i for one have no natural flair for drama nor sensationalizing personal shit.

but anyway, just to give you an apt closure for this entire ruckus, yes, i am personally satisfied that the mutual feeling is one of good riddance. although i have this automatic mourning process once something is lost — be it a fleeting romance or the abrupt ending of a shared friendship — i am beginning to be weary of those which i need to let go, unlike those that i want to let go.

and after having gone through the rigors of scouring for friendships that will last a lifetime, i now know how to determine those who will stay with me — be it through thick or thin, drunk or sober, happy or lonesome — and who will crumble down and abandon the friendship when it severely needs rescuing.

trust, for me, is irredeemable and non-negotiable altogether. but that’s just me.

good riddance.

it never felt so assuring to say these words — no matter what you say, and no matter what impression you try to create, i know how things panned out, and i will forever be thankful for that moment of epiphany when i sensed — no — when i was shaken to the revolting truth, that letting go of unhealthy friendships can be so liberating.

good luck with your life.

IMF is Dead

The burden for any revisionist advocate in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) brouhaha as exposed by Stiglitz, himself included, is simple: he has to prove that the organization has not been enseeped entirely with the wrong principles, and it still has the potential to rise above its initial demise on what it should ideally be doing, as opposed to what it has done for the past sixty years or so of existence.

Stiglitz himself pointed out the blatant perversion of its once Keynesian principle, but after enumerating the scathing criticisms against the organizational performance of the IMF, he commences in his ranting spree and asserts that change can still be had – that the IMF can still rise above its inherent susceptibility to these external encroachments.

But can it really? Or is he merely being an apologist after strongly antagonizing the IMF?

This paper will attempt to answer as to whether the IMF has, for obvious intents and purposes, abandoned its initial purpose and if this is so, it will try to establish whether revisionism is still an apt tact, or will complete abandonment (and the resurgence of a better-crafted and well-established organization) be a better alternative.

The Initial Problem

It is conceded that the IMF, when it was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, had aspired for a noble ideal: it wanted to help in the distribution of economic wealth and, inevitably, in the advocacy of marginally uplifting the shaky economic foundations of less developed countries, especially those who were hardest hit by the war.

However, these highly-commendable aspirations were not substantially reinforced in terms of organizational thrust nor (in) the tangibility of a complete set of principles that was to guide the IMF in its future discretions. As a matter of fact, Stiglitz himself acknowledged this blatant diversion of its claimed and initial obligation with his observation that the ‘problem is with ideology, not economic analysis and valid observation’.

Note that the problem with ideology, especially those that are firmly anchored in a blind subscription to the fundamental and dogmatic principles behind it, is that it has the tendency to shield itself from outside criticism and carry on with its line of work, even when it has proven to be more destructive than constructive – because this is how fundamental ideologies operate: their convictions are almost always near absolute.

Moreover conflict, adds Benjamin Friedman in his analysis of Stiglitz’s book, happens because even during its early stages, the IMF catered both to the developing countries and to the financial markets – thrusts which are often in conflict with each other, he further adds.

With this in mind, we can very well see that even during its conception as a supranational entity, it was already an organization that had no clear vision of what its priorities were – because although it was infused with the noble ideal of extending benevolence to economically-disparaged countries, it was also fundamentally skewed towards the fiscalization of international affairs. And because we cannot conclusively plot out the certainty as to which side had more substantial gains over the other, it is imperative therefore that we answer this by closely seeing how the IMF fared in the years that followed, specifically during the past decade, and especially in the execution of its duties and functions to the countries which asked for its help.

Track Record

For the past two decades, the IMF has been in the sidelines as several countries that were plagued by helplessness and economic fatalism were continually and blindly led into their demise – or to the more cynical observer, the IMF was in fact the reason why these countries have succumbed to their eventual self-destruction. And this observation is for good reason – we have the East Asian experience of 1997, the Soviet disintegration of 1998, and the Sub-Saharan collapse of 1998.

In all three instances Stiglitz claims that the IMF, in its misguided decisions, only ‘..subverted the growth of democracy, hampered local economic growth, and enriched multinational corporations.’

How did this actually materialize according to Stiglitz?

His main contention is that these developments were largely borne ‘..from a ‘shock therapy’ tact in a rush to market economies without first establishing institutions to protect the public and local commerce, and the local social, political and economic conditions were largely ignored.’ Moreover he adds that ‘..privatization without land reform or strong competitive policies resulted in crony capitalism, large businesses run by organized crime, and a feudal structure without a middle class.’

Let us attempt to localize this contention for better appreciation and for more clarity as regards his claim – and for this purpose, we can take a look at the Indonesian financial collapse of 1998.

During that year, the economy was in steep decline and as a result, Indonesia pleaded for an external intervention, or a financial bailout, in order to stabilize the economy. For its part, the IMF responded by imposing higher taxes and introducing budget cuts as part of its ‘shock therapy’ approach and in order to guarantee that the debt incurred will be paid off eventually – the cuts, mind you, were taken from the state’s initial appropriation for the basic welfare services, i.e. food subsidies and what-not.

Naturally, this resulted to food riots and more civil mayhem than there already were, because the after-events of this ill-fated move proved that the imposition of higher taxes and the substantial cuts to basic welfare services, compounded by the lack of strong local political and social institutions for sustained and prolonged stability, was a lethal and fatal combination altogether.

And even if these glaring examples of ill-informed decisions continued to plague most of the countries that the IMF purportedly wanted to ‘help out’, this same line of tact and strategy was employed time and again, triggering the consistent and systematic collapse of already hard-pressed countries that were desperately gearing up for survival.

In contrast to these unfortunate experiences of countries which strongly implemented the conditions set forth by the IMF, East Asia (specifically South Korea) and China have a different story to tell – and these are awe-inspiring stories which ought to be emulated by those that also aspire for greater economic prosperity in the long haul.

South Korea strongly resisted the IMF conditions during its turbulent economic decline of 1995, whereas China rejected any IMF money in exchange for drastic changes within its economic policies and tax schemes. Note that presently, both countries are considered to be part of the forerunners in the roster of countries that are rapidly industrializing.

This disparity of outcomes highlights the unfortunate observation that even if the IMF has failed in providing for a viable resuscitation mechanism for desperate countries, it should not, at least, be privy to the eventual demise of the same. But a look at how it has fared thus far, and in comparison to the economic prosperity of countries which deliberately digressed from these IMF maneuverings, we see that not only have they been very unhelpful, but they have, in fact, even been uberly-detrimental

Mismanagement by Accident?

One of Stiglitz’s main concerns, and one which he personally feels strongly about, is the apparent lack of transparency in the affairs of the IMF – he detests the closed door meetings and strongly calls for drastic changes in the affairs of the IMF.

But let us not be dismissive nor be oblivious to realpolitik as we raise the question: Is it really coincidental that these meetings inconspicuously happen behind closed doors and not within places that guarantee full public disclosure?

Again, Friedman says that these are not just random mistakes, but a ‘..Washington Consensus’ – which add up to something unattractive, if not outright repugnant, in several different ways..’

These persuasions and this embodiment of their market principles: they define the underlying conviction of the IMF – for these are the tangible gauges of what the IMF has advocated for thus far – and the people which populate its roster of officers and directors are strong testaments to the inherent principles of the organization and the degree of entrenchment that Neoliberalism has within the established psyche of those who sustain the existence of the IMF as an organization.

Right at the onset of the IMF’s creation, it was clearly an extension of the Reagan experiment as it facilitated the diffusion of his own brand of ‘trickle down’ economics into the world setting. However, now we question: Is this still true today?

Again, Friedman tells us that this is the case even today – as a matter of fact, he asserts that even until now, this is betrayed by the fact that both IMF Managing Director Stanley Fischer and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin both left for multimillion dollar jobs at Citigroup – joining their erstwhile bosses in the IMF as well who have left earlier to work for the corporate giants in the US.

Again, the message that this gives out needs no further elaboration – an average reasonable person can concoct, from these damning expositions, the hidden truths behind the organizational workings of the International Monetary Fun – and the degree of neoliberal entrenchment inevitably makes us ask: is it still viable for us to resuscitate the IMF as a potent distributor for international economic wealth?

Conclusion

Given all these factors, I am of the impression that revisionism will not be a viable strategy for the IMF if it genuinely wishes to redeem itself in the international political and economic scene.

Revisionism presupposes that something can still be done – that intervention is still possible and the organizational workings of the IMF still manifest that it can be infused with a new principle – but fact is, it has failed in those respects, and it would be futile to even attempt to resuscitate the dead.

As substitute to these inherent failings of the IMF, there ought to be a creation of another supranational entity which has established principles and a clear definition of how it will carry out its duties to its member-states – this time, there should be no room for ambiguities because it is often these gray areas which are abused by certain exploitative and opportunistic elements to advance their selfish and self-serving aims.

And with the establishment of a tangible working program for this new body, I personally believe that the IMF can find its redemption as an organization which truly caters to the economic needs of countries who continually look up to the IMF as the beacon of international democracy and worldwide solidarity.

Last night, I had a few good laughs as I stumbled across my first debate portfolio – a blue envelope containing the first set of debate-related papers that I acquired in last year’s Visayas-Mindanao Championships held in Cebu. Back then, I only had a month’s worth of experience as a debater, so during the tournament, I had to put on a confident front and convince everyone that I knew my stuff, even when in reality, I did not understand the juxtaposition of the words ‘paradigm’ and ‘tokenistic’ to the issues surrounding Wowowee and its apparent nature of being exploitative rather than beneficial to the toothless mothers and desperate garbage-pickers who account for its massive fan base.

I felt silly over my adj exam results (pardon to those who are not familiar with debate jargon):

Question number 4: An OO that doesn’t challenge a squirrel may be penalized.

My answer: Yes, he should be penalized but only minimally – after all, everything still hinges upon the prerogatives of the LO, and enduring the aftermath of his lack of dynamism should be enough penalty for him.

Question number 9: Once the OO has accepted the definition of OG, the closing teams may no longer challenge the definition.

My answer: Of course not! (with such enthusiasm mind you J) If the parameters/issues/clashes prove hard to work with, then the closing sides may present a counterprop – it’s the adj’s call later on, depending on what he feels is right or appropriate.

Hahaha!

And by a bizarre twist of fate, and however revolting and downright scary, I got a relatively high score in the adj exam – which catapulted me to the position of adj chair in the first round. Imagine my horror when the teams were already in their seats, waiting for the round to start, and I was panicking inside because I did not know how to formally begin the round with the PM’s speech. Good thing a panelist sensed my apprehension, and so he scribbled these words (that I also retrieved from my debate portfolio, haha) for me to read: I call this house to order on the motion that this house will ban all forms of animal experimentation. I had to refer to his note during the next few rounds because I had to solo adj in the subsequent rounds. Haha! J

Then my adj notes – aah, my adj notes. In retrospect, I was an asshole adjudicator back then. See, I have this ‘personalized’ style of adjudicating, whereby I scribble down notes in the local vernacular – even when a debater says that a certain development is bad, I scribble it down in bisaya, such that it becomes ‘makadaot ni siya’. Haha! Because personally, I understand it more when the language is more intimate and easily comprehensible. But on the downside, I had several comments which I would rather not share because they were downright condescending – yes, I also write down my feelings towards the debater as a person, and his arguments as well. Evil, I know – but then again, this is my way of personalizing my adjudication notes. J

And, just to satiate my strong urge to share some of the highlights of the tournament back then, I will share some of my adj notes which will surely stay with me for the rest of my debate life.

Motion: This house condones anti-drug vigilantes

PM’s Speech: the mechanism will consist of the following: (1) the proper packaging of medicines; (2) how to look for the perfect ingredients; (3) how to disseminate the information that these herbal medicines are available for consumption.

Definition of term: vigilantes – tasked to distribute these herbal medicines.

Arguments: (1) economic development since these products will be distributed to the grassroots; (2) promote a healthy lifestyle as these vegetables can be grown in school backyards; and (3) poor people will be acquainted with the healing power of vegetables.

Hahaha!

So little time, so many debate motions. Cheers guys and see you all in davao!

I have always dreaded the first day of class for the past three years or so – not because I am concerned with how likeable my classmates will turn out to be, or how horrendous my teacher will be for the entire semester.

My reservation, as a matter of fact and outright concession, actually comes from answering this question during the first day: what is your year, and how old are you?

The first part of the question, I have an easy time answering – as a matter of fact, I have mastered the art of confidently telling people that I am in my senior year, that I am expecting to graduate soon. But the second part of the query, the part where I divulge my age, I get anxious – because as I have managed to do so in past introductions, I often get mixed reactions, from people who try to feign their curiosity and say that I don’t look my age, to those who are less subtle and instantly insinuate that I am a school junkie, a degenerate who has managed to extend his college years unreasonably longer when I should be out in the real world milking big companies dry and, as my good friend RJ put it, doing damage to the world.

I do realize that there is something glaringly odd with the fact that I am aging inelegantly in school while my classmates are getting younger (most of them now were born in the 90s, sheesh, talk about being a dinosaur in college), but if only they ask me why this came to be, I am more than willing to let them in on my life and share snippets of my life story so they will understand, so they will know, and so they will, hopefully, come up with better decisions in their own lives.

Fact is, I am not alone – there are a good number of students who have also extended in college, and if only you spare them a moment to ask what their life story is, I guarantee you that there is a story behind the seeming delinquency and the assumption of them being fatalistically destined for mediocrity – for it is never easy to, day by day, face people who have given up on you and are convinced beyond reason that you will never change and that you will inevitably spend the rest of your life wallowing in misery.

But is it not that life and life decisions are enmeshed in a context where there is constant struggle? Is it not that college affords you that extra shot, that extra chance, when every dream you have starts to fade into obscurity and you desperately try to guard your sanity from slowly dissipating?

I have not always been like this.

In high school, I was considered as one of those who were destined for greatness, and I was convinced as well that I was meant for greater things – but in retrospect, I was not a child of the universe back then. I was confined within a world that was so comfortable and familiar, the kind that was so hard to let go.

Life, back then, was all about getting good grades, adhering to an early evening curfew, and condemning those who did not conform to what was acceptable behavior in society.

Now, I can only cringe in shame for being so sheltered and unquestioning back then, for being so fatally submissive and dismissive, for feeling contented over being a mere observer when I can possibly initiate ripples of change to a society that is plagued by hypocrisy and undiscerned exclusivism.

For in the course of my genuine college exposure, I have learned that sometimes, it’s not about sleeping early at night and savoring scrumptious breakfast meals with your doting and uberly-proud parents, but it is about drinking heavily with your friends after the midterm exams and nursing a head-splitting hangover the next day; that it’s not just about memorizing the prophets and reciting all the virtues in your religion class, but it is about joining an outreach program and extending assistance to those who are marginalized in society; that it’s not just about being safe and foolishly submitting to your teacher’s every whim, but it is about asserting for what is rightfully yours and ensuring that those who belong to the upper echelons of power do not remain unchecked nor unmitigated in their propensity for abuse.

College breaks you and thrusts you into the world in the hopes of altering your predispositions and situating you in a world that throbs with life; it introduces a reality that digresses significantly from the lethargic and oftentimes dehumanizing worldview of resumé-whores who perceive it as trivial and easy.

Fact is, living is not rosy all the time and loving is not always exhilarating – both can scathe you, sometimes irreversibly, and college is where you accept this bitter and disconcerting truth.

And, no matter how some people might take this against me, I am thankful that I have been broken to the world, its intricacies and complications included.

And I am convinced, beyond reason, that no grade can ever quantify my painful acceptance of this gut-wrenching and palpably painful version of what is real – for even if I may have overextended in college, I know that I now have, more or less, what it takes to battle it out in the real world when, hopefully, my formal schooling officially commences this October.

I am Clyde – I am twenty-four, and I am proud of being twenty-four.

In the Eyes of a Child

by Alvin Clyde O. Gregorio

‘Innocent Voices’ is a poignant story of innocence, carnage, and idealism in war-torn El Salvador during the 1990’s, just as the country was gripped by a military dictatorship, backed by the United States of America.

It chronicles the travails of an eleven-year old child, Chava, as he desperately lives up to the expectations of his mother and younger siblings of being, quite ironically, the man of the house – this, after the original man of the house, her husband and their father, had abandoned them, in hopes of seeking greener pastures abroad.

With its unapologetic treatment of the storyline, and with hints of humor to couch the thick mist of dread underlying the film’s tone in its entirety, the movie is both unsettling and engaging, serious yet candid, sordid but captivating, and revolting however redemptive.

The movie’s central irony, and one which mystifies and lures the viewer into watching the film even if it’s theme verges on incomprehensible carnage and butchery, is the juxtaposition of unadulterated innocence with the recklessness of man’s anger and spite – and it is this juxtaposition which tugs at the heartstrings, the wretchedness of war made more atrocious by the glaring disparity of a child’s worldview vis-à-vis the general foment of hatred that had so consumed his countrymen –

For all that he needed was a solace, a place where he can strike a balance between claiming his childhood and asserting his raw and newfound authority as the man of the house; an affirmation that his existence meant something, anything.

As I was watching the movie progress, I was perplexed and revolted by the conflation of circumstances that stripped Chava of his innocence, seething with rage over the adeptly-orchestrated deception of Western-constructed freedom, the superficiality of the American notion of liberty, the temporariness of bliss, the incomprehensibility of war, the unjustifiable encroachment of poison in the minds of men, the vulnerability of the young, and the helplessness of the innocent amid the incivility of a world that is so deeply-entrenched in hate, remorse.

For in the aftermath of any war, its justifiability or superfluousness notwithstanding, and when the rubble of violence and despair has settled, how are you to address the questions of a child? How do you get him to understand that war is both inevitable and humane?

No war is ever justified – not to the architects of war, nor to the innocent lives that are, in an instant, thrust into the crossfire.

For in the mind of a child, the rhetoric of eventual freedom and military victory is a hazy concept, an alteration to the natural order of things, a rupture to the societal and social fabric – for in the heart of a child, he can only see the devil masked in a military uniform, consumed with the dark and sole intent of perpetuating evil –

And sometimes, it is essential that we find wisdom in viewing the world from the lens of innocence – to counter the ubiquitousness of evil, and temper the unbridled proliferation of mayhem and madness.

No Neutral Ground

by Alvin Clyde O. Gregorio

Neoliberalism, Harvey-style

Perhaps, David Harvey’s great contribution to political science, in his book, A Brief History in Neoliberalism, is his contention that in this world, there are no trivial concepts, nor do neutral spaces exist.

Apparently for him, all state decisions – may they be radical changes, or shifts which eventuate into mere incremental political erosions – are for a purpose; and that sometimes, fortunately or unfortunately, the perceived ends of opportunistic countries are sugarcoated with (the) universally-appealing notions of democracy, individual justice, and freedom.

Therefore, to the unthinking, undiscerning political observer, the world is pictured as a haven for freedom, a utopia where the state’s behavior is regulated by the collective yearnings of the citizenry; its general thrust geared towards attaining the most ideal state – citizen-centered, and insulated from exterior, ulterior motives.

But Harvey exposes this dismissive fatalism and questions: Are there really neutral concepts?

Harvey goes the extra mile and in fact asserts that these widely accepted values – freedom, democracy, justice – are relative concepts, such that several countries, especially those who nurture hegemonic ideals and are out to subjugate the rest of the world, skew the innate ambiguity of these values, and forward their own interpretation of these celebrated attributes to secure their place in the world order – to concretize their hold on international politics and sustain their unhampered perpetuation in the global set-up, under all circumstances and beyond any condition.

He moreover adds that the threat of subjugation, either in its directly perceivable form or through its altered and/or newly-constructed variety, is sometimes heralded as eventual emancipation that every self-respecting government ought to nurture, in its quest for reinforcing sound governance.

But Harvey stretches this analysis further, and he inevitably asks: But whose freedom is the state fighting for?

Freedom, after all, is a dubious concept – however, owing to its liberal undertones, and the democratic implications for utilizing this oft-abused concept, people have the natural tendency to mistake freedom for farce substitutes to its real and genuine thrust. And this manipulative encroachment can best be seen in the US aggression against Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The United States of America, invoking its supposed moral ascendancy in the aftermath of that unfortunate incident, waved the flag of freedom and rallied the people behind its rhetoric of establishing a free world – and it is this assumed leadership which justified their sudden invasion of Iraq, promising freedom to the Iraqi people and vowing to break the shackles of despotism that, they claimed, was characteristic of Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror in that desolate Middle Eastern country.

However, let’s see how this supposed ‘freedom’ was eventually articulated, and examine if indeed, the world’s only superpower was, and still is, within bounds in the course of its unilateral and arbitrary administration of international justice.

It is ironic and glaringly suspicious to note that presently, Iraq is gradually transforming into a Western-constructed democracy – Western-constructed mind you, because we see that right after the Americans were successful in neutralizing the resistance efforts of Hussein, it proceeded to partitioning the country into several lethargic compartments, opening up its rich oil markets to foreign exploitation, because, Bush claims, this is where individual freedom of Iraqis lie: in the liberation of the market and the insulation of the same from direct state maneuverings.

Bear in mind that once Iraq exhibited the minutest semblance of order since the start of the invasion, Bush’s war architects almost instantaneously proposed that they secure the oil rigs and consolidate their hold over the major oil sites in Iraq – and observers then speculated that this move was strategically meant to quell the insuppressible packets of protestations that erupted back in the US, and to silence those who constantly asked: Who is to pay for all the expenses incurred in the war?

Right at the onset, we see two glaring incongruencies within the framework of the Bush plan, relative to their supposed moral high ground, their supposed justification for assuming the role of global police.

First is the establishment of the link between market and individual freedom, no matter how far-fetched and overstretched the link may initially impress, and thus the fiscalization of individual emancipation; and second, is the institutionalization of foreign exploitation over these domestic industries, by virtue of deceptive and to a certain extent, coercive, market trade-offs and the subjugation of local self-determinative initiatives to the whims of the invading, arrogant Western power.

Harvey pounces on this blatant perversion of freedom, and inevitably makes us think: If freedom, a ubiquitously-accepted ideal, can be thwarted for selfish motives, what value then, is safe from being co-opted by these opportunistic elements?

Apparently for Harvey, and to a large extent I agree with him, there is none.

Moreover, his book unearths several myths and exposes a number of orchestrated lies about the sincerity of democracy, as peddled by American strategists. He specifically and extensively discusses the foreign policy of the US and demarcates, quite successfully, the fine line separating the established rationale of American foreign policy – which is hinged on expediency really, realistic and practical spoils, and self-serving motives – and its superficial exterior, a carefully-constructed façade which trumpets its unwavering commitment to maintaining international democracy and worldwide solidarity.

To drive home this point, Harvey ticks off the shared experiences of several countries which were led to this path, and he moreover asserts that these conditional similarities did not just happen out of mere sporadic coincidences, because fact was, and presumably still is, they were thoroughly planned out even before they materialized.

This provides for a perfect segue to my attempt at localizing the neoliberal experience in our country; an alternative historical analysis of how, during the Martial Law years, we were embroiled in the neoliberal encroachment that was spreading like wildfire across the world, unhampered and unregulated.

Neoliberalism, Pinoy-style

Ferdinand Marcos, during the dark ages of his military rule, was a ruthless dictator. Together with his wife in their so-called conjugal dictatorship, they bled the national coffers dry with their lavish and flamboyant lifestyle, their shared penchant for plunder and kleptocratic practices beyond comprehension, and their unregulated political power and clout which, to an obvious extent, they used to exact revenge over the opposing forces to their Bagong Lipunan.

More than these perceived excesses of state power, it was during his ‘reign of terror’ that several dissenters to his arbitrary impositions were gagged and silenced in dark and cold solitary rooms, their human rights trampled upon because they chose to defy the dominating powers, because they opted to resist the devil who was lurking underneath the veil of a strongman, a draconian leader who justified his every abuse with the promise of instilling discipline to a society that was, according to Martial Law-peddlers, in shambles.

However, in the course of reconstructing Philippine society in accordance with the newly-propagated values of his Bagong Lipunan , Marcos made the bold move of suspending individual freedom in the hopes of, quite ironically, upholding social and societal freedom. This, naturally and metaphorically, opened the floodgates of hell and solidified his position as a strongman who was neither checked nor regulated in his executive discretions. And as can be predicted, this ushered in an era of oppression and suppression unparalleled in history, widespread corruption and institutionalized nepotism, and the normalization of abuse in the collective sensibilities of the Filipino people.

Predictably, this resulted to social foment among the ranks of Filipinos who were, in an instant, roused from apathy – they questioned the legitimacy of the military regime and demanded that the democratic mechanisms for checks and balances be reinstated to mitigate the propensity of the dictator for sustaining his atrocious rule – and, in the midst of desperation and desperate times, they collectively cried out: Where was the international beacon of democracy, the US, when it was most needed?

It is quite ironic to point out that while the Filipino populace was seething with rage over Marcos’ fascist rule, he was widely celebrated in the United States as an indispensable agent for democracy in Asia; as his constituents were mired in deep squalor, consumed with anguish, and barely maintaining their fragile sanity, he was hailed as the champion for freedom, by President Ronald Reagan no less.

He, after all, enjoyed steady American support throughout most of his tenure – and to some commentators, this may have been the reason why his dominion over the country was sustained and assured for nearly three decades. The American penchant for deodorizing inhumane regimes provided for legitimacy to his dwindling charisma as a leader –

But it does not commence here, for the crucial question thus becomes: why the unflinching support for someone who clearly bastardized democracy?

Bear in mind that during Marcos’ rule, the battle between communism and democracy was still raging – and considering the desperation of America to secure its victory in third-world democracies, it turned a blind eye each time Marcos committed a crime against his people, for in weighing the trade-off that ensued after these instances of unhindered executive excesses were complacently allowed to happen, this obviously translated into Marcos’ unconditional support to, and unquestioning subservience towards, the American democratic propaganda.

As they coddled Marcos and prodded him on to keep up with his flamboyant ways, there came a point when the institutionalized misprioritisation of the national budget, compounded by the apparent lack of a viable government direction to jumpstart the local economy, compelled Marcos to borrow heavily from supranational entities just to augment the deficits that he incurred, and to sustain his and his family’s extensive philandering of hard-earned taxpayers’ money.

Moreover, owing to his blind submission to the whims and caprices of the United States of America, it was during his time that the influx of foreign, mostly American, investors were encouraged – spelling doom and death to local industries that were still in their infancy years, unable to battle it out in a playing field that was virtually leveled out to accommodate foreign intrusion and interference.

In an instant, we invariably pose the question: What has become of the core value of freedom?

Conclusion

The Philippine neoliberal experience, its intricacies and inherent contradictions notwithstanding, has revealed to us first-hand how the expedient foreign policy of the world’s sole superpower, the United States of America, places more premium on what can be gained than what can be attained.

Because by invoking a legitimacy that is couched on moral soundness and an appeal to what is universally noble and ideal, it can get away with its exploits.

But let us break free from complacency and see the world according to its real characterization – because in essence, there are no neutral concepts – only temporary deceptions, juxtaposed with permanent interests.

we live in a dog-eat-dog world — a savage land deceptively hidden beneath the exterior of a pleasant world. but sometimes, owing to the superficiality of this consensually-constructed facade, the surface gets ruptured, as glimpses of the truth betray the discomforting truth that we live in a land where neither civility nor respect for human dignity abound — for what we merely have is a semblance of order, an attempt at tempering man’s incivility by willed and orchestrated optimism.

this morning, i received a text message from paul, a forwarded message from an NGO worker who was scouring for moral and financial support to the most recent victim of child abuse in our province — a four year old girl who was, after being raped by a still unidentified man, thrown off a cliff and was left to die.

she however, managed to survive, and after wandering for six days in the forest with neither food nor water to sustain her, she was seen by locals who took her to the hospital to have her treated. reunited with her parents, she is presently in the negros oriental provincial hospital where she is being diagnosed for post-abuse trauma, that is, after she had undergone rectal vaginal repair in the fourth degree.

worse, her wounds, because they were untreated, had maggots and she would be needing a special kind of medicine which will prevent the infection from spreading to other parts of her body.

in an instant, text messages were sent and resent, asking sympathetic hearts for any kind of donation or support that they may extend to the young girl who was, in an instant, robbed of her innocence and was viciously abused. a budding life that was ripped just as it had started to open up to the world.

to anyone willing, let us help her. let us make her feel that amid the proliferation of evil in this world, there are those who still care; there are still those who have hearts that throb; deeds that are selfless; and kindred souls who will continue to resist evil and reinstate goodness in a desolate world that is ours.

most people who do not know me that intimately often get surprised when they see me drunk — when I hold a bottle of liquor with my one hand, a cigarette on the other, and a silly smile is painted on my face.

they wonder, and in amazement at that, why I don’t spend the rest of my time in the library to scour the circulation section for contemporary sociological criticisms to structural functionalism. or hang out perhaps with the rest of the geeks, as we would chatter endlessly about the star wars epic, and bask in our exclusivist but shared affinity to foucault or some other renowned thinker.

my personal take on this constructed dichotomization of identity is simple: i refuse to submit to convention. society, after all, is the reason why people think this way – it’s either you’re witty and a loser, or an airhead but a tanduay marathon varsity.

giving in to societal standards, for me, is similar to allowing yourself to be carried away by the multitudes of people who impose upon you, no matter how subtle it seems, your own identity. and some of us, owing to our constant exposure to these accepted standards and the ubiquitousness of these established prototypes for categorizing people, do not question why society is constructed the way it is.

we inevitably surrender our individual perception to accommodate the imposing and intrusive interference of societal persuasions – thereby impairing our own capacity for free-thinking and personal judgment in the process.

i’m just trying to rationalize really, so help me here. lol

admittedly I am a geek, but my tendencies are, thank goodness, tempered by my other exploits.

because if a self-confessed geek would stay secluded in his dark and cold basement room and read up on geeky stuff, shun daylight because it exposes his face and makes him an easy prey for ridicule, and adeptly masters the art of being anti social, then that would so cliché.

society, with all its upheavals and in its steady progression, has inevitably configured the necessary conditions to facilitate the emergence of a new breed of people: the modern geeks. Hahaha! J

i don’t normally forward emails that i get, nor repost them for everyone else’s reading consumption, but i have to this time.

as i was checking my email for interesting forwarded messages, i came across this email sent by a good friend from UP.

and, i must admit, nostalgia quickly seeped in as i was again reminded of my UP days — as i tiptoed around the responsibilities that were, in an instant, given to me, as i explored the vastness of the world and of ideas, and as i made sure that while i was thrust into an unfamiliar but nonetheless captivating terrain, i still guarded my life principles, my convictions, and my worldview with utmost care.

it’s nostalgic bliss — something that i needed after all that i’ve been through these past few days. i hope you find it as interesting as i did

There are no children here

This week, I went to a meeting at the UP School of Economics and I came
away with renewed belief in the value of the UP experience.

If you speak to anyone from UP – student, professor, alumnus – you will get
no Latin slogans or apologies about how the school teaches values in spite
of its outward materialism. This is not a student population that thinks
about basketball games or memorizes school songs. This is not a school that
chooses one statement to drill into the minds of its students.

This is not, of course, to say that UP does not care about values. It is
that UP, in its own inimitable way, believes that values cannot be
force-fed. The statue of the naked man that guards the entrance to the
campus in Diliman best represents UP’s approach to all education and the
respect for students that is the center of its educational philosophy. All
who come to this university, regardless of origin, bring themselves naked,
carrying nothing but their thirst; like the proverbial empty teacup, making
an offering of self, waiting to be filled.

*Adults*

For many students from private schools, the first lesson that is learned
here is that this is a school for adult education. There are no children
here, and that is why no parents are allowed either at freshman orientation
or during enlistment.

The spirit of the oblation lies not in a mother or a father offering up his
child to the world, it is that of the newly adult, freely offering of his
self.

I remember quite vividly that moment that drove home how different the UP
education continues to be. It was my daughter’s first semester in
university and she had invited a group of her high school friends to our
house. One of them asked a classmate whether she had gotten her parents
permission form approved for that weekend’s outreach activity. From the UP
population around the table came the mock horrified responses of:
“Permission? ” and “Outreach?”

I thought about it and realized that all of these students were, in fact,
legally adults. I thought it interesting that only the UP students appeared
to appreciate this fact.

Even more interesting was the “outreach” comment. I think back to my own
university years and the last three years that my daughter has been in UP
and am certain there is no lack of civic activity. There are medical
missions, house building projects, tree planting, community work and barrio
work and so on. I realize now that the reaction was not to the activity as
much as it was to the use of the word.

One of the most important differences of the UP campus from all the other
campuses my children considered going to is that this campus has no walls.
Many parents fear this. They are afraid their precious children will not be
protected from the ills of society in a campus that is so open to the rest
of the world.

But UP is open to the world in more ways than just not having the physical
walls.

*Community *

Being in UP means much more than being a student. This campus is enmeshed
in a community. This community is made up not only of the transient
population of students who go home each night. It includes the many, many
students who lay their heads on dorm pillows each night, enduring time away
from families in the firm belief that this campus will bring them closer to
their dreams. This community includes the families of faculty and employees
who live on campus. It also includes the many people who work not for the
University, but nevertheless work on campus. This community includes the
lady who remembers the brand of cigarette you smoke and automatically hands
it to you in the morning. It includes the gentleman who remembers you like
pepper on your egg sandwich or the one who knows you will dip your fish
balls into two of his sauces, who patiently waits for you to eat your three
sticks before being paid. It includes the woman who saw all her children
through college by selling peanuts every day on campus.

To a UP student, the daily heartbeat of the school is never far away from
the realities of the country. The word outreach suggests that civic
activity is something outside of the normal, something you do once in a
while. It must be immensely difficult to think of community as a thing
apart when your campus experience brings you face to face with all of the
world’s realities every day.

*Character*

All of this probably explains that unmistakable sense of self that you will
find from students who come from this campus.

Here is a campus where all have the same opportunities to learn. But,
also, here is a campus that will give all the same opportunities to fail.
There are no guidance counselors who will chase after you because you have
been skipping classes. The attitude this university takes is that you must
take the initiative – for learning, for seeking help, for realizing you need
help.

That is not to say that no help exists. But it is help that is not forced
upon you.

This is a university rich in both introspection and conversation. On this
campus, the student is constantly exposed to people – faculty,
administrators, community members, other students – who care deeply and
passionately about the world. The conversations are almost never purely
cerebral. A single graph can provoke comments about government policy and
its effects on people.

As a result, UP is home to a student population that looks at the world and
cares. It is easy to see pictures of protesting students and dismiss it as
radicalism. But there are few campuses in this country where students go
beyond a passing curiosity about what is happening in the world beyond their
own lives. There are even fewer universities where students not only care
but also actually believe they have a responsibility to make a difference –
not in some hazy future – today.

And that, I believe, is what truly forges character. Character is not
molded by speeches or long classes in ethics or theology. Character grows
from within. It begins by being handed the keys to your own self and being
told you are in charge; you now have power over yourself and your own
actions – and with that power, you take on responsibilities.

Each student in this university goes through his own unique voyage of
discovery. On his voyage, as he decides what he cares about, what he will
fight for and what he will sacrifice, he crafts his own personal values.
That is what education is truly about.

What Socialism?

A considerable number of jubilant electricity-consumers welcomed the sudden intervention of the government, via the GSIS, in the staggering electricity costs in Metro Manila.

GSIS President Winston Garcia was seen as the timely knight-in-shining armor to the multitudes of urban dwellers who were clamoring for emancipation from the overburdening price of electricity in imperial Manila.

For some, owing to the visible hand of President GMA herself in this quest, it was a relief to see that amid the proliferation of political squabbles, and the gloomy economic prospects for the country, the government is still imbued with a noble virtue – that it’s zeal of honest and citizen-centered governance still manifested in its attempt to wrestle power from an affluent economic and political family, even if it translated into an open war against the Lopezes, a formidable opponent even to the government.

Even, there are those who see this exercise as a complete turnaround of government policy, or that it heralds the systematic restructuring of specific entities, as the government now sees the long-needed socialist facelift to private corporations that have, for decades, reigned with impunity, unchecked and all-powerful altogether.

Could socialist persuasion have been the reason for this government encroachment?

According to Amando Doronila, this is not necessarily the case since, he opines, this is merely a blatant use of state fascist power to keep the Lopezes in their toes, and arrogantly impose the unbridled power of GMA and her cohorts over the former.

He moreover notes his observation that the President, poisoned with the prospect of exacting revenge over their family’s long-time nemesis, is poised to play all the cards up her sleeve, even if it means unleashing the standing bureaucracy to achieve this end.

A valid observation, if you were to ask me.

But let us try to stretch his analysis further, and uncover several other myths that this controversy has inevitably spawned for several sectors.

In order for a government to be truly legitimate in owning up to its socialist orientation, there exists an indispensable requisite: it should comprehensively enforce socialism in all significant facets in the course of its governance.

Question therefore, do we see this in the present thrusts and advocacies of the government?

If one were to examine closely the programs of the existing administration, do they indicate that the government has adopted policies which try to veer away from neoliberal practices? Or have they become instrumental in further institutionalizing neoliberalism in the political sensibilities of the nation?

President GMA, a publicly-renowned economist, throughout her tenure, has been generally supportive of globalization-centered agreements – acceding, and quite consistently if I may add, to the hegemonic powers of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the G8 stipulations, and even to the self-serving economic policies of the world’s only superpower, the United States of America.

Even if she deceptively assured the public that these steps successfully ensured that the nation will not be left behind by the benefits of a globalized world order, its real and damning still manifested: the furtherance of marginalization to local industries and the continued proliferation of foreign dominance over our markets and policies, and subsumed under this second effect, is the sustained subjugation of domestic political will to the whims of the hegemonic powers.

The health and education sectors moreover, during her administration, also registered tangible measures for neoliberalist encroachment.

For one, it was during GMA’s administration that the government drafted a health industry program that was geared towards luring foreign and capitalist investments, by means of adopting a medical tourism-centered thrust. With this, the government has virtually forged an alliance with multinational corporations that were to facilitate this unholy alliance of the state and the private sector – even when, in reality, this conceals the unfortunate state of public health services of the government.

More damning, the government’s priorities can be seen at how it appropriates the national budget in the course of its administration of the public funds. I remember writing, when I was still part of the writing pool of the school paper, this staggering reality:

“The crux of appropriating the country’s limited resources is exacerbated by the underhanded misprioritization of government as emphasized by its huge allocations to its debt servicing commitments, and its unreasonable appropriation [to/for] the country’s national defense capabilities. Combined, both sectors take up 117.5 billion of the 1.053 trillion budget for 2006, whereas the health sector is compensated with mere scraps of 11.7 billion. This would mean that while the government spends heavily on these less important sectors, its budget for the 76 million Filipinos is barely 8 pesos per person.”

GMA’s administration also holds the worst record in ensuring free and competent public education nationwide, for it was in her tenure that schools were unregulated in systematically raising tuition fees, and other similar financially-restrictive measures to economically-unprivileged students. It was during her tenure for example, to concretize this point, that the premier and most prestigious state university in the country, the University of the Philippines, raised its tuition cost by more than 300%, owing to budget cuts – even compelling school administrators to form skewed partnerships with MNCs such as call center establishments (the Western world’s most effective tool for intruding into the thriving cultures of vulnerable states), just to augment the deficits that it incurred.

What then, one is tempted to ask, is in store for Isko and Iska?

These obvious strains of neoliberalist bias also holds true to most of the sectors in society as dictated and guided by government policy and intuition.

Where then, does the justification for treading a socialist path get into the picture?

Clearly, there is no comprehensive program for reconstructing the ideological alignment of the government as a whole; what we merely have is a selective government policy which isolates certain entities with the rhetoric of socialist claims, whereas other equally-important sectors are left to decide for themselves, undeterred in their ventures, even when they further embolden the economic and social cleavages that further polarize the nation.

Let us now try, in attempting to relate this ruckus with the learnings in class, to localize the problem, and contextualize the claims of the government (as regards this intervention) vis-à-vis its more believable motivations.

Gloria says the nation needs to be emancipated from spiraling electricity costs, subsuming the rhetoric of individual freedom with this claim. At last, we will be free. At last, liberty is within reach – and at last, the government has done its part in ensuring that democracy will prevail.

A sound contention at first glance, but upon closer inspection, does this really embody the naked truth?

If there was one person who needed freedom before the GSIS issue erupted, it would be no other than the President herself, with her administration (before the brouhaha), wracked by successive corruption exposés, bureaucratic ineptitude not yet seen in decades, indignant calls for her resignation from all sectors imaginable, and a legitimacy that was widely questioned and to a certain extent, challenged.

By rallying the people behind a seemingly worthwhile cause, which is their eventual freedom from the shackles of monopolistic and dehumanizing exploitation from money-hunger private corporations, she sought a transformation of her image: from being a wretched despot into the personification of everything noble and virtuous, from being the oppressor of the masses into becoming their sole source of comfort, because she sympathizes, she feels their agony.

Her formidable record in public deception has served her well, for after the GSIS controversy, the nation momentarily forgot about Jun Lozada and his personal crusade, and either voiced support for, or spitefully condemned, Winston Garcia. Compounded with the penchant of Filipinos for easily forgetting the wrongdoings of their leaders, this translated into GMA’s momentary freedom from the courts of public opinion, and her adeptly-orchestrated emancipation from the watchful gaze of a vigilant public.

Another observable feature of a genuinely-functioning socialist order is the empowerment of nationalized industries.

If, lets theorize, GMA became successful in her quest for converting Meralco into a public entity, would this have translated into lower electricity costs? Or a better-streamlined corporation perhaps which would shun corporate gluttony?

To an observable extent, this one-time government interference runs ironically against the generally-adopted capitalist alignment that the government has espoused through the series of privatization efforts that it spearheaded in crucial public establishments such the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), and the National Power Corporation (NPC).

And if, hypothetically again, Meralco becomes public in nature, would this have assured the consumers that electricity costs will be kept at bay? Given the horrendous record of bureaucratic performance in nationalized corporations, and the widespread perception of ineptitude and incompetence of the same, would this have been, in retrospect (let’s assume), a worthwhile and sustainable project?

Although initially, the recently-converted public company (assuming, again) will lower electricity costs in order to appease the disgruntled public and rationalize its swift and sudden takeover of Meralco, what will happen when the long-established bureaucratic ineptitude will gradually seep in and it becomes susceptible to politicking? What is foreseeable when a political appointee is at its helm, chosen for convenience by the President herself?

I can only cringe at the possibility of undemocratic encroachments within these democratically-constructed entities, because the rhetoric of freedom becomes, in an instant, fleeting, and we are left with a deceptive government, an ailing and heavily-indebted public firm, and an apathetic public which sustains this vicious and atrocious cycle.

And what about socialist ideals?

‘What about them?’

La Gloria asks the question herself, with a sinister smile painted on her face, as the rushes to the airport to board a plane which will take her to the next WTO Summit, with the steady resolve of reaffirming the Philippine commitment to these farce and emasculating concepts of global interconnectedness and international solidarity.

There, with her, goes your socialism.