AtheistPapa™: 2013

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Likeable Senator Santiago’s remarkable example

It is safe to say that Sen. Miriam Santiago’s loyalty is to principles, first of all. Whether she is exposing political incompetence or corruption in Congress, or speaking against Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile on the issue of pork barrel, or defending women’s rights through the Reproductive Health Law; you can count on her to speak about equality, truth, justice and free speech. Agree with her or not, loath her or love her, it is impossible to dismiss her and quite difficult not to be influenced by her views and opinions. It is said that the current Philippine political and social scene is dominated by women. Without doubt, she is on the top of this list.

Santiago, figuratively speaking, has the balls to challenge anyone on jurisprudence. Named a judge of the International Criminal Court, Santiago’s firm grasp of the law makes her a formidable opponent in or out of the Senate. Santiago’s political wrangles with Enrile underscore her resolve to pursue justice and truth, more so because these issues affect everyone.

However, many Filipinos—especially those who are on society’s sidelines and who are abroad, those who are poor and those who are disgusted with wasteful public expenditures and with corruption—like her. On the other hand, those who conflate her confrontational approach with the issues she raises may be missing something valuable: “One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority,” a point made by another equally passionate fighter for free speech and truth, the prominent journalist Christopher Hitchens.

And questioning authority is what Santiago does. Nobody is exempt from her acrid tongue, not even priests. To her, no one is a sacred cow. Perhaps this is a good thing for democracy in the Philippines.

But what Santiago is actually teaching us is history—our history of fighting corrupt authority. We overthrew Spain’s absolute rule, we fought against the Americans and Japanese for independence; we overthrew the Marcos dictatorship, and now we have a fighting chance against corrupt leaders—again. Apparently many of us are still cowed by power-hungry politicians, those who are supposed to serve us. For example, I was furious when I learned that a local electricity cooperative failed to pay its electric supplier P713 million, thus plunging Iriga and five other Camarines Sur towns into darkness. This is the height of irresponsibility on the part of an authority.

The challenge for all Filipinos is this: If you happen to witness any case of injustice, or corruption or criminality in your town or barangay, just imagine how Santiago would respond to it.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

PH future depends on whether we can let go of our fear

The attention-seeking and politicking Bohol Mayor Leoncio Evasco Jr., who insisted that all relief goods, including those from the Red Cross, should be coursed through his office, showed us how opportunistic public officials can get in the way of humanity and common sense. As if Boholanos have not suffered enough from that devastating 7.2-magnitude earthquake, they were subjected to a further misery of greater magnitude—the political ambitions of their local politicians callously taking advantage of human suffering!

It seems government corruption never fails to accompany calamities that visit us. For example, some P900 million in Malampaya funds, which were intended for “Ondoy” and “Pepeng” victims, were illegally funneled to corrupt politicians. And that was just the tip of one iceberg! Indeed, where there are poor and desperate victims of disasters, there will be no shortage of greedy politicians exploiting their helplessness. Sadly, the list of political misfits and miscreants preying on our poor countrymen keeps getting longer.

This has been made clearer in the last three months by the unearthing of the intricate web of corruption allegedly woven by Janet Napoles to steal PDAF allocations intended for poor farmers and calamity victims.

In his article in the New York Times titled “Fear and Radiation: The Mismatch,” David Ropeik noted that “the World Health Organization’s 20-year review of the Chernobyl disaster found that its psychological impact did more health damage than radiation did, and a principal cause of the population’s debilitating stress was an exaggerated sense of the dangers to health of exposure to radiation.” Like the people in Chernobyl, our fear has reduced us to inactivity and indifference. Fear has made us tolerate and even ignore events that normal people would find reprehensible and shocking. Not surprisingly, many now find corruption scandals in government tedious to talk about even in front of like-minded and sympathetic friends.

Let us remember that Filipinos were not always indifferent or fearful. Fear and apathy were not our usual predisposition. The early version of us, before the Spaniards came, were a courageous and industrious trading people. We actively sought out commerce not just among ourselves but with the Chinese and neighboring countries as well. And we were not always a fearful and stagnant lot. Pigafetta in 1521 witnessed, upon arriving in Samar, courtesy and kindness among the inhabitants. Traits that, I am happy to say, still exist with us today.

A century ago, we were able to produce the likes of Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio whose works and struggle made our country the first republic in Asia. Rizal’s literary contribution even served as a source of inspiration for other Asian leaders. And a few decades ago, Ninoy Aquino and Chino Roces fought for democracy against dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Yes, we can and must overcome our fear. This is the moral thing to do. The future of the Philippines is not the “internal politics” of self-serving senators, congressmen and government officials. It is letting go of our fear.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Dividing Mindanao by faith

The spate of bombings in the cities of Cotabato and Cagayan de Oro late July and early August had some local and national officials worried. A city administrator described the bombing as “un-Islamic” as it happened in the middle of the holy month of Ramadan. Many columnists instinctively framed these incidents of bombings as attempts to rile the Muslim community in Mindanao and unsettle the ongoing Philippine government-Moro Islamic Liberation Front peace talks. Culprits were identified: Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). Both groups have explicitly religious agenda. So the question: Is the problem of peace in Mindanao religious in origin?

My answer: No, it is not; though BIFF and JI would gleefully jump at any opportunity to turn this into a religious conflict. If religion is involved, then a corollary question arises: Does it need a religious solution? Conflicts in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Rwanda remind us why religious solutions are convincingly unreliable. I did, however, come across one Catholic priest, Fr. Eliseo Mercado, who ridiculously promoted the idea that Nelson Mandela, a Christian, peddled religious solutions in South Africa. His article, titled “Searching for Mandela in the Bangsamoro,” entertained the idea that a Filipino version of Mandela is conceivable in our lifetime. While I appreciate his sentiment to bring lasting peace in Mindanao, Father Mercado is wrong in his assessment.

First, Mandela recognized that religion is a divider of nations: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

Mandela’s concerns are definitely secular in nature. He envisioned his country where races and religions were equal and free. Mandela became the president of South Africa because he upheld democracy and freedom, not religious laws and edicts, as the ideals for his nation. Those who wish that only through a religious discourse between Christians, Muslims and lumad is the only way to forge peace in Mindanao is laboring under an illusion. Unless the Bangsamoro leaders start using secular language and stop prioritizing religion and religious solutions, there won’t be any semblance of Mandela. Only in secular society can we create a Mandela.

Second, the problems in Mindanao are ultimately about improving the economic and political situation of the people in Mindanao. I recoil when someone says, “Catholic country” or “Muslim Mindanao.” This “religious partitioning” of the Philippines often harbors antipathy between different faiths. Mandela made sure that during his watch, the minority Afrikaans would be integrated into the majority black population. Any form of separation would lead to fragmentation of his country.

Anyone who says that only through a religious solution can Mindanao move on has already lost the argument. Our growing and maturing secular society mandates that we foster a pluralistic society. Christians, Muslims, lumad, and I dare say, nonbelievers, are here to stay. There is a better chance if we learn to live with one another. Those who pretend otherwise are leading us into a troubled present and immediate future.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

More insidious than pork

In his July 18 column, Conrado de Quiros wrote: “During the last elections, only the senatorial candidates of Ang Kapatiran Party spoke out against it. They were Rizalito David, Marwil Llasos, and JC de los Reyes, and what they found execrable was the pork barrel. No other candidates, from left to right, did so…. If you abolish the pork barrel, you will discourage people from running for senator and congressman? That will be its most salutary effect yet. Then it will leave the field to candidates like the ones from Kapatiran.”

He was probably right when he noted that the Ang Kapatiran candidates, David, Llasos and Delos Reyes, campaigned against the pork barrel during the last May elections. De Quiros, however, made it appear that it was novel and noble of Ang Kapatiran to spouse such cause as if its candidates were the only ones to stand on that platform. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This issue, this controversy, is not new. As a college student 20 years ago, I was already pretty much aware of the dangers of letting corrupt lawmakers get hold of so much money with so little control and audit. In fact many ordinary Filipinos also see through the stupidity of dispensing pork barrel.

And the truth is Ang Kapatiran is a theocratic party. It is not your normal political party. Ang Kapatiran candidates only used the pork barrel issue to camouflage their real intentions for running for the Senate. They may promote politically correct issues here and there, but their real motivation for running for office was to promote Catholic dogma. Tucked away from sight were their bigoted and impractical stand on reproductive rights, homosexuality and divorce. Like the Catholic Church to which they belong, this is the same political party that wants the Catholic faith into office. Reginald Tamayo, member of the National Executive Board of Ang Kapatiran, even said that “I believe that the Church is God’s living voice. I am confident that Brother Lito will remain a part of that voice and continue to evangelize politics either in or out of the Senate hall.”

Of course, I can’t fault De Quiros for this oversight. He seemed oblivious of this fact. And I think he has given Ang Kapatiran more credit than it deserves.

Electing theocrats into public office is more pernicious, more insidious and more immoral than the issue of pork barrel. With theocrats elected in public office, not only do we surrender our secular government, we surrender the very fabric of democracy itself.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Ask Filipino immigrants: There’s no shame in relocation

It’s always easy to blame the poor. Ask a balikbayan who has visited Metro Manila about the informal settlers, and you will rarely hear complaints of how the national and local governments have not done anything to help them. Most balikbayan want them evicted because they are either eyesores or their place has become a breeding ground for criminals, or both.

The truth is most informal settlers are readily demonized either as “pabigat sa lipunan” (a millstone to society) or a mere political talking point during elections.

But let us not forget why informal settlers, or squatters as we call them, settled in Metro Manila in the first place: They left home in search of a better life. But unlike them, we Filipino immigrants in Australia settled here legally and we obey the laws. We pay taxes. We do menial jobs even though our diplomas read bachelor. We adapted to the conditions. We complain about the long trip to work, but that does not stop us from working. And even when sometimes circumstances thrust us into a life similar to that of a squatter, we don’t lose hope. We find support in each other in the Filipino community.

And this is the point where I part ways with the majority and some media in the Philippines which put emphasis on the “helplessness” of informal settlers as victims. This “victim mentality” may have created a false reality for many poor Filipinos. Thus, we have bred generations of hopeless and dreamless Filipinos who might have been productive citizens had they been given the proper motivation and education. Barring a dictatorship and another failed economy like the one we had during the Marcos regime, poverty should be no excuse for sloth. Of course, living standards in Australia are far better than in the Philippines.

I’ve heard Salvador Enriquez Jr.’s view that the solution to the squatter problem is to create economically viable new towns for the informal settlers, not just relocation sites. Only that he argued for his position on the premise that other countries have done it. But who cares if or how other countries have done it? What matters at least is the long-term solution being offered.

However, the way some militant groups, like the Alyansa Kontra Demolisyon, are reacting to the idea—injecting other issues, like calling relocation sites as all profit-driven programs conceived and managed by President Aquino’s closest allies—has not been productive. Nor is the inaction of some Metro Manila mayors. The temptation of a militant group or some mayors to appeal to the emotions of the informal settlers is for them simply too much to resist, they would rather stoke class warfare and division.

Let us remind again the militant groups as well as the mayors why these “poor huddled masses” are in Manila: in search of better lives. And this neither the militant groups nor the local mayors have provided them until now.

There is no shame in relocating. Ask Filipino immigrants, they know.