable, and unrelated to teaching kids about nationalism and patriotism.

 “This initiative is a superficial attempt to instill a brand of governance that, instead of genuinely educating schoolchildren about nationalism and patriotism through the exemplary lives of our national leaders, resorts to mandatory recitations and songs,” the TDC said in a statement. 

 “True nationalism and patriotism cannot be enforced through hollow rituals or the blind worship of national symbols, let alone a piece of propaganda,” TDC added. 

 The TDC emphasized that the administration should not impose its own style of governance, but rather work honestly in the interests of Filipinos to "truly inspire and educate the youth."

 “The people in power have a duty to be responsive and responsible, exhibiting genuine love for the country through their respect for human rights, adherence to the rule of law and an active fight against corruption,” the TDC said. 

 “They must foster social justice through meaningful actions and legislation, not through the forced singing of a propaganda song and the recital of a pledge that appears redundant. The best way to teach our children about nationalism and patriotism is to show them leaders who lead by example, demonstrating their commitment to the country through their actions, policies and dedication to public service,” the statment added. 

 Furthermore, the group stated that the national anthem is sufficient to remind students of their responsibilities to the country. 

 Why not address social issues 

than create delusions through flimsy notions?

 Meanwhile, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers denounced Marcos's directive as it aims to divert attention from real and pressing socioeconomic issues the country has facing, interpreting that the order as an obvious attempt to impose a flimsy notion of "progress and nationalism" through symbolic gestures than the need for tangible solutions to address the country's perennial problems.

 "The Marcos Jr. administration appears to be prioritizing symbolic gestures rather than addressing the severe economic and social issues plaguing Filipinos," said Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) Philippines Chairperson Vladimer Quetua in a statement issued on Tuesday, June 11. 

"While we grapple with low salaries and wages, soaring costs of living, and chronically underfunded education and social services, the President chose to implement ceremonial measures to further promote his government branding which, in reality, for almost two years, has been failing to bring significant progress to the lives of the Filipino people," Quetua lamented.

 "What we need are tangible solutions to these problems and not attempts to shape public perception," the ACT Chairperon added. 

Furthermore, the order was also criticized by that said group since the memo went beyond the mandates of the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines, and hence it is seen as unconstitutional. Republic Act 8491, often known as the Flag Law, "does not provide the Office of the President the authority to create and require a new hymn to sing or pledge to recite during flag ceremonies in the country," and former Far Eastern University law school dean Mel Sta. Maria, said that the Flag Law did not give the Office of the President any authority to create or add a hymn or pledge in flag ceremonies, and overstepping from the said law is again unconstitutional.

In a message from X (formerly Twitter), the barrister and former Law dean stated that the flag law already provided an oath of allegiance.

 The "Bagong Pilipinas" hymn and pledge, also according to Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND), are reminiscent of a "dark chapter in our history, glorifying an era that brought suffering to countless citizens."

 “The ‘Bagong Lipunan’ of the Marcos dictatorship in the ’70s was a period marked by severe human rights violations, suppression of dissent and economic hardship for many Filipinos,” CONTEND said, citing the “New Society” period whose “progress and development” was meant to hide the inconveniences of human rights violations and rampant poverty. The song “Bagong Lipunan” is one example of the propaganda presented by Marcos Sr’s “New Society”.

 “We challenge all educators to resist this unconstitutional move by Marcos Jr. and instead underscore historical truth and the principles of nationalism and democracy in our classrooms and research,” CONTEND added.

Like ACT, CONTEND urges the government to address instead socioeconomic problems that made “bagong Pilipinas” more of an empty rhetoric. 

  "The focus should be on practical solutions such as increasing wages for workers, reducing the cost of essential goods, supporting drivers and operators to prevent loss of livelihood under the anti-people jeepney phaseout, and creating quality and regular jobs in the country," CONTEND stressed. 

 Awful, uninspiring 

 Other than teachers groups, artists find the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn as far from being catchy and inspiring. As one activist-musician criticized the "Bagong Pilipinas" hymn from a strictly creative perspective, calling the melody "awful," the lyrics "forgettable," and the vocals "ill-blending." 

 According to Edgie Francis Uyanguren, national coordinator for Concerned Artists of the Philippines (CAP), "that song is cheap (and) unplanned" and may not make it past the first rounds of a songwriting contest. 

 “It wasn’t really thought out. It’s very clear in the lyrics.” Uyanguren said.  

“not a singable song” for big gatherings to begin with. If you’re going to require it to be sung by students and teachers, the voices will really be different.” Uyanguren added. 

 Another artist, Choi Padilla, a music producer and jingle writer, described the song "Bagong Pilipinas" as more of a campaign jingle supporting the current Marcos regime than a pledge of allegiance to the country. 

 “If this is how you wrote the song and you want it for [government employees and students] to sing it, it’s one-sided. And the title itself, ‘Bagong Pilipinas,’ (sounds) as if you are already gearing towards something like an agenda.” Padilla said. 

 “Like, what’s ‘new’ at all? Is there something new? For it to be a hymn, it’s weird,” he added. 

 “A hymn is supposed to show your love and allegiance to the country or that you are proud of it, and it should not show a facade that could divide the country.” Padilla stressed. 

Why defend in the face of criticism?

Nonetheless, proponents of the hymn and the pledge maintain that they are justified in doing so because "Bagong Pilipinas" highlights the government's commitment to implementing policy changes while aiming to bring about a significant social transformation. 

 Senator Jinggoy Estrada even downplay its singing as any other hymn since it is "neither illegal nor irregular" but instead urging everyone to heed its message. 

“It’s important to note that Memorandum Circular No. 52 is neither illegal nor irregular; rather, it aims to foster a culture of good governance and progressive leadership across all government levels,” Estrada said.

 “This is no different from the singing of the Senate, school and university hymns which is a way to remind us of the patriotism and unity of us Filipinos,” Estrada emphasized. 

Even during his January 28 speech that Marcos Jr. himself insist that "Bagong Pilipinas" is a set of ideals to instil of, and there was neither hymn nor pledge imposed yet that time.

 "Bagong Pilipinas is not a new partisan coalition in disguise. It is a set of ideals that all us Filipinos, regardless of political creed or religion or wealth, can coalesce around," Marcos Jr. said. 

 "Bagong Pilipinas transcends this administration. To those whose overheated imagination has been poisoned by toxic politics, Bagong Pilipinas is no Trojan Horse. It conceals no agenda," Marcos Jr. added.

But the question is, what kind of "ideals" does that "Bagong Pilipinas" have? Especially in a time that the administration itself is riddled with political scandals and serious socioeconomic matters meant to be resolved not with some hymn nor pledge? Why not promote good and transparent governance, social justice, and honest to goodness patriotism to the people as a statement of fact? 

For now there's no law yet to begin with justifying requiring every walk of life to sing that hymn or swear on that oath promoting those "ideals" "Bagong Pilipinas" have (if there is)- as the current flag law only requires government agencies and schools to play only the National Anthem and the pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

"Celebrating independence by asserting genuine independence"

"Celebrating independence by asserting genuine independence"

(Or "nationalism in the time of multinational occidentosis")

By Kat Ulrike

At first, this note bid greetings to the Filipino folk in celebrating the 126th Independence Day of this country, which signifies the liberation of the Philippines from Spanish rule. 

While the Filipino people celebrate their independence, the country is dealing with issues that are making their fight for true sovereignty more intense. As international conflict and tension between nations like China, which has targeted the Philippines in disputes over territorial claims of the West Philippine Sea, and the United States, which has increased its military presence and activities in the nation, these manifested to advance its own geopolitical interests and economic stronghold in Southeast Asia, current threats to Philippine sovereignty evolved. 

And it is not surprising that in the face of these events that the Philippines continues to remain stuck in its continuing past, a vassal between two big countries jousting for dominance in the asia-pacific region. China's aggressive claim over the country's territories has resulted in massive violations of people's rights in order to satisfy its agenda of becoming an imperialist power. These violations range from claiming the country's waters by arguing that the nine-dash line is a legitimate basis for ownership to infiltrating socio-economic activities and infringement on national policies. Meanwhile, the United States' persistent threat to a country's sovereignty through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), and significant economic infiltration increases the likelihood that the nation will be used as a battlefield and continues to victimize people in support of its neoliberal agenda. 

These situations would say that the country needs to reignite its patriotic sentiment that's more than the promotion of "all things Filipino" as that of Barong Tagalog and promoting personalities like Manny Pacquiao. The Nationalism that's forged by the heroes and martyrs of this continuing past cannot just be stunted by the sugarcoated promises of an order that clings to interests whilst pretending to be patriotic or nationalist. Despite being independent since 1946, the nation remained tied to its former coloniser what more its aggressive neighbour through unequal agreements, promising "development" one after the other despite obvious facts of debt traps and repression. And it is not surprising that both United States and China have made a multinational occidentosis that's downplaying the nation's right to self-determination and the will to develop its future according to its own direction. 

Thus, this made the concerned ask, if this multinational westoxification on the pretense of "development" and "security" really benefited the nation? For sure the common Filipino have learned its history, as imperialism heightens the Filipino people’s marginalization and disenfranchisement which diminishes their ability to claim rights and dignity. The nation has benefited the blessings of western ideals, of development as that to freedom and democracy, and yet the presence of both imperialists hampers true national development and disbars from realizing a truly just and equitable society.  

On other hand, this note find nothing wrong in admiring and adopting Western models and criteria in education, the arts, and culture; even heroes like Jose Rizal or Andres Bonifacio were influenced by the ideals from the west, that the Philippines was "western" in its foundations despite oriental in its ground; but, by depriving the nation its own quest for self-determination and instead remain as a passive market for Western goods and as pawn in Western geopolitics, of what is admiring the west? Does it mean that by enjoying modernity means depriving its own worth? That again, isn't it that westoxification? Or Occidentosis?  

For sure there are those who disagree on this thought especially those who simply equate westernisation to reform and modernisation. Again true that the west brought developments to the developing east, but again does it mean the developing east should remain dependent on the developed west all despite generations of understanding how the west became "progressive"? Japan understood the ways of the west and had to apply it just "to make a rich nation and a strong army" to "beat the barbarians" using their perspective, but does it mean Japan had to be contented to the promises and plans of the west with its expanding markets? China and Vietnam had to learn and adopt the ways of the west in order to "self strengthen" only to be realised by breaking the shackles imposed by the old order- that the developed west benefited from these two countries and its weaknesses. Who wants a country to remain poor, impotent, an importer and consumer despite learning and seeing what the west has shown?  

This is not some kind of an individual matter but a national one. Ordinary people may call it as "colonial mentality" that fondness for things foreign, what more western all at the expense of local talent and knowledge- simply because of a status quo that prefers to keep a country backward and agricultural "for the sake of international commerce, trade, and finance". "Critics" of the national system may blame oligarchs or "leftists" for the "backwardness" the country has to endure with "protectionist policies". And yet with the willingness to have unbridled neoliberal capitalism of the multinaitonal banksters to exploit and call it "reform" or even "modernisation" isn't it that occidentosis of a multinational/transnational variant? The banksters, the multinational conglomerates are also in connivance with the local exploiters who also benefited from neoliberal exploitation.  

But does it also mean foreign investments be disregarded? This note also agrees with foreign investment so long as it is in accordance with just regulations (labour, environmental protection, etc.) to ensure real contributions to national development as opposed to the mainline view of promoting foreign investment-centric regimes, which expand enormously the rights of the foreign investor, and correspondingly diminish the controls that the host state may exercise on the investor.  

This note serves as a reminder of the historical injustices that the Filipino people have faced, and it also strengthens the case for true national sovereignty—a state in which the interests of the people come first and no imperialist stands in the way of the nation's progress. This is not to say that the nation should return to an idealized, romanticized past; rather, to see a nation that should use tools, knowledge, and expertise to actually elevate the country, enhance its culture, and boost its economy—all while fostering a community that is a nation in the making.  

"When fighting for sovereignty demands unity, and in unity demands principles"

"When fighting for sovereignty demands unity, 

and in unity demands principles"

(Or: "Thoughts after national sovereignty in the face of Sino-American hostility")

As time passes, Filipinos face risks to their national sovereignty and security as territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea escalate, with China acting increasingly aggressively and hostilely. 

This threat from the mainland demonstrates the former's complete disregard for the International Arbitral Tribunal's 2-16 ruling in favor of the Philippines in claiming the disputed West Philippine Sea, including the Kalayaan group and the Panatag shoal, further forcing the country to allow the United States and its armed forces to use the country as a springboard for war provocations and preparations against China.

For sure it is a common perception that Filipinos would chose to be sided with its former colonizer, being its "benefactor" for decades, providing the country with their interpretation of "democracy" and "freedom"- and thus willing to disregard the atrocities of the past in favour of being a little brown brother that's obedient to his white elder.

However, such inconvenient realities diminishes the idyllic view of the Filipino. The United States government and military, as well as the Chinese showed utter contempt for Philippines' sovereignty and security as both showcase its power. Again, the Filipino keeps on running on its benefactor Uncle Sam for support as large scale war exercises conducted on Philippine land and territorial waters compliments the saber rattling of the Chinese especially in the disputed West Philippine Sea. 

But is the United States really on the side of the Filipinos as most think of with all the idyllic "making the world safe for democracy"? Or having the same old transactional setting with policymakers imposing unjust schemes to its vassal? Not surprising that most Filipinos can't get away from the Cold War as the possible war with China means a "battle for freedom and democracy" even it isn't- what more it doesn't matter when the military exercises becomes a license for disrupting the livelihood of tens of thousands of people to that of a total disregard for the environment with rockets being fired, bombs being exploded and US warships dumping its toxic waste on Philippine waters. Even the scheming Chinese does the same thing, trying to appear friendly to Filipinos with promises of "development" that in turn leads to debt traps. Yet these same Chinese has aggrieved the Filipino people by denying Filipino fishermen access from their traditional and shared fishing grounds in Panatag Shoal. It has also water-bombed Philippine Coast Guard and civilian vessels, claiming their “supply missions” were violating its “gentleman’s agreement” with the Duterte and Marcos regimes. And Cold War hysterics would even babble again the same old anticommunist tirade despite seeing China's message nothing to do with communism or revolution!   

Still reeking of that American "Occidentosis", the Philippines continues to present itself as a little brown brother to its big anglosaxon elder. Regardless of its inconvenient history and current events that still linger, most of the Filipinos are willing to disregard, or should say "move on" from both the past and the inconvenient truth as Uncle Sam's promise of "making the world safe for democracy" resonates in the minds of an average Juan.

Especially in this growing Chinese threat, it is not surprising if cold war-like hysteria be played whether it is red scare or some xenophobia. And in speaking of that "cold war" then of course the Philippines would make some broad effort to confront the Chinese government and “win the new Cold War" with the blessings and assistance of its western master, claiming that the possible conflict against China as more than just defending sovereignty but of "making the world safe for democracy." Of course, people desired peace and goodwill with the Chinese as that of the Americans, but what type of peace did the Chinese seek? Clearly, they want the Philippines to behave like a vassal the way United States does, claiming the islands, shoals, and a portion of the sea as "theirs". They have Filipinos to kick around most of the time taking "pleasure" to chase fishermen in their small vessels, target coast guard ships with lasers and water cannons, block supply ships heading for Ayungin shoal or the Kalayaan group, and ram the most vulnerable ones in the name of their "nine dash line" claim. 

But this matter becomes more than just the sea- but of influencing people. The past Duterte administration attests to that in showing Chinese influence in policy. Its apologists, by claiming preserving relations not just disregard national sovereignty but also entering a "gentleman's agreement" claiming this would not interfere with delivering supplies to the disputed area in exchange for giving up claims "in the name of amity", what more to see mainlanders engaging in illicit businesses, even using politicians and businessmen to influence their own circles in favour of the other side- especially during the Duterte era wherein national sovereignty was almost disregarded in favour of some superficial "amity" supported with loans. Obviously, Duterte's foreign policy was rooted on the regime's focus on local matters if not limiting foreign relations to that of "trade and investment", that by pretending having an "independent foreign policy" in its pretentious form means no other country or supranational entity such as the United Nations to "make mess" in the country's local matter- such as that of its "war on drugs" to that of "war against the rebels/opposition", and yet willing to accommodate towards big imperialists United States and China especially for defence and "development"- even it meant loans and unjust policies. 

That by having a "gentleman's agreement" with the Chinese bigwigs meant "peace and amity" in the minds of his supporters, claiming that China's offer was better than those from the United States- or is the latter's offer better than China's? "which is which" is the "gentleman's agreement" towards the Philippines sounds "gentlemanly" despite its obvious master to vassal nature of both agreements from China and the United States? 

And yet, since the ideal is to make world safe for that "democracy" then how come internal hostility is an inevitable byproduct of this outlook? No problem that with the current issue of Chinese crime syndicates and its illicit operations in the country it has to be investigated and resolved, what more asserting and defending the country particularly the West Philippine Sea and its islands and shoals, why need for some cold war hysteria just to "make the world safe for democracy"? Is it really for "democracy" or just neoliberal capitalism with its agreements being seen as norms and mores to observe? "red" China today is but a fading pink, it has lost its revolutionary glow, the way people hear "getting rich is glorious" to justify their unscrupulous acts than "serve the people"! Is Xi Jinping preach revolution or socialism to uplift the downtrodden not just China but around the world? Nope! But for the cold war hysterics, that modern China is the same China branded as a bogeyman. 

Again, wouldn't be surprised that with all these still smacks of reeking occidentosis as policies continue to lean towards to the west, to the wall street and its banksters, to the military-industrial complex, all in connivance with local bureaucrats, the modern latifundias, and the military officers altogether consolidating a rotten social order. 

***

Some people tend to say that idealism is not consistent with reality, that not all ideas are applicable in changing conditions. Of course there are those who strongly reject this the way people demand a country that's rooted in principle, of a people having character driven by both intellect and morality and thus serving as a foundation of upholding national dignity especially in the face of looming crisis.  

And contrary to that of the establishment and its pretentious views, people wanted to play a major role in running national affairs and managing the country- and this somehow is an example of democracy. They also want to make societal progress as well as that political and economic independence, but under the current establishment? Quite doubtful knowing that the current establishment pretends to be patriotic or "pro-people" while keeping firm in their interests. They would dismiss people's demands as idyllic if not imaginative just to keep firm in their entrenched interests. But the quest for reviving the nation includes meeting the just demands of the people. These demands are the realities of the society and they are completely in line with idealism- the very same idealism that's dismissed as fantasy by those claiming to be "patriotic" or "principled" yet willing to submit to the whims of exploiters be it local or foreign. And these exploiters and disenfranchisers are lying. They are not the people nor the international community. This is a reality. 

As in the past the country has faced with a few arrogant governments and powers. China and the United States done much carrots and sticks to snare people with sugarcoated promises and exploit them with unjust policies. China underestimates the country's claim over the disputed West Philippine Sea while the Americans exploiting them with promises of security! Is this the country's yearning for peace and development when two "superpowers" treating the country as a vassal that's being kicked to and fro? This is a reality. It is in front of everyone's eyes that be it debt traps on the guise of "development", rape cases by visiting soldiers on the guise of "security", exploiting lands and people with various policies, of personalities claiming to be "for the people" while signing agreements promising kickbacks and lump sum of money, even those with questionable about their identities, actions, and of their loyalties, are all these brought amity especially in the face of continuing crisis? Again this is a reality.  

Such realities would say that the Philippines is still in a continuing past. The establishment speaks of a future for them but by making it a reality coming from a people is against their narrative. The truth is that their opposition is because of the essence of an unfinished revolution and the existence of those who adhere in it: that for the establishment the nation's independence is already fulfilled with the flag being waved and the anthem being sung, but the majority of those who wished for independence find it not enough: farmers demand land, workers demand just wage, professionals demand rights to speech, press, and expression, families wanted their children better education and welfare, people wanted social rights alongside national redemption- and these are more than the flag being flown alone. 

Perhaps, the struggle for national independence is still more than just a celebration. True that the establishment would say there's a battle for a country to face, a future that needs to be taken, but for the people, especially the downtrodden, it demands an all out resistance- that neither from Beijing nor Washington, Shanghai Bund nor Wall Street would impose policies on them; while Apologists of the establishment would cry bad "oligarchs" or corrupt "politicians" to justify their stance that includes urging multinationals to exploit the country with lax or no regulations to offer - making a concerned think if they're really driven by "patriotism" or just sheer consolidation of interests at the expense of people's aspirations? 

Such concern demands unity, but such unity needs principle, and the commonality that cannot be undermined by some assuming as "powers that might be."  

Be Torchbearers, Builders, Fighters of a Nation's destiny!

Be Torchbearers, Builders, Fighters of a Nation's destiny!

Regardless of the changing times the youth has to uphold the ideals and aspirations of the nation and its people, of seeking truth frim facts and to assert the need of a national rejuvenation.  

For as youths as seen as the most active and energetic element, it is worthy to call then as hope and future of the nation and its people. True that with their passion and creativity the youth should be endowned with rare opportunities to achieve things and greater responsibiities to fulfill to make communities thrive, a nation to prosper, and families to enjoy its blessings.  

However, in this current order this note would say that the youth has really having a big task to fulfill. In a time that corrupt officials, cruel despots, of leaders whose self-interests prevailed over those of the people and the nation, it becomes a duty for the youth to expose and oppose them by any means necessarily. By looking back at history the ones called youthful and passionate have taken the weapon be it the pen or the gun to assert reforms and to inspire people, especially the downtrodden to revolt against oppressors local or foreign alike. It is the youth who, despite living dangerously has willing to jump into the abyss as necessarily in pursuit of freedom and justice to the country.  

But the passion and fire of the youth doesn't just limit to that of attacking the corrupt and of the despotic. Since the duty of the youth is to save the nation so is to be creative in promoting a future that the nation and its people truly deserves and benefits from it. The promotion of arts, the advancement of sciences, are driven by the need "to save the nation" from its decay whether being a vassal of bigger entities or from cruel despots who deprived the nation its right for self-determination and development. To quote Imam Khomeini, that "You, the young students and the rest of the youth, are my hope and the harbingers of good tidings. You, the masses of young people, the masses of students, are my hope." For they're "full of vigor and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the at eight or nine in the morning" as Mao said, and with eagerness to learn and fight being "the hope of the future" as what Rizal expressed, why deny them the right to build, create, and fight for the country being cherished and loved but instead feeding them something that maketh the youth, family, community, and nation into ruin? Such deterioration of passion has created a generation of disinterested and exploitable beings, trapped in a cycle of a continuing past while few dared to resist just to take back the future from an exploiting and cruel order.  

Ironically, that order would parrot Rizal or any other personality expressing hopes on the present and future generations. But in seeing the inconveniences of the present, should these generations be contented in a cycle of being exploited? No! Like Rizal in his El Filibusterismo he asked if "Where are the young who must dedicate their roseate hours, their illusions and enthusiasm to the good of the country? Where are they who must generously spill their blood to wash away so much shame, so many crimes, so much abomination? Pure and spotless must be the victim for the holocaust to be acceptable. Where are you, you children who must embody the vigor of life that has fled from your veins, the purity of ideas that has become in our minds and the fire of enthusiasm that has gone out in our hearts? We await you, Oh youth! Come, we await you!" 

Sorry to make this note long, but the youth, with its passion, creativity, and thirst for knowledge, adventure, and real social and national change are themselves torchbearers, builders, and fighters of a nation's destiny.   

Fighting for the Working Classes means Nation Building for the opressed masses

Fighting for the Working Classes

means Nation Building for the opressed masses 

 By Kat Ulrike

For more than a century, Filipino workers, like all other working classes and toiling masses around the world, have continued to battle for their rights and ambitions in the face of unbearable conditions caused by the unparalleled global crisis and unjust policies imposed by interest-seekers. With its legitimate calls and in the face of various injustices, these labourers' hearts and minds have been strengthened by the desire to wage revolution and create a just society. 

 Especially in light of this continuing past wherein joblessness, unjust wages, illegal labour conditions, and workplace exploitation, workers have been forced to accept that profit-hungry multinationals and despotic oligarchs are in a "rat race" to accumulate more profits at the expense of the workers. 

 In addition, the imposition of unfair trade and investment liberalisation agreements to developing and underdeveloped countries allowed multinational exploiters in collusion with local counterparts to aggressively develop and exploit labour power through repression of wages, unjust working conditions, and suppression of rights. Policies like neoliberalism, deregulation, privatisation, and commercialization have been primarily directed against the working masses whose social, economic, and even political rights have been maimed to maximise surplus value from their labour power. 

 Even though the order's supporters deny this and talk about how workers are "contributors" in "shaping Philippines into a thriving and dynamic society" and how resilient they are, is this really their "support for the working masses" when their unjust policies subject the workers they praise to constant attacks, wages that are well below living standards, attacks on unions and other organisations, and silencing of those who demand the right to organise, speech, and express themselves using "insurgency" as its justification? Even with their generous earnings, they are unable to make ends meet, and unemployment has persisted despite government pledges to create jobs and provide "opportunities" that would help the working class. Even Labour laws being bragged by the authorities for "protecting workers" also been amended to favour the exploiter- subjecting workers to prolonged working hours, unpaid overtime, compressed work weeks, contractualisation, and other worse working conditions. 

 Bullshitries like those from the order, along with declining living conditions and a dramatic, unabated increase in the cost of goods and services, would suggest that workers cannot continue to be satisfied with the state of affairs. In terms of living conditions, children's education, food and nutrition, health care, and access to public utilities and services, workers and their families suffer from both quantitative and qualitatively lower levels. Filipino laborers and their families are heavily indebted and lack of savings. 

 And to think that the current order preaches "development" and claims "progress" like its predecessors, it has aggressively pursued policies that benefit foreign economic and military interests. Marcos, like his predecessors, has ignored workers' demands for wage rises in order to maintain his regime's policy of cheap labour as a major component in his anti-national push to curry favour international banksters and investors. What kind of development the current administration is babbling about? Preaching "nationalism" while shunning workers and the masses's demands? Even willing to amend the current constitution to to reinforce its neoliberal policies that will further subject Filipino workers to greater oppression and exploitation! Of course, its supporters claim about neoliberalism can bring "development" and "cheap products", while blaming protectionism for all the woes the country has, but, with all the existing neoliberal policies that exploit and disenfranchise rather than benefit or benefit people, why amend the economic provisions that rather enshrines the same exploitative policies especially in a developing country? 

 Again, the current order will try best to consolidate interests. Since they strongly opposed the worker's demand for genuine social justice and national emancipation political repression in the name of "counterinsurgency" has been intensified. As in the past, labour leaders and organisers, activists, even concerned folks are subjected to surveillance, harassments, arrests, abductions and extrajudicial killings perpetrated by military and police agents. However, this domestic repression towards patriots also meant kowtowing to foreign interests as well- whereas the past administration served China whilst allowing agreements with the United States, the current chose to serve the latter as it allows its military forces to increase their presence and strengthen their foothold on the country. The "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement", like its earlier "Visting Forces Agreement" and other related pacts intensifies saber rattling against China while the latter has its economic and trade agreements. And Marcos, who preaches "defending sovereignty" with American aid is the same Marcos who also signed agreements with Xi Jinping a year ago!

 Regardless of the statements brought by the order and its supporters, or even that of its token "opposition", the Filipino, whose majority is that of the working class and toiling masses, have to stand up against the dicates whether from Wall Street, Shanghai Bund, or others wanting to impose unjust policies against the folk. For sure this message would say "this is not about the workers and praising for their hard work" not knowing that the worker who does most of nation building is the same worker who end having low salaries, facing higher costs of living, end unemployed, what more deprived of right to express and organise for national sovereignty and social rights, this event, which originally meant to commemorate the martyrs of those fighting for social rights should reignite the reason why workers in the country and in abroad shouldn't just "celebrate" but also to fight and take back the fruits of hard work, the future that's deprived by those claiming to be "at their side". Why? Should Labour day is all about praising the workers and not supporting just causes even if goes beyond the parameter? It is not surprising that there are those who claim “their protest is all but noise” and “nothing to do with the workers” especially when these toiling folks marched over Manila and facing the police. Of course their calls are as just as opposed to the paper promises of those assuming to be “concerned”, giving pittance to those who demand a wage livable in the face of continuing crisis. 

Those “critics” would even cry “subversion”, if not “terrorism” to those clamouring for social rights as that of national sovereignty- is it because Filipino nationalism becomes that of a working class one? Or just because there Filipino nationalists who able to study some “subversive” works like Marx or Lenin? Isabelo De Los Reyes, known for being a Filipino Marxist, sought that in a democratic Philippines, the future of the nation belongs to the peasants and workers, “because they are the most numerous class.” Hence, class character and national character and the demands of classes and nation are inseparable from each other- and since fighting for the working class is also nation building then it is, especially in a country that tries to stand up and say “neither from Wall Street nor Shanghai Bund to dictate what a nation should be”; and that a nation’s patrimony, its sovereignty be strongly defended by its very people, what more making nationalism truly benefits the community and its folk. 

 For in the face of worsening forms of exploitation and economic conditions, heightened political repression, the current administration's outright subservience to US imperialism, and in the face of threats from China's imperialism, the Filipino working class movement must take a more prominent role in the the struggle for national and social liberation. This continuing past of domestic repression and subservience to interests, whether by force of arms or "debt traps" cannot stop the working class from fighting for rights and taking back future of having a better nation.