As a young child, perhaps five or six years old, I overheard adult table conversations dwelling on the ghastly cheating and violence that plagued the 1949 presidential elections. Elpidio Quirino won that contest as the Liberal Party standard bearer, and he and his party were crucified for their sins over the next three years. The infamous five thousand peso orinola that Quirino reportedly had by his bedside became an item of extreme ridicule. His fate was surely sealed in the next elections slated for 1953.
The Nacionalistas very wisely picked a popular defense secretary, Ramon Magsaysay, as their presidential bet. He had the loyalty of the armed forces so there was some confidence that they would take steps to ensure that there was no repeat of the 1949 terror and violence. He also was heavily rumored to be a creation of the US CIA, and that’s a story for another time.
Magsaysay’s victory, a landslide, which also saw the ascendance of many bright young men into positions of authority, infused the country with an exhilarating enthusiasm for the future. The elections were peaceful and the party in power vowed to serve the needs of the common tao. Surely a new order was in place. True democracy had come to the islands. As a way to bring about good government the president announced a program whereby every citizen could go to their local post office, and, for ten centavos, send a telegram to Malacanang reporting any malfeasance on the part of any government employee.
Those days of hope and inspiration were sadly and painfully dashed when the beloved president perished when his air force supplied DC3 the “Mt. Pinatubo” crashed into Cebu’s Mount Manungal in March of 1957. Hopes were dashed. The future looked gloomy. Carlos Polistico Garcia of Bohol had ascended to the presidency. He was nowhere near the stature of his predecessor. He was renowned as a foremost Visayan poet, or at least a formidable reciter of poems. I remember in a 1957 campaign stop at Cebu’s noted Plaza Independencia he asked whether the assembled throng wanted to hear his platform or whether they preferred the recital of Cebuano poems. The crowd clamored for poetry. The late irreverent Manila Times columnist Joe Guevara nicknamed Garcia the “The Balak Beauty”, balak being the Cebuano word for poet, and the phrase was also meant to be a comical reference to Garcia’s rather dark complexion ( I remember as a 13 year old showing the Guevara column to my late father who very sternly admonished me to never use skin color or appearance as a measure of a human being’s worth – to this day I can still remember in detail that incident; it was my father at his sternest and to this day I thank him for that lesson).
It seems that Magsaysay’s death also saw the demise of “good government”. He had brought many young, enthusiastic, idealistic individuals into his government and many of them were either pushed out by the Garcia crowd or opted out themselves as they did not want to be part of a government that digressed from the Magsaysay program. It seems to me, and I must confess that these are impressions captured by a teenager, that from then on corruption had seeped back into our national psyche and violence in elections had reentered the equation.
The Ampatuans of Cotabato are not unique to Philippine politics nor to life in the provinces. Private armies abound; often more than one group is in place in a town, district, province or region. A “balance of terror” keeps political oligarchs in place and a cowed population can only hope that they never, even in the slightest way, offend the warlord or his minions.
Police forces in many towns and cities more likely are “owned” by one or the other political group. The national police and the other branches of the armed forces are looked upon with suspicion, even fear, by much of the population. They too, often, are allied or associated with one or the other political warlord. Worse yet, they are even suspected of being heads of violent syndicates themselves. A friend in Manila who has a company that requires dealing with several provincial offices and ministries in the capital confided, it hushed whispers, that military officers are silent yet ominous partners in many businesses which get preferential treatment in matters of concessions, expeditious approval of licenses and priority in receiving government payments on contracts.
In the past fifty or so years it seems that both corruption and private armies have become permanent fixtures in our culture and way of life. The Marcoses, in power for twenty one years, elevated corruption to an art form and the system they ran then has often been compared to the way Mafia crime families operate where everyone from the lowest foot soldier up to the “capo di tuti capa” had a bite and a piece of the action, the largest piece reserved for the head of the crime family. The Marcoses also used the regional private armies to help perpetuate their regime.
How do we break this cycle of corruption and violence?
Private armies would not exist nor act with impunity if our police and armed forces did their jobs and enforced the laws without regard for political considerations. As pointed out earlier it is unfortunate that this is not the case because in all likelihood the “warlord” politician or his allies control the law and order mechanisms. It is not surprising, for example, that the command structure of a police force or army unit may have very well ascended to their positions thru the good graces of the congressman or governor or mayor who controls the area. One of the obvious solutions is to see to it that the armed forces as well as police organizations are professionalized. Whoever is elected president on May 10, 2010 must make this a priority. The new president must address the problem both from the top ( start with the PMA?) and support efforts to accomplish this at the ground level moving upwards in partnership with citizens in the cities, towns and barrios. It will not be an easy task but the transformation is essential if democracy is to ever flower.
As for the corruption, we will have to start with us as individuals – we must cease and desist from paying bribes, no matter how small, to bring about a convenience; we have to stop being a part of the problem. There can be no bribe takers if there are no bribe givers. I know in real life this may not be a simple proposition but we have to start somewhere and must start with what we can control i.e., ourselves. It will not be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Villar Shopping Spree as Successful as Marcos’s ?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This famous quotation from George Santayana’s “Reason in Common Sense” is one that Filipinos ought to engrave in their hearts and minds, or at the very least scribble on their palms (ala Sarah Palin), when they go to the polls on May 10th. So far it seems many have already forgotten the bitter aftermath that followed the election of Ferdinand Marcos. I hope that today I am able to stir the ashes of history and in the process reveal the still burning embers that not too long ago scalded us as a nation and a people and the scars of which we still painfully bear.
In the campaign of 1964-1965 Marcos launched an all out blitzkrieg of vote buying, massive advertising propaganda, media enticement, smear if needed and fraud and violence where possible. He won first the Nacionalista Party nomination and later the general elections because he took a “win at all costs” attitude and would not let rules, laws, conventions, money, delicadeza, chivalry, protocol nor etiquette get in his way. And media played a very large and vital role in portraying his victory as inevitable. There rarely was any criticism of his methods; media seemed to buy into the story line that all was fair in love, war and politics. Nobody stood up and cried foul. If anyone did the media was quick to make mincemeat of the complainant. The Joe Aspiras p.r. ensemble included “quick strike” teams that fanned out across the country to salve any ruffled feathers among the media or take other steps to quell any untoward reporting or commentary. The two media giants of the time, the late columnists Teodoro “Doroy” Valencia and Joe L.Guevarra, were both sympathetic to Marcos and this fact doubtless provided “cover” for others to likewise favor him. And the fact that the incumbent, Diosdado Macapagal, was seriously unpopular made it even much easier to overlook Marcos’ misdeeds.
Marcos’ campaign for a 2nd term was made very much easier for his machine because he had by then full control of all the levers of power. Sergio Osmena Jr. did not have a chance.
That’s the brief history of the Marcos rise to power. Today I see a similar pattern of near wanton spending by the Nacionalista candidate Manny Villar. And once again it seems that a large segment of the media has become, perhaps unwittingly for many of them, channels thru which a candidate is able to portray an image of invincibility or in other respects, a good enough level of acceptability.
This can be done subtly. Take for example the recent charge that Villar’s main opponent, Benigno Aquino III is possibly involved in corruption because a business he once was associated with showed Malacanang Palace as the address. This is a veritable molehill compared to the mountain range of active volcanoes that constitute the massive billion-peso shenanigans that Villar is accused of. I have no problem with the media bringing this out and investigating it further. What I have a problem with is that these accusations (innuendos for now since no concrete evidence has been offered) were raised at a press conference by senatorial candidates Adel Tamano, Susan Ople and Ariel Querubin all running with Manny Villar. Did anyone in the media ever ask the obvious questions: “What proof do you have that a crime was committed ?” and more importantly, “ Are you trying to establish some equivalency between this unsubstantiated accusation against Aquino and the charges of massive corruption against Villar?” And more: “If you are raising this as a possible corruption charge against Aquino what is your stand on the massive billion pesos worth of corruption linked to your standard bearer?”
By not confronting the senatorial candidates at the press conference, the media became complicit in the attempt to plant in peoples minds that Aquino is just as culpable as Villar, which is an exercise in absurdity. Villar’s track record over the past two decades is lined with allegations of shady deals that would have made Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos envious for its blatancy and sheer size. Yet a seemingly content media dutifully printed the senatorial aspirants charges.
It was a press conference, right? Were the media there as professional journalists or were they there to be mere props in the effort to legitimize the smear process? Will the unsavory reputation with which media is viewed be redeemed in the next few weeks or will it be once again validated?
Like Marcos, Villar seems to have patched together a tainted tapestry the main thread of which is corruption. Aside from the massive media campaign he has also sewn up endorsements of entertainers and political bosses around the country. The entertainers are there to endow him with their popularity among the bakya crowd ( to serve as a deodorant, really). The political bosses are expected to deliver to him large blocs of votes in areas of the country where warlords rule. What is the quid pro quo with these regional bosses? Will they get the same deal that the Ampatuans got from Gloria Arroyo, that is a free reign over the lives and fortunes of all who live in their domain?
So to summarize Villar’s approach or methods:
1. Overwhelm the information channels via massive advertising and media support.
2. Enlist the backing of popular figures such as entertainers.
3. Enter into pacts with warlords and other centers of power.
4. Lavish cash on the voters and engage in direct vote buying where it is possible to do so.
5. Use the media to help smear opponents to make “corruption” look acceptable.
6. Weave a fake story of erstwhile poverty to establish identification with the “massa”.
7. While doing all of the above make sure to visit churches, meet with priests and kiss bishops rings to create the aura of sanctity and religiousness and hopefully gyp an avidly prayerful nation into believing that he is holy enough to get their support.
Yes, it seems that Manny Villar has learned well from the tactics used by Ferdinand Marcos. The question is will the voting public remember the bitter lessons of history and thus not repeat them.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com and his blog ldq1944.blogspot.com
This famous quotation from George Santayana’s “Reason in Common Sense” is one that Filipinos ought to engrave in their hearts and minds, or at the very least scribble on their palms (ala Sarah Palin), when they go to the polls on May 10th. So far it seems many have already forgotten the bitter aftermath that followed the election of Ferdinand Marcos. I hope that today I am able to stir the ashes of history and in the process reveal the still burning embers that not too long ago scalded us as a nation and a people and the scars of which we still painfully bear.
In the campaign of 1964-1965 Marcos launched an all out blitzkrieg of vote buying, massive advertising propaganda, media enticement, smear if needed and fraud and violence where possible. He won first the Nacionalista Party nomination and later the general elections because he took a “win at all costs” attitude and would not let rules, laws, conventions, money, delicadeza, chivalry, protocol nor etiquette get in his way. And media played a very large and vital role in portraying his victory as inevitable. There rarely was any criticism of his methods; media seemed to buy into the story line that all was fair in love, war and politics. Nobody stood up and cried foul. If anyone did the media was quick to make mincemeat of the complainant. The Joe Aspiras p.r. ensemble included “quick strike” teams that fanned out across the country to salve any ruffled feathers among the media or take other steps to quell any untoward reporting or commentary. The two media giants of the time, the late columnists Teodoro “Doroy” Valencia and Joe L.Guevarra, were both sympathetic to Marcos and this fact doubtless provided “cover” for others to likewise favor him. And the fact that the incumbent, Diosdado Macapagal, was seriously unpopular made it even much easier to overlook Marcos’ misdeeds.
Marcos’ campaign for a 2nd term was made very much easier for his machine because he had by then full control of all the levers of power. Sergio Osmena Jr. did not have a chance.
That’s the brief history of the Marcos rise to power. Today I see a similar pattern of near wanton spending by the Nacionalista candidate Manny Villar. And once again it seems that a large segment of the media has become, perhaps unwittingly for many of them, channels thru which a candidate is able to portray an image of invincibility or in other respects, a good enough level of acceptability.
This can be done subtly. Take for example the recent charge that Villar’s main opponent, Benigno Aquino III is possibly involved in corruption because a business he once was associated with showed Malacanang Palace as the address. This is a veritable molehill compared to the mountain range of active volcanoes that constitute the massive billion-peso shenanigans that Villar is accused of. I have no problem with the media bringing this out and investigating it further. What I have a problem with is that these accusations (innuendos for now since no concrete evidence has been offered) were raised at a press conference by senatorial candidates Adel Tamano, Susan Ople and Ariel Querubin all running with Manny Villar. Did anyone in the media ever ask the obvious questions: “What proof do you have that a crime was committed ?” and more importantly, “ Are you trying to establish some equivalency between this unsubstantiated accusation against Aquino and the charges of massive corruption against Villar?” And more: “If you are raising this as a possible corruption charge against Aquino what is your stand on the massive billion pesos worth of corruption linked to your standard bearer?”
By not confronting the senatorial candidates at the press conference, the media became complicit in the attempt to plant in peoples minds that Aquino is just as culpable as Villar, which is an exercise in absurdity. Villar’s track record over the past two decades is lined with allegations of shady deals that would have made Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos envious for its blatancy and sheer size. Yet a seemingly content media dutifully printed the senatorial aspirants charges.
It was a press conference, right? Were the media there as professional journalists or were they there to be mere props in the effort to legitimize the smear process? Will the unsavory reputation with which media is viewed be redeemed in the next few weeks or will it be once again validated?
Like Marcos, Villar seems to have patched together a tainted tapestry the main thread of which is corruption. Aside from the massive media campaign he has also sewn up endorsements of entertainers and political bosses around the country. The entertainers are there to endow him with their popularity among the bakya crowd ( to serve as a deodorant, really). The political bosses are expected to deliver to him large blocs of votes in areas of the country where warlords rule. What is the quid pro quo with these regional bosses? Will they get the same deal that the Ampatuans got from Gloria Arroyo, that is a free reign over the lives and fortunes of all who live in their domain?
So to summarize Villar’s approach or methods:
1. Overwhelm the information channels via massive advertising and media support.
2. Enlist the backing of popular figures such as entertainers.
3. Enter into pacts with warlords and other centers of power.
4. Lavish cash on the voters and engage in direct vote buying where it is possible to do so.
5. Use the media to help smear opponents to make “corruption” look acceptable.
6. Weave a fake story of erstwhile poverty to establish identification with the “massa”.
7. While doing all of the above make sure to visit churches, meet with priests and kiss bishops rings to create the aura of sanctity and religiousness and hopefully gyp an avidly prayerful nation into believing that he is holy enough to get their support.
Yes, it seems that Manny Villar has learned well from the tactics used by Ferdinand Marcos. The question is will the voting public remember the bitter lessons of history and thus not repeat them.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com and his blog ldq1944.blogspot.com
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Tiger, Not Burning Brightly and the ‘Good Man’ Wins
Like many millions around the world I got caught up in Tigermania in the late ‘90’s. I even took up golf at the ripe old age of fifty five (not a good idea) . I followed all of Tiger Woods’ tournaments and didn’t pay much attention to golf if he wasn’t playing or contending. He had other attributes that I found attractive. His razor sharp focus. His dedication to winning. His talent. His ability to execute. Values highly prized in the corporate environment I was in at the time. He also had a life to be envied. A yacht here. A private jet there. Rubbing shoulders with the major icons of other sports like Michael Jordan and Roger Federer.
When he got pummeled in the media as a result of the revelations of infidelity, I bought into the reasoning that this was a private matter for him to resolve with his wife and family. The questions that I thought I would raise were: “How dumb can you get?” and “If you wanted a life that included liaisons with multiple partners, why did you get married?”
He then announced his return to golf at the Masters tournament. Like most, I looked forward to his comeback from a five month layoff. It would provide me an opportunity to once again become an avid golf fan. I was quite convinced that he would come back and win the tournament and then get on the fast track to catching and passing Jack Nicklaus record eighteen majors wins.
I felt that if I were on the first tee when he was introduced at the Thursday start of the tournament I would applaud. And in fact the crowd did. And his performance that day, shooting a sixty eight validated all expectations.
Over the next two days though something had changed. Slowly but surely my adoration of Tiger Woods, the golfer and icon, was beginning to wane. He was still playing great golf and would still be in contention. However, I no longer agonized over his missed opportunities nor was I now thoroughly impressed and pumped when he made great shots. What caused this?
What I saw over the following days and throughout the weekend was Tiger making an effort to “connect” with the fans. But what I begun to notice was that he did not really enjoy doing so. His efforts were halfhearted at best and that he was being nice only because he had to.
Then there was this Nike commercial with a voice over from his dad. It dawned on me that he was being nice and his behavioral changes were directed at one purpose: to regain his standing as an advertising friendly product, I.E., to become a money making machine once again. That’s right I am questioning his sincerity, and, by extension, his integrity. I began to now understand the criticism that he had this iron clad control over his image and his privacy to manufacture the mirage that he lived the squeaky clean life of a family man, which in fact was now proven to be a lie.
I would have much preferred that, on the golf course, he stayed true to what he is, a golf adversary whose main objective is to win tournaments and take no prisoners in the process, and forget about being liked and loved by his peers and the public. At least be really true to yourself, Tiger. Being nice and friendly on the course is not you.
I kept watching the Masters tournament and was slowly but surely being weaned away from my Tiger adoration. I no longer agonized over his bogeys. I no longer cared about his ascent on the leader board. There was a different story unfolding. Phil Mickleson.
Here was this very talented guy who in many respects was the “anti-Tiger”. Tales of his golfing travails abound. On the course he did not coldly calculate the odds nor acted accordingly. If there was a tough shot he would take it regardless his standing on the leader board. If he pulled it off there was great jubilation. If he failed and lost the tournament in the process, he glumly took the ribbing. He was, in a sense, golf’s everyman. Fans loved him because he did what many of us do on the course : try to make miracle shots and very often fail miserably. It is,therefore, no surprise that while Phil started his professional career earlier than Tiger did, by the time he won his first major trophy in 2004 Tiger Woods had already bagged eight and now has fourteen.
It has often been written that Tiger measures himself against the best in the history of the sport, i.e. what records he can match or exceed. Phil Mickleson, it seems, lives by a very much different barometer. Sure he loved to win. Sure he wanted the majors trophies. But while golf may have been his profession, and it is clear he loves the game passionately, his hierarchy of values differed very much from Tiger’s. We’ve heard of Phil missing tournaments so that he could spend an extra week with his family. At 10 p.m. on Saturday night, before the Sunday showdown with Lee Westwood, Phil took his injured younger daughter to a clinic so that an ex-ray of her arm could be taken. He did not care how late he would have to go to bed. If he got fatigued or not get enough rest that was fine, that was the body he would bring to the golf course and do his best to win. And that he did.
One of the stories at this Masters tournament was that Phil’s wife Amy, and their three kids had journeyed to Augusta to be close to Phil. This is something that had not happened for a while because Amy is battling cancer and had been weakened by the treatments over the past year. In fact Phil would go to tournaments a day late and leave hurriedly after each one so that he could spend more time with Amy and help her out with family obligations. And there was an obvious glow on Phil’s face, a trace of real joy in his smile, a sparkle in his eyes in this tournament than in previous ones this year. The very presence of his wife in the state of Georgia seemed to infuse Phil with a resurgent spirit that radiated all around him. It seemed to have made the grass and the leaves greener, the sunshine kinder and an aura of peace and warmth seemed to have engulfed Phil and those around him.
When he shot those two back-to-back eagles on Saturday there was genuine rejoicing by the crowd and most of the other players smiled with a tinge of admiration. And on Sunday, after his late night sojourn with his daughter at the clinic, Phil came to the course with enthusiasm and vigor. And his game showed it. No bogeys. Miraculous shots. Great birdies. An under par sixty seven to finish the round and three shots ahead of Lee Westwood’s score to win the tournament, his third at the Masters and his fourth major.
In a brief and emotional speech after donning on the green jacket Phil thanked the Augusta club sponsors of the tournament and his team who helped him prepare. He barely mentioned how great a day and a weekend he had on the course. His main acknowledgment was reserved for his family and most especially his wife Amy. It is so great, he said, to be able to “share a joy” with her.
A ‘good man’ won the tournament. And all is well with the world. Golf is only a game. Life is far more demanding. Family is more precious. And for many of us fans, we can look at the world through a different prism and a valuable perspective. Many eyes were reopened to that often forgotten truism…nice guys can sometimes win games. And, for a nice guy like Phil Mickleson, because of his character, family values and firm, unblemished commitment to the people he loves, he will always be a champion.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com
When he got pummeled in the media as a result of the revelations of infidelity, I bought into the reasoning that this was a private matter for him to resolve with his wife and family. The questions that I thought I would raise were: “How dumb can you get?” and “If you wanted a life that included liaisons with multiple partners, why did you get married?”
He then announced his return to golf at the Masters tournament. Like most, I looked forward to his comeback from a five month layoff. It would provide me an opportunity to once again become an avid golf fan. I was quite convinced that he would come back and win the tournament and then get on the fast track to catching and passing Jack Nicklaus record eighteen majors wins.
I felt that if I were on the first tee when he was introduced at the Thursday start of the tournament I would applaud. And in fact the crowd did. And his performance that day, shooting a sixty eight validated all expectations.
Over the next two days though something had changed. Slowly but surely my adoration of Tiger Woods, the golfer and icon, was beginning to wane. He was still playing great golf and would still be in contention. However, I no longer agonized over his missed opportunities nor was I now thoroughly impressed and pumped when he made great shots. What caused this?
What I saw over the following days and throughout the weekend was Tiger making an effort to “connect” with the fans. But what I begun to notice was that he did not really enjoy doing so. His efforts were halfhearted at best and that he was being nice only because he had to.
Then there was this Nike commercial with a voice over from his dad. It dawned on me that he was being nice and his behavioral changes were directed at one purpose: to regain his standing as an advertising friendly product, I.E., to become a money making machine once again. That’s right I am questioning his sincerity, and, by extension, his integrity. I began to now understand the criticism that he had this iron clad control over his image and his privacy to manufacture the mirage that he lived the squeaky clean life of a family man, which in fact was now proven to be a lie.
I would have much preferred that, on the golf course, he stayed true to what he is, a golf adversary whose main objective is to win tournaments and take no prisoners in the process, and forget about being liked and loved by his peers and the public. At least be really true to yourself, Tiger. Being nice and friendly on the course is not you.
I kept watching the Masters tournament and was slowly but surely being weaned away from my Tiger adoration. I no longer agonized over his bogeys. I no longer cared about his ascent on the leader board. There was a different story unfolding. Phil Mickleson.
Here was this very talented guy who in many respects was the “anti-Tiger”. Tales of his golfing travails abound. On the course he did not coldly calculate the odds nor acted accordingly. If there was a tough shot he would take it regardless his standing on the leader board. If he pulled it off there was great jubilation. If he failed and lost the tournament in the process, he glumly took the ribbing. He was, in a sense, golf’s everyman. Fans loved him because he did what many of us do on the course : try to make miracle shots and very often fail miserably. It is,therefore, no surprise that while Phil started his professional career earlier than Tiger did, by the time he won his first major trophy in 2004 Tiger Woods had already bagged eight and now has fourteen.
It has often been written that Tiger measures himself against the best in the history of the sport, i.e. what records he can match or exceed. Phil Mickleson, it seems, lives by a very much different barometer. Sure he loved to win. Sure he wanted the majors trophies. But while golf may have been his profession, and it is clear he loves the game passionately, his hierarchy of values differed very much from Tiger’s. We’ve heard of Phil missing tournaments so that he could spend an extra week with his family. At 10 p.m. on Saturday night, before the Sunday showdown with Lee Westwood, Phil took his injured younger daughter to a clinic so that an ex-ray of her arm could be taken. He did not care how late he would have to go to bed. If he got fatigued or not get enough rest that was fine, that was the body he would bring to the golf course and do his best to win. And that he did.
One of the stories at this Masters tournament was that Phil’s wife Amy, and their three kids had journeyed to Augusta to be close to Phil. This is something that had not happened for a while because Amy is battling cancer and had been weakened by the treatments over the past year. In fact Phil would go to tournaments a day late and leave hurriedly after each one so that he could spend more time with Amy and help her out with family obligations. And there was an obvious glow on Phil’s face, a trace of real joy in his smile, a sparkle in his eyes in this tournament than in previous ones this year. The very presence of his wife in the state of Georgia seemed to infuse Phil with a resurgent spirit that radiated all around him. It seemed to have made the grass and the leaves greener, the sunshine kinder and an aura of peace and warmth seemed to have engulfed Phil and those around him.
When he shot those two back-to-back eagles on Saturday there was genuine rejoicing by the crowd and most of the other players smiled with a tinge of admiration. And on Sunday, after his late night sojourn with his daughter at the clinic, Phil came to the course with enthusiasm and vigor. And his game showed it. No bogeys. Miraculous shots. Great birdies. An under par sixty seven to finish the round and three shots ahead of Lee Westwood’s score to win the tournament, his third at the Masters and his fourth major.
In a brief and emotional speech after donning on the green jacket Phil thanked the Augusta club sponsors of the tournament and his team who helped him prepare. He barely mentioned how great a day and a weekend he had on the course. His main acknowledgment was reserved for his family and most especially his wife Amy. It is so great, he said, to be able to “share a joy” with her.
A ‘good man’ won the tournament. And all is well with the world. Golf is only a game. Life is far more demanding. Family is more precious. And for many of us fans, we can look at the world through a different prism and a valuable perspective. Many eyes were reopened to that often forgotten truism…nice guys can sometimes win games. And, for a nice guy like Phil Mickleson, because of his character, family values and firm, unblemished commitment to the people he loves, he will always be a champion.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Why do we adore scoundrels?
Adoration of Villains: Is It Rooted in Mythology?
In my second semester as a freshman in college I enrolled in a world history course taught by the Rev. John Raats, an SVD priest who, he told us, was at one time a member of the Indonesian parliament. He said that when Sukarno took over Raats was kicked out of the country. That’s how he ended up in the Philippines. And in his somewhat impish, wry smile, he seemed to intimate that Indonesia’s loss was our ( the class’s) gain, because, in his words, “…the Dutch are the world’s best historians.” To further buttress this claim, he pointed out that the world’s most complete history library was in Rotterdam.
That one semester under Raats profoundly altered the class’s view of history, including Philippine history. Raats did not go the normal routine of having his students memorize dates, names and places. He added a sociological dimension to history. He brought up habits and cultural traits and explained their sources and origins.
One of the most, for lack of a better word, “shocking” theories he laid on us was that Indonesians, and by extension, Filipinos, venerate evildoers as much as they do benevolent heroes. And his explanation for this? Indonesians, he said, observed a lunar based mythology. The moon has two faces, one dark, the other bright. The bright side is associated with “good” and the dark side with “bad”.
And since they associate or equate their rulers with deity, for as long as that ruler excels, whether in bad or good, he is venerated. This is the reason, he said, that Sukarno lasted as Indonesia’s ruler. He was renowned for his prowess with women and other bacchanalian profligacies, therefore to be admired.
He went on to cite several examples closer to home. One such example was the corrupt government employee who earns a clerk’s salary but has a nice home, a car or two, all of the most modern appliances, has a complete collection of the most expensive foreign liquor in his bar cabinet and sports an expensive watch and other jewelry. And he probably has a mistress or two stashed away somewhere. Why is it, he asks, that such an individual is generally looked up to in the neighborhood? Why is it that this person is not ostracized?
The class contemplated this and after a few minutes of spontaneous discussion a few more examples were cited. And we concluded that, indeed, we tend to elevate a lot of scoundrel type individuals to a position of respect; in many cases their success is envied. One can go down the line: the policeman who collects “tong” from drivers at street intersections; the firemen who do not hose down a store on the path of an oncoming fire until the store owner hands them a hefty “contribution”; the motor vehicles clerks who will take 5 days to handle a license application if same is filed via a “normal” process but can expedite applications in less than an hour if submitted thru a “fixer”. The list of examples grew long.
And the conversations about these scoundrels whether conducted in family gatherings or other social settings and even at the groups gathered in front of the sari-sari stores tends to excuse or exonerate these crooks. “Marunong siyang kumita” (He knows how to earn) is a phrase usually uttered to explain away the misdeeds, and usually expressed with some sense of admiration. And, what makes this phenomenon so sad is that honest government employees who live modestly and well within their means are often mocked and chided for being stupid or inept at making money.
In fact corruption and making money on government projects or transactions is so endemic that if a road is built it is assumed that almost everyone involved in the project “skims” something off as the process goes thru various sticky hands. And, if as a result the final product is so inferior that a road supposedly asphalted washes away come the first rain, people tend to shrug it off as mere confirmation of the graft that people assumed took place.
There have been many figures of shady if not downright notorious reputations who tend to be glamorized and worshipped. I remember back in the 50’s and 60’s there was this guy best known as “Nardong Putik” (Leonardo of the mud). He got this nickname because in his younger days he made a living by combing the muddy shore after the tide had ebbed and scrounged for clams and other shell fish. Emerging from this endeavor and going back to shore, he was covered in mud. He was an enterprising fellow and in those days when the smuggling of foreign made cigarettes was a lucrative business, he used his knowledge of the Cavite coastline to haul in the small boats used to bring in the contraband smokes. In due time he owned many of these boats and became a millionaire in a town populated by poor fishermen and other plain folk. He had become such a well known figure and recognized as a leader of the town that eventually politicians made pilgrimages to his home to get his endorsement. Not only was he admired by his neighbors and townsfolk, he had become a kingmaker of sorts.
We have also seen this phenomenon play at the national level in the person of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. While he has been treated with disgust and contempt for his 25 year binge that amassed for him and his family and cohorts billions of dollars in illegitimate wealth, he is still adored and venerated by many segments of the Philippine population. Was Marcos to the Filipinos what Sukarno was to Indonesians? Did we say then that he was so “magaling” (excellent) in the art of corruption and vote buying ( as in the 1964 Nacionalista convention) that he deserved whatever position he aspired to?
This “adoration” of scoundrels ought to be a significant conversation as the country prepares to elect a new president on May 10th. Will the theory articulated by the Reverend Raats once again be proved correct? Are we going to blindly vote for scoundrels because we are in awe of their astounding success in the black arts of corruption and all kinds of chicanery? Or will we finally take the bold first step in liberating our culture from the pestilence of corruption and vote for candidates of proven honesty? Are we again to be dazzled by the illegitimate wealth generating prowess of some of our candidates? It is not everyday when an electorate in empowered to select a new set of leadership. May we choose wisely and not be slaves to the darker elements of our past and our culture and, in the process, it is hoped, we will lay to rest the myth that the Reverend Raats spoke of.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com or his blog : ldq1944.blogspot.com
In my second semester as a freshman in college I enrolled in a world history course taught by the Rev. John Raats, an SVD priest who, he told us, was at one time a member of the Indonesian parliament. He said that when Sukarno took over Raats was kicked out of the country. That’s how he ended up in the Philippines. And in his somewhat impish, wry smile, he seemed to intimate that Indonesia’s loss was our ( the class’s) gain, because, in his words, “…the Dutch are the world’s best historians.” To further buttress this claim, he pointed out that the world’s most complete history library was in Rotterdam.
That one semester under Raats profoundly altered the class’s view of history, including Philippine history. Raats did not go the normal routine of having his students memorize dates, names and places. He added a sociological dimension to history. He brought up habits and cultural traits and explained their sources and origins.
One of the most, for lack of a better word, “shocking” theories he laid on us was that Indonesians, and by extension, Filipinos, venerate evildoers as much as they do benevolent heroes. And his explanation for this? Indonesians, he said, observed a lunar based mythology. The moon has two faces, one dark, the other bright. The bright side is associated with “good” and the dark side with “bad”.
And since they associate or equate their rulers with deity, for as long as that ruler excels, whether in bad or good, he is venerated. This is the reason, he said, that Sukarno lasted as Indonesia’s ruler. He was renowned for his prowess with women and other bacchanalian profligacies, therefore to be admired.
He went on to cite several examples closer to home. One such example was the corrupt government employee who earns a clerk’s salary but has a nice home, a car or two, all of the most modern appliances, has a complete collection of the most expensive foreign liquor in his bar cabinet and sports an expensive watch and other jewelry. And he probably has a mistress or two stashed away somewhere. Why is it, he asks, that such an individual is generally looked up to in the neighborhood? Why is it that this person is not ostracized?
The class contemplated this and after a few minutes of spontaneous discussion a few more examples were cited. And we concluded that, indeed, we tend to elevate a lot of scoundrel type individuals to a position of respect; in many cases their success is envied. One can go down the line: the policeman who collects “tong” from drivers at street intersections; the firemen who do not hose down a store on the path of an oncoming fire until the store owner hands them a hefty “contribution”; the motor vehicles clerks who will take 5 days to handle a license application if same is filed via a “normal” process but can expedite applications in less than an hour if submitted thru a “fixer”. The list of examples grew long.
And the conversations about these scoundrels whether conducted in family gatherings or other social settings and even at the groups gathered in front of the sari-sari stores tends to excuse or exonerate these crooks. “Marunong siyang kumita” (He knows how to earn) is a phrase usually uttered to explain away the misdeeds, and usually expressed with some sense of admiration. And, what makes this phenomenon so sad is that honest government employees who live modestly and well within their means are often mocked and chided for being stupid or inept at making money.
In fact corruption and making money on government projects or transactions is so endemic that if a road is built it is assumed that almost everyone involved in the project “skims” something off as the process goes thru various sticky hands. And, if as a result the final product is so inferior that a road supposedly asphalted washes away come the first rain, people tend to shrug it off as mere confirmation of the graft that people assumed took place.
There have been many figures of shady if not downright notorious reputations who tend to be glamorized and worshipped. I remember back in the 50’s and 60’s there was this guy best known as “Nardong Putik” (Leonardo of the mud). He got this nickname because in his younger days he made a living by combing the muddy shore after the tide had ebbed and scrounged for clams and other shell fish. Emerging from this endeavor and going back to shore, he was covered in mud. He was an enterprising fellow and in those days when the smuggling of foreign made cigarettes was a lucrative business, he used his knowledge of the Cavite coastline to haul in the small boats used to bring in the contraband smokes. In due time he owned many of these boats and became a millionaire in a town populated by poor fishermen and other plain folk. He had become such a well known figure and recognized as a leader of the town that eventually politicians made pilgrimages to his home to get his endorsement. Not only was he admired by his neighbors and townsfolk, he had become a kingmaker of sorts.
We have also seen this phenomenon play at the national level in the person of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. While he has been treated with disgust and contempt for his 25 year binge that amassed for him and his family and cohorts billions of dollars in illegitimate wealth, he is still adored and venerated by many segments of the Philippine population. Was Marcos to the Filipinos what Sukarno was to Indonesians? Did we say then that he was so “magaling” (excellent) in the art of corruption and vote buying ( as in the 1964 Nacionalista convention) that he deserved whatever position he aspired to?
This “adoration” of scoundrels ought to be a significant conversation as the country prepares to elect a new president on May 10th. Will the theory articulated by the Reverend Raats once again be proved correct? Are we going to blindly vote for scoundrels because we are in awe of their astounding success in the black arts of corruption and all kinds of chicanery? Or will we finally take the bold first step in liberating our culture from the pestilence of corruption and vote for candidates of proven honesty? Are we again to be dazzled by the illegitimate wealth generating prowess of some of our candidates? It is not everyday when an electorate in empowered to select a new set of leadership. May we choose wisely and not be slaves to the darker elements of our past and our culture and, in the process, it is hoped, we will lay to rest the myth that the Reverend Raats spoke of.
The author can be reached at ldq44@aol.com or his blog : ldq1944.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)