Romeo F.C. Farol is the author of a recently published 100 or so page work titled “Vignettes: On Board Asia’s First Airline”.
“Rome”, as he is known to friends, dwells on a career that was certainly not “built in one day”. Regardless of the nature and context of one’s former affiliation with Philippine Airlines, it is safe to say that there is a likelihood of finding something in this work that will tug quite strongly at an ex-PALer’s memory strings.
And memories abound indeed. Rome’s somewhat “stream of consciousness” recollections (that’s how it seemed to this reader) spans close to half a century of airline history and covers a gamut of events, highlights and areas of interest.
For aircraft buffs the piece discusses the various airplanes the airline inherited, acquired and used from the time of its founding thru the end of the 20th century.
Safety concerns, along with a recount of specific incidents including crashes, to which Rome had direct information access or even actual exposure to, are touched upon with an insider’s intimate knowledge of details and certainly opens a window into the always painful aftermath of accidents and crashes.
Rome’s long and well rounded actual work experience in various departments of the airline enables him to cover many aspects of daily fare, from cargo to reservations to ticketing, airport operations and finally his impressive stints in air operations and public relations. He not only covers significant highlights but also dives deep into some of the daily routine that are often overlooked and unappreciated but most often served as the very foundation of the PAL organization.
His most valuable contribution, to my mind, are his recollections of the people he worked with over the years many of whom actually helped build the airline from the ground up. As a former PALer who worked in the ‘60’s myself the names Adriano, Elicano, Verzosa-Santos, Saba, Munoz, Pabelico and others too many to mention, bring back images and memories of great significance to PAL’s success and the high regard the airline enjoyed in those days.
I worked with Rome for 4 years. He is one funny dude. Not silly funny, but more like a satirist who is able to deflate even the most sanctimonious with his instant, on-the-fly, nearly endless commentaries. I remember once at lunch with him that I actually guffawed so hard it was embarrassing. We were talking about one of our favorite vice presidents and using the comical nuances of the visayan accent and pronunciation (I, being identified as a Cebuano) he referred to the guy as “Wreck Paloma”.
Other ex-PALer’s who read this book will no doubt recall many instances and incidents worthy of note in their past careers. I have one I’d like to share. As an 18 year old new hire who lived in the maintenance shack at Lumbia airport in Cagayan de Oro I woke up at 6 a.m. one foggy and rainy morning to the sound of propellers revving in to stop on the tarmac. Strange to have one so early. Stranger still was that no one from PAL ground staff was on hand. So I walked to the plane ( a DC-3 cargo plane) and the captain came down and said he wanted all CDO bound cargo offloaded, the plane refueled and sent on their way ASAP.
I dragged a pushcart planeside and started offloading the newspaper bundles and 50 kilo film cans as best and fast as I could. Eventually, round about 7 a.m. the other employees had arrived. The heavy rains caused the Cagayan river to rise and render the bridge uncrossable for a few hours hence their delay in getting to the airport. The plane was ready to go a few minutes later. I sat down on one of the benches in the terminal to watch the plane take off. In the middle of its takeoff run the plane swerved to the left, hit an embankment and sent up a spoof of smoke. We all rushed to the site, helped the pilots out of the aircraft and put out a small fire that had started on one of the engines.
Later in the day we offloaded the rest of the cargo which consisted mostly of ice cream from Magnolia and crates of freshly printed 20 peso bills some which had partially burned.
Fast forward a couple of weeks later and we were called into the BRS’s office. There were a couple of NBI agents who started to ask us questions about the burnt 20 peso bills. What had happened, and the reason for the NBI inquiry, was that some of the bills ended up in circulation locally. After some digging they eventually found out how that happened. Apparently one of our co-workers, a porter (who has now passed away hence I will not disclose his name) who was once notorious as a prankster, had pocketed some of the bills, pasted 2 of the unburned parts together and spent it. Where? At the local nightclubs as tips to the hostesses! We all found this quite hilarious and obviously neither the Central Bank nor the NBI shared our sense of humor.
Life at PAL was not always just a bed of roses for many of us. We’ve had our share of office intrigues and many have been victims of petty and vindictive bosses who made our lives miserable even to a point of “flying the coop” and seeking out friendlier “skies”. Romeo F.C. Farol is one of those sturdy individuals who endured many difficult and challenging work circumstances and yet never lost his compass. Also kept intact was his eye for the absurd and the tongue for unbridled commentary. I’ve known him to be intelligent, insightful and incisive. He had a lawyer’s education and training but chose a different path, the often pioneering route that PAL had offered many who chose to cast their lot with the airline. He would have been quite successful as a lawyer (perhaps not as a diplomat like his late father) and we who once worked at PAL are all the better to have had Rome in our midst.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Philippine Independence, when will it come about?
By Leandro D. Quintana
This stretch of time, between June 12 thru July 4 is a period in the year when there is much thought and talk of independence and patriotism. We observe with some pomp and circumstance the June 12, 1898 “independence”. We also mark the June 19th birthday of our national hero Jose Rizal. Then as we move into July, there is the glorious 4th, now referred to as “friendship day” between the Philippines and US. Recently, in the midst of all this a friend started an email trail advocating the reinstatement of July 4, 1946 as our “true” independence. And the email trail certainly lured me into participating in the conversation and here’s what I contributed:
In my opinion there really is no moment of "independence" that we can mark, honor and observe. As a nation and a country we have not attained independence. There is not one solitary moment in time when we can say that the "Filipino nation" gained independence. In 1898 we were not a Filipino nation. We were a collection of Indo-Malayan tribes occupying an archipelago of islands, speaking different languages (dialects) and crudely coalesced by the presence of a sovereign power, Spain, amongst our midst. In that time period we had a string of local “rebellions” but not quite a revolution.
The "independence" that we refer to that took place on July 4, 1946 was very much less a graduation into the community of sovereign nations than it was a convenient victory for the powerful block of southern Democrats in the US Congress who feared the eventual ascendance of a birth-prolific race of brown people to the ranks of US citizenship. "Granting" us independence while still controlling our political and business lives was a brilliant stroke of the US political establishment of that time.
One condition that defines, describes perhaps, national independence is the act of truly discarding a previous ruler and it’s system of ruling the native population such as when the colonies in a continent called America booted out the British and created a system of government that was radically different from a monarchy i.e. a republic. The same can be said of India when they kicked the British out and created a parliamentary, multi-partied democracy. In both cases each of the newly birthed nations thereafter acted independently and in pursuit of its self interests which often conflicted with the interests of their previous overlords. Clearly that has not been the case for the Philippines. The Spaniards established a ruling elite made up of some natives and mestizos and this group continued on as the foundation of an oligarchy that remained ensconced under American rule and have successfully thrived and grown even more powerful after the Americans “left”.
Having mentioned India as an example it is perhaps worth noting that Mahatma Gandhi, in leading the fight for an independent India, insisted that the their future ought not to be one where the old British masters be replaced by native born surrogates, i.e. the country should not be handed over to Indian individuals and families who would henceforth be a “ruling class”. Gandhi insisted that a true and genuine democratic government that was voted into power by , and therefore owed their offices to, the people of India is what the future of his country ought to be. And he got his way. To this day India continues to be described at the world’s largest democracy. A vast contrast to what happened in the Philippines, for sure.
Perhaps the closest thing to a “declaration of independence” by the Filipino nation came in those heady days of February in 1986 when the people rose and ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos from power. This was indeed a revolution in the making. We now had an opportunity to define ourselves as a nation finally able to cast aside the oligarchic yoke imposed by the Spaniards and continued by the Americans. A “new order” was in the making. The rule of law can finally prevail. Opportunity for all, founded upon a meritocracy and a level playing field all around, in education, business, and government was forthcoming. Sad to say this all fizzled away when the ineffectual Corazon Aquino merely enabled the expansion of the oligarchy to now include members of her family and their many friends and cohorts joining the “Marcos oligarchs” at the trough .
Today we are not an independent country, by any stretch of the imagination. Our "republic" is a very troubled one. We have political parties that seldom reflect any solid platform of government other than to acquire power which seems to be used mostly to enhance further the acquisition of even more wealth by a favored few. On the global stage we are a client state of the USA (regardless our pronunciations to the contrary) fearful of being gobbled up by China. Year after year for over the past half century we prostrate ourselves as mendicants seeking US “aid” and “military assistance”. We seem to jump with joy at the news that this or that country or international organization extends us
grants and donations.
At the very best all I could say is that we are an evolving nation coping with the winds of change that blow around us and around the world. Over the past 50 years or so the Filipino Diaspora, a dispersion of our people, as permanent migrants to other countries, or as “temporary” overseas workers residing elsewhere in the world, seems to be the force and characteristic that defines us. Already more than 3 million Filipinos reside in the US and have converted to American citizenship, an act which required their swearing allegiance to the US flag and all that it represents. Estimates are that between 8 to 11 million Filipino OFW’s are out of the country at any given time. This has redounded to the country’s benefit in the form of foreign remittances . In time will new, fresh and foreign ideas about government, business and culture, as seen and experienced by returning OFWs, also filter back into our country and begin to alter our own outlook vis-à-vis the form of government we shall have in the future? Will there finally be a push for “real” independence.
Indeed this period from mid June to early July compels us to dwell upon such thoughts as independence and patriotism. Perhaps this time around the conversation continues on, beyond the summer months and the monsoon rains and usher in seasons of reasoned discourse on this great topic of “Philippine Independence”.
Ldq44@aol.com
This stretch of time, between June 12 thru July 4 is a period in the year when there is much thought and talk of independence and patriotism. We observe with some pomp and circumstance the June 12, 1898 “independence”. We also mark the June 19th birthday of our national hero Jose Rizal. Then as we move into July, there is the glorious 4th, now referred to as “friendship day” between the Philippines and US. Recently, in the midst of all this a friend started an email trail advocating the reinstatement of July 4, 1946 as our “true” independence. And the email trail certainly lured me into participating in the conversation and here’s what I contributed:
In my opinion there really is no moment of "independence" that we can mark, honor and observe. As a nation and a country we have not attained independence. There is not one solitary moment in time when we can say that the "Filipino nation" gained independence. In 1898 we were not a Filipino nation. We were a collection of Indo-Malayan tribes occupying an archipelago of islands, speaking different languages (dialects) and crudely coalesced by the presence of a sovereign power, Spain, amongst our midst. In that time period we had a string of local “rebellions” but not quite a revolution.
The "independence" that we refer to that took place on July 4, 1946 was very much less a graduation into the community of sovereign nations than it was a convenient victory for the powerful block of southern Democrats in the US Congress who feared the eventual ascendance of a birth-prolific race of brown people to the ranks of US citizenship. "Granting" us independence while still controlling our political and business lives was a brilliant stroke of the US political establishment of that time.
One condition that defines, describes perhaps, national independence is the act of truly discarding a previous ruler and it’s system of ruling the native population such as when the colonies in a continent called America booted out the British and created a system of government that was radically different from a monarchy i.e. a republic. The same can be said of India when they kicked the British out and created a parliamentary, multi-partied democracy. In both cases each of the newly birthed nations thereafter acted independently and in pursuit of its self interests which often conflicted with the interests of their previous overlords. Clearly that has not been the case for the Philippines. The Spaniards established a ruling elite made up of some natives and mestizos and this group continued on as the foundation of an oligarchy that remained ensconced under American rule and have successfully thrived and grown even more powerful after the Americans “left”.
Having mentioned India as an example it is perhaps worth noting that Mahatma Gandhi, in leading the fight for an independent India, insisted that the their future ought not to be one where the old British masters be replaced by native born surrogates, i.e. the country should not be handed over to Indian individuals and families who would henceforth be a “ruling class”. Gandhi insisted that a true and genuine democratic government that was voted into power by , and therefore owed their offices to, the people of India is what the future of his country ought to be. And he got his way. To this day India continues to be described at the world’s largest democracy. A vast contrast to what happened in the Philippines, for sure.
Perhaps the closest thing to a “declaration of independence” by the Filipino nation came in those heady days of February in 1986 when the people rose and ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos from power. This was indeed a revolution in the making. We now had an opportunity to define ourselves as a nation finally able to cast aside the oligarchic yoke imposed by the Spaniards and continued by the Americans. A “new order” was in the making. The rule of law can finally prevail. Opportunity for all, founded upon a meritocracy and a level playing field all around, in education, business, and government was forthcoming. Sad to say this all fizzled away when the ineffectual Corazon Aquino merely enabled the expansion of the oligarchy to now include members of her family and their many friends and cohorts joining the “Marcos oligarchs” at the trough .
Today we are not an independent country, by any stretch of the imagination. Our "republic" is a very troubled one. We have political parties that seldom reflect any solid platform of government other than to acquire power which seems to be used mostly to enhance further the acquisition of even more wealth by a favored few. On the global stage we are a client state of the USA (regardless our pronunciations to the contrary) fearful of being gobbled up by China. Year after year for over the past half century we prostrate ourselves as mendicants seeking US “aid” and “military assistance”. We seem to jump with joy at the news that this or that country or international organization extends us
grants and donations.
At the very best all I could say is that we are an evolving nation coping with the winds of change that blow around us and around the world. Over the past 50 years or so the Filipino Diaspora, a dispersion of our people, as permanent migrants to other countries, or as “temporary” overseas workers residing elsewhere in the world, seems to be the force and characteristic that defines us. Already more than 3 million Filipinos reside in the US and have converted to American citizenship, an act which required their swearing allegiance to the US flag and all that it represents. Estimates are that between 8 to 11 million Filipino OFW’s are out of the country at any given time. This has redounded to the country’s benefit in the form of foreign remittances . In time will new, fresh and foreign ideas about government, business and culture, as seen and experienced by returning OFWs, also filter back into our country and begin to alter our own outlook vis-à-vis the form of government we shall have in the future? Will there finally be a push for “real” independence.
Indeed this period from mid June to early July compels us to dwell upon such thoughts as independence and patriotism. Perhaps this time around the conversation continues on, beyond the summer months and the monsoon rains and usher in seasons of reasoned discourse on this great topic of “Philippine Independence”.
Ldq44@aol.com
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
It’s Not Just Marcos Jr. vs. Aquino III And Why We Should Say : “Never Again”
By Leandro D. Quintana
A recent headline reported that President Aquino has asked Vice-president Binjay to deal with the Marcos camp clamor for the burial of the late dictator at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
Sad to say the president cannot take a Pontius Pilate, wash-my-hands attitude on this matter. The crimes of the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr. were not limited to the torment and torture of the Aquino family. Millions of Filipinos, in myriad ways and for a long and agonizing time, were reduced to sheepish and humiliating acquiescence while the Marcos clan, their cohorts and cronies plundered the country. Those unfortunate enough to give voice to their aspirations for freedom and fairness, or otherwise got into the cross hairs of the powers that be, ended up incarcerated and many more rotted in ditches, victims of the “salvaging” onslaught of the martial law regime. The nation, for sure, must not forget. Neither must it consider the Marcos survivors, Imelda and the children, mere and benign onlookers during the twenty year carnage. The Marcos “rape of the Philippines” was a collaborative family affair.
President Aquino’s late mother, Cory, was right in refusing the hero’s burial upon the return of Bongbong’s father in 1989. And the Filipino people at that time, not too far removed from the country’s nightmare of the previous two decades, overwhelmingly supported Cory’s decision.
While there is a whole new generation that has emerged who never had to live under the yoke of the Marcoses, it is necessary for them to learn as much of the sordid past as possible. Very much like the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, those of our generation who know of the profligacy of the Marcoses, must embrace and pass on the vow that “never again” will we have their likes as our leaders. The candle that lights the past misdeeds may flutter and memories fade as the winds of revisionism are blown by those who most benefit from a “Marcos” revival; thus it behooves us to be the bearers of the torch to enlighten the new generations and those yet to come. Never again must the Marcoses come to power.
Another headline also announced that Marcos Jr. claimed that had his late father never been deposed, that the Philippines would be “another Singapore”. Totalitarianism, he seems to argue, is the requisite route to the economic upliftment of the country. He fails to mention that when Marcos Sr. ruled with an iron fist for close to twenty years the only segment of society that were uplifted were those who belonged to the power elite. In fact many enterprising Filipinos who had successful businesses often woke up one morning with a knock on their doors, visited by Marcos cronies who wanted to take over their domains for a pittance.
This claim by Marcos Jr. is indeed an eye opener for the country. He has, perhaps unwittingly, revealed his hand as to what he might do should he ever become president: he would emulate his late father and become a latter day despot to complete the rape of the country that the older Marcos started but was stopped only by the force of a people who had had enough and unceremoniously ousted him in 1986.
“Never Again” should be the battle cry of those who are determined to not see their country relive the mistakes of its past. And President Benigno Aquino III should lead that cry. This is one obligation he cannot, and ought not , delegate to anyone.
ldq44@aol.com
A recent headline reported that President Aquino has asked Vice-president Binjay to deal with the Marcos camp clamor for the burial of the late dictator at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
Sad to say the president cannot take a Pontius Pilate, wash-my-hands attitude on this matter. The crimes of the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr. were not limited to the torment and torture of the Aquino family. Millions of Filipinos, in myriad ways and for a long and agonizing time, were reduced to sheepish and humiliating acquiescence while the Marcos clan, their cohorts and cronies plundered the country. Those unfortunate enough to give voice to their aspirations for freedom and fairness, or otherwise got into the cross hairs of the powers that be, ended up incarcerated and many more rotted in ditches, victims of the “salvaging” onslaught of the martial law regime. The nation, for sure, must not forget. Neither must it consider the Marcos survivors, Imelda and the children, mere and benign onlookers during the twenty year carnage. The Marcos “rape of the Philippines” was a collaborative family affair.
President Aquino’s late mother, Cory, was right in refusing the hero’s burial upon the return of Bongbong’s father in 1989. And the Filipino people at that time, not too far removed from the country’s nightmare of the previous two decades, overwhelmingly supported Cory’s decision.
While there is a whole new generation that has emerged who never had to live under the yoke of the Marcoses, it is necessary for them to learn as much of the sordid past as possible. Very much like the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, those of our generation who know of the profligacy of the Marcoses, must embrace and pass on the vow that “never again” will we have their likes as our leaders. The candle that lights the past misdeeds may flutter and memories fade as the winds of revisionism are blown by those who most benefit from a “Marcos” revival; thus it behooves us to be the bearers of the torch to enlighten the new generations and those yet to come. Never again must the Marcoses come to power.
Another headline also announced that Marcos Jr. claimed that had his late father never been deposed, that the Philippines would be “another Singapore”. Totalitarianism, he seems to argue, is the requisite route to the economic upliftment of the country. He fails to mention that when Marcos Sr. ruled with an iron fist for close to twenty years the only segment of society that were uplifted were those who belonged to the power elite. In fact many enterprising Filipinos who had successful businesses often woke up one morning with a knock on their doors, visited by Marcos cronies who wanted to take over their domains for a pittance.
This claim by Marcos Jr. is indeed an eye opener for the country. He has, perhaps unwittingly, revealed his hand as to what he might do should he ever become president: he would emulate his late father and become a latter day despot to complete the rape of the country that the older Marcos started but was stopped only by the force of a people who had had enough and unceremoniously ousted him in 1986.
“Never Again” should be the battle cry of those who are determined to not see their country relive the mistakes of its past. And President Benigno Aquino III should lead that cry. This is one obligation he cannot, and ought not , delegate to anyone.
ldq44@aol.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Shamelessness of Marcoses and Shoddy PhilStar Reporting
Disgusting and revolting are the two adjectives that immediately came to mind as I read the February 18 issue of the Philippine Star carrying a statement from Ferdinand Marcos Jr. that his late father, the former dictator, ought to be buried in the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (Heroes Cemetery). What triggered the younger Marcos’ demand was the burial in the same Libingan of recently deceased, by suicide, former AFP chief Gen. Angelo Reyes.
If Reyes merits the honor of a hero’s burial why not his father? he argues. He then elaborates that the deposed older Marcos was a “war hero” and the country’s “longest serving president”.
Marcos Jr. may think that all of his countrymen are either complete amnesiacs or are totally impervious to the facts and would blindly accept his contentions.
Well, let’s take a look at his rationale.
War hero? Here’s what the January 25, 1986 report from the Los Angeles Times had to say disputing Marcos’ claim to heroism:
The Philippine Star report also reinforced Marcos Jr.’s assertions citing supporting statements by senators Ponce-Enrile and Honasan perpetuating the “fraudulent” and “absurd” claims.
Abhorrent as the heroism claims may be what really must rub the nation like “salt to the wound” is the justification that Marcos Sr. be given a hero’s burial because he was the “longest serving president”. Excuse me? How did his term last 20 years? Oh, yes, he did so by usurping all powers on September 21, 1972. And thereafter went on an orgy of plunder and enrichment for his family and friends in a scale neither seen nor equaled in the 20th century.
And while his regime was already characterized by violence perpetrated against “enemies” both perceived and real pre 1972, this was raised to unequaled proportions after he took absolute power. Opposition leaders, journalists and even students were summarily rounded up and jailed. Opposition leaders like Eugenio Lopez Jr., Sergio Osmena III and Benigno Aquino Jr. all went on hunger strikes to call world attention to their plight. Others, less famous, languished and were subject to torture and all kinds of depravities, meriting visits and negative reports from Amnesty International. Murders numbered in the thousands, by some counts, and disappearances of people who had offended the regime or even some of its lesser lights had become commonplace. “Salvaging” was a cruel moniker used to describe the killing of many. He robbed the country of its wealth, and scarred his nation’s soul with his murderous brutality. He deserves a place for scorn, not veneration.
After the dictator died in 1989, his wife Imelda had the shameless temerity to ask that he be buried at the Libingan ; there was palpable national convulsion to the very thought! The sins of Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his friends, can not and should not be forgotten. Time may jade people’s memories and atrocities may wane in its intensity and viciousness, but surely we cannot desecrate further the memories and sacrifices of the thousands who met cruel and unjust fates by now treating the perpetrator of their agonies to a hero’s burial.
And what really is upsetting about the Philippine Star report is that this newspaper that once upon a time had a great journalist the late Max Soliven at its helm, seems to have printed en toto what reads very much like a press release from the Marcos p.r. office. No mention of the fact that the claims to heroism were strongly questioned and that the longevity of his “term of office” was the result of the abrogation of the country’s constitution and its democratic traditions. And oh, yes. Max was one of the very first people hauled to jail when Marcos declared martial law. He, and the thousands of victims, not Marcos, are the heroes. Too bad Max has gone to his reward; had he been alive the Marcos press release would not have found print in his venerated newspaper; at least not without the inclusion of data and facts that definitively contradicted the spurious claims .
If Reyes merits the honor of a hero’s burial why not his father? he argues. He then elaborates that the deposed older Marcos was a “war hero” and the country’s “longest serving president”.
Marcos Jr. may think that all of his countrymen are either complete amnesiacs or are totally impervious to the facts and would blindly accept his contentions.
Well, let’s take a look at his rationale.
War hero? Here’s what the January 25, 1986 report from the Los Angeles Times had to say disputing Marcos’ claim to heroism:
‘The reports, based on U.S. Army records uncovered by historian Alfred W. McCoy, said the Army repeatedly denied requests for postwar recognition of Marcos's purported guerrilla group, describing his claims as "fraudulent" and "absurd."
In Washington on Friday, a State Department official said that "the public record speaks for itself," and there are "no grounds to second guess the findings of military officers who reviewed the case 40 years ago."’
The Philippine Star report also reinforced Marcos Jr.’s assertions citing supporting statements by senators Ponce-Enrile and Honasan perpetuating the “fraudulent” and “absurd” claims.
Abhorrent as the heroism claims may be what really must rub the nation like “salt to the wound” is the justification that Marcos Sr. be given a hero’s burial because he was the “longest serving president”. Excuse me? How did his term last 20 years? Oh, yes, he did so by usurping all powers on September 21, 1972. And thereafter went on an orgy of plunder and enrichment for his family and friends in a scale neither seen nor equaled in the 20th century.
And while his regime was already characterized by violence perpetrated against “enemies” both perceived and real pre 1972, this was raised to unequaled proportions after he took absolute power. Opposition leaders, journalists and even students were summarily rounded up and jailed. Opposition leaders like Eugenio Lopez Jr., Sergio Osmena III and Benigno Aquino Jr. all went on hunger strikes to call world attention to their plight. Others, less famous, languished and were subject to torture and all kinds of depravities, meriting visits and negative reports from Amnesty International. Murders numbered in the thousands, by some counts, and disappearances of people who had offended the regime or even some of its lesser lights had become commonplace. “Salvaging” was a cruel moniker used to describe the killing of many. He robbed the country of its wealth, and scarred his nation’s soul with his murderous brutality. He deserves a place for scorn, not veneration.
After the dictator died in 1989, his wife Imelda had the shameless temerity to ask that he be buried at the Libingan ; there was palpable national convulsion to the very thought! The sins of Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his friends, can not and should not be forgotten. Time may jade people’s memories and atrocities may wane in its intensity and viciousness, but surely we cannot desecrate further the memories and sacrifices of the thousands who met cruel and unjust fates by now treating the perpetrator of their agonies to a hero’s burial.
And what really is upsetting about the Philippine Star report is that this newspaper that once upon a time had a great journalist the late Max Soliven at its helm, seems to have printed en toto what reads very much like a press release from the Marcos p.r. office. No mention of the fact that the claims to heroism were strongly questioned and that the longevity of his “term of office” was the result of the abrogation of the country’s constitution and its democratic traditions. And oh, yes. Max was one of the very first people hauled to jail when Marcos declared martial law. He, and the thousands of victims, not Marcos, are the heroes. Too bad Max has gone to his reward; had he been alive the Marcos press release would not have found print in his venerated newspaper; at least not without the inclusion of data and facts that definitively contradicted the spurious claims .
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Gloria’s Legacy: Corruption, Dishonor, Power Plays and now Death
The sad and tragic death by self-inflicted gunshot wound of former AFP chief Gen. Angelo Reyes, and the ongoing revelations by former AFP budget officer George Rabusa that claim routine multi-million peso payoffs to top military brass during the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regime, gives us a glimpse into how the ex-president might have operated.
In ousting duly elected Joseph Estrada via “people power II” was a quid pro quo of future payoffs offered by then vice-president Arroyo to the armed forces leadership for their overt support of Erap’s rapid dethronement in 2001? There was much speculation that such an “arrangement” had taken place; recent events now seem to give the erstwhile suspicion a stronger tinge of validity.
The late Angelo Reyes became a Gloria favorite during her 9 year stint, receiving multiple, high profile cabinet appointments. This is not to say that Reyes was not qualified for the positions nor did he fail in any of his cabinet assignments. But in light of the payoff revelations it is certainly not a stretch to imagine less than noble motives on Arroyo’s part.
I’ll stipulate that the late General Reyes may have been an honorable man who took pride in his integrity and that he actively participated in the removal of Estrada for purely altruistic and patriotic reasons, i.e. that the latter had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and was guilty of “plunder”. Yet in a moment of weakness he may have succumbed and yielded to the largesse and generosity of Madame Arroyo and accepted the going away present when he retired from the AFP. Tragically, it is that sense of honor and integrity that may have led to his suicide. Perhaps he could not face life, his family and his country knowing that he had accepted millions of unearned pesos when he retired, funds that should perhaps have gone to raising the salaries of the underpaid enlisted men he commanded. Sadly, we lost a good man.
The best way for the country, and the present leadership, to render Reyes death some valuable meaning is to doggedly and publicly pursue the truth about the payoffs. What it will uncover perhaps, among other things, is one of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo’s “strategies” for staying in power. She saw how the many coup attempts launched against her predecessor Corazon Aquino hogtied the latter’s tenure and she was determined that such a fate not befall her regime. And it seems that she calculated that the best way to keep the military leadership in line and backing her was to give them a “financial incentive” to continue supporting her.
Arroyo also took other steps that would make her “untouchable” and enable her to slither away from any attempts to hold her accountable for the debauchery of corruption that characterized her administration. In a column I wrote before the May elections last year (“The Sham and The Shame”) I pointed out that what had driven her frenzy of midnight appointments, including that of the Supreme Court’s chief justice, was an elaborate scheme to ensure that she had the means to subvert and undermine Benigno Aquino III should the latter try to carry out any judicial efforts to bring her, her family and other key members of her administration before the bars of justice. And, so far, it seems that she has succeeded.
For sure the military leaders who willingly took the bribes need to be held accountable; yet we cannot ignore the fact that the giver of the bribe is just, if not more, culpable. And we surely cannot believe that when 50 million pesos changes hands at the highest levels of the military that the “commander-in-chief”, which Arroyo was, was not aware of it.
Corruption was elevated to an art form in the Arroyo administration. Her near Machiavellian power plays to retain tenure as long as she could are well known. Now we can add the death of an honorable man to her legacy. In my view she has blood on her hands. She must not be allowed to “slither” away one more time.
In ousting duly elected Joseph Estrada via “people power II” was a quid pro quo of future payoffs offered by then vice-president Arroyo to the armed forces leadership for their overt support of Erap’s rapid dethronement in 2001? There was much speculation that such an “arrangement” had taken place; recent events now seem to give the erstwhile suspicion a stronger tinge of validity.
The late Angelo Reyes became a Gloria favorite during her 9 year stint, receiving multiple, high profile cabinet appointments. This is not to say that Reyes was not qualified for the positions nor did he fail in any of his cabinet assignments. But in light of the payoff revelations it is certainly not a stretch to imagine less than noble motives on Arroyo’s part.
I’ll stipulate that the late General Reyes may have been an honorable man who took pride in his integrity and that he actively participated in the removal of Estrada for purely altruistic and patriotic reasons, i.e. that the latter had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and was guilty of “plunder”. Yet in a moment of weakness he may have succumbed and yielded to the largesse and generosity of Madame Arroyo and accepted the going away present when he retired from the AFP. Tragically, it is that sense of honor and integrity that may have led to his suicide. Perhaps he could not face life, his family and his country knowing that he had accepted millions of unearned pesos when he retired, funds that should perhaps have gone to raising the salaries of the underpaid enlisted men he commanded. Sadly, we lost a good man.
The best way for the country, and the present leadership, to render Reyes death some valuable meaning is to doggedly and publicly pursue the truth about the payoffs. What it will uncover perhaps, among other things, is one of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo’s “strategies” for staying in power. She saw how the many coup attempts launched against her predecessor Corazon Aquino hogtied the latter’s tenure and she was determined that such a fate not befall her regime. And it seems that she calculated that the best way to keep the military leadership in line and backing her was to give them a “financial incentive” to continue supporting her.
Arroyo also took other steps that would make her “untouchable” and enable her to slither away from any attempts to hold her accountable for the debauchery of corruption that characterized her administration. In a column I wrote before the May elections last year (“The Sham and The Shame”) I pointed out that what had driven her frenzy of midnight appointments, including that of the Supreme Court’s chief justice, was an elaborate scheme to ensure that she had the means to subvert and undermine Benigno Aquino III should the latter try to carry out any judicial efforts to bring her, her family and other key members of her administration before the bars of justice. And, so far, it seems that she has succeeded.
For sure the military leaders who willingly took the bribes need to be held accountable; yet we cannot ignore the fact that the giver of the bribe is just, if not more, culpable. And we surely cannot believe that when 50 million pesos changes hands at the highest levels of the military that the “commander-in-chief”, which Arroyo was, was not aware of it.
Corruption was elevated to an art form in the Arroyo administration. Her near Machiavellian power plays to retain tenure as long as she could are well known. Now we can add the death of an honorable man to her legacy. In my view she has blood on her hands. She must not be allowed to “slither” away one more time.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Defending Obama Versus The Left
If one were to read the left leaning blogs written by “progressives”, whether they be Democrats or non-affiliated entities, a conclusion might be that President Obama has betrayed his principles and the promises of the 2008 campaign. Clearly there is palpable, and lately very vocal, discontent with the country’s first African American president. Talks of mounting a left wing led primary challenge in the 2012 election cycle has surfaced and could be getting some legs.
One of the complaints is that Mr. Obama does not seem to be fighting for his beliefs and the Democratic agenda. There was great outcry, for example, when he did not pursue the “public option” in the Health reform bill. There seems an even more vocal outcry over his recently announced entente with the leaders of the Republican Party over the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
I too had been seeing red over this perceived abandonment of his principles and promises and Mr. Obama’s seeming unwillingness to “fight”.
Yet today I decided to take a closer, and yes, a more dispassionate, look at the president’s performance and one theme, in my view, is emerging: while candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail promised to “fight” for health care for all Americans and to abolish the “tax cuts” for the rich, as President Obama he has seen a remodeled view of what his role is and that is to keep the American people “safe”, or that if some harm must come that such harm is buffered as best as possible.
Why do I say this?
Let’s take health care as an example. What exactly did he come away with in that bruising battle of 2009? Well, the following:
• People can longer be denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition
• Younger Americans can avail of their parent’s health care policies until age 26
• Patients suffering serious illness can no longer be dropped from coverage by the insurance companies
• Americans not provided health care benefits by their employers can purchase reasonably priced policies
So, looking at the glass from a half full rather than a half empty perspective, what the President accomplished and accepted was a health care bill that met key elements of his 2008 campaign promise, which is to take care of the most vulnerable and under served segments of American society. The bill that he was willing to take in his pocket would, at the very least, eliminate the most egregious cases of suffering endured by a large segment of the American population. Part of his mission was accomplished. As president he worked out the best deal he could for the American people. The public option is a fight for another day.
In the fight for the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy, a similar scenario has emerged. He knows his campaign promise was to eliminate the cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000.00 a year, but he also realizes that in the present atmosphere, and after the power shift created by the 2010 by elections, he had a slim chance of getting such a bill passed. In the meantime there was this specter of millions of unemployed Americans heading into the Christmas season who would lose their unemployment benefits come January 1st. The effect would have been devastating for many families with millions of children also adversely affected.
So, while he may be seething is his progressive heart of hearts at the prospect of millionaires and billionaires continuing to enjoy what is in effect the largesse and generosity of the American people via the existing tax code, he kept his focus on what is most important: the welfare and well being of a large segment of the American public.
It also was, perhaps tacitly, an acceptance on his part that hey, maybe there is some merit to the Republicans ideas about creating jobs. His mission, foremost, is not to validate his own ideas but to take care of the people he serves.
By his actions as well, i.e. acceptance of the Republicans demands, he is really fulfilling a campaign promise that we also fell in love with: the end of gridlock in Washington and jointly working for the American people. Yes, it is not in clear and dramatic proportions, but it is a start.
My advice, therefore, to the left, and to all the moderates and Republicans like myself who fell in love in 2008 with the candidate that was Barack Obama, is that we look not at that inspirational speaker who fired up our imagination, but rather at President Barack Obama, the man in the oval office who has responsibility for the welfare of all Americans. If we do, it is likely that we might cut him some slack.
And I have a feeling that the superb politician that he is, Mr. Obama knows this and also understands that when the time comes to face the electorate again he can frame his accomplishments as a case of having a glass half full. And sometimes that’s the best we can truly expect, and accept.
One of the complaints is that Mr. Obama does not seem to be fighting for his beliefs and the Democratic agenda. There was great outcry, for example, when he did not pursue the “public option” in the Health reform bill. There seems an even more vocal outcry over his recently announced entente with the leaders of the Republican Party over the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
I too had been seeing red over this perceived abandonment of his principles and promises and Mr. Obama’s seeming unwillingness to “fight”.
Yet today I decided to take a closer, and yes, a more dispassionate, look at the president’s performance and one theme, in my view, is emerging: while candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail promised to “fight” for health care for all Americans and to abolish the “tax cuts” for the rich, as President Obama he has seen a remodeled view of what his role is and that is to keep the American people “safe”, or that if some harm must come that such harm is buffered as best as possible.
Why do I say this?
Let’s take health care as an example. What exactly did he come away with in that bruising battle of 2009? Well, the following:
• People can longer be denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition
• Younger Americans can avail of their parent’s health care policies until age 26
• Patients suffering serious illness can no longer be dropped from coverage by the insurance companies
• Americans not provided health care benefits by their employers can purchase reasonably priced policies
So, looking at the glass from a half full rather than a half empty perspective, what the President accomplished and accepted was a health care bill that met key elements of his 2008 campaign promise, which is to take care of the most vulnerable and under served segments of American society. The bill that he was willing to take in his pocket would, at the very least, eliminate the most egregious cases of suffering endured by a large segment of the American population. Part of his mission was accomplished. As president he worked out the best deal he could for the American people. The public option is a fight for another day.
In the fight for the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy, a similar scenario has emerged. He knows his campaign promise was to eliminate the cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000.00 a year, but he also realizes that in the present atmosphere, and after the power shift created by the 2010 by elections, he had a slim chance of getting such a bill passed. In the meantime there was this specter of millions of unemployed Americans heading into the Christmas season who would lose their unemployment benefits come January 1st. The effect would have been devastating for many families with millions of children also adversely affected.
So, while he may be seething is his progressive heart of hearts at the prospect of millionaires and billionaires continuing to enjoy what is in effect the largesse and generosity of the American people via the existing tax code, he kept his focus on what is most important: the welfare and well being of a large segment of the American public.
It also was, perhaps tacitly, an acceptance on his part that hey, maybe there is some merit to the Republicans ideas about creating jobs. His mission, foremost, is not to validate his own ideas but to take care of the people he serves.
By his actions as well, i.e. acceptance of the Republicans demands, he is really fulfilling a campaign promise that we also fell in love with: the end of gridlock in Washington and jointly working for the American people. Yes, it is not in clear and dramatic proportions, but it is a start.
My advice, therefore, to the left, and to all the moderates and Republicans like myself who fell in love in 2008 with the candidate that was Barack Obama, is that we look not at that inspirational speaker who fired up our imagination, but rather at President Barack Obama, the man in the oval office who has responsibility for the welfare of all Americans. If we do, it is likely that we might cut him some slack.
And I have a feeling that the superb politician that he is, Mr. Obama knows this and also understands that when the time comes to face the electorate again he can frame his accomplishments as a case of having a glass half full. And sometimes that’s the best we can truly expect, and accept.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Let's Have a Serious Conversation
Forget “JASIG”, Legalize the Communist Party .
Reading thru a headline item in the Philippine Star reporting on the arrival of Luis Jalandoni, I run into an acronym that seemed unusual: JASIG. Upon further scrutiny I found that this stood for Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees. Apparently, this is the umbrella protocol under which Jalandoni, chairman of the outlawed National Democratic Front, and his wife, Ma. Consuelo Ledesma, are able to make a “private” visit to the Philippines to celebrate the Christmas holidays.
(Those of us old enough might probably recall that Jalandoni was once a priest who engaged in a version of "liberation theology" and got into trouble .Ledesma as well was an activist nun who was jailed for a year by Marcos. They both defrocked and entered a relationship that led to marriage - the wedding officiated no less than by Jaime Cardinal Sin.)
The Star article also reported that a “meeting” between the NDF, led by Jalandoni, Ledesma and Communist Party of the Philippines head Jose Ma. Sison on one hand, and presumably Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Director Carla Munsayac Villarta and her team on the other, is scheduled to take place in Oslo come February 2011.
Why engage in "peace talks" thousands of miles away? President Aquino and his administration should take this opportunity to launch the country into a giant leap forward by completely decriminalizing the Communist Party and let Sison, Jalandoni and Ledesma live freely in the Philippines and do their avowed work of uplifting the lot of the Filipino masses, particularly the workers and farmers. Who can argue against their altruistic goals? The one caveat is that this trio of revolutionaries, their supporters, backers and friends must abandon any armed struggle to achieve their goals. No warfare, no terrorism, no extortion, no executions. Not too distant history, and some present examples (Cuba and North Korea), offer clear evidence that this form of government is an outright failure so why even go there? And if Sison and Jalandoni do have genuine followers in the hills and jungles, they must come in, surrender their arms and pledge allegiance to the duly constituted government. ( I say “genuine” because it is also a long understood reality that many so called “NPAs” roaming the countryside are no more than petty criminals extorting “:fees” and “taxes” from a hapless population)
Why am I suggesting the unshackling of the Communist Party? Because, for one, the current “advocates” for the workers and farmers have failed ( miserably) in the task of freeing them from their current and long standing bondage. It is now a quarter of a century since we booted the dictator Marcos from his oppressive and torture ridden reign, more than half a century after WWII, and over a hundred years since we dislodged our Spanish colonizers, and our poor are still where they have always been: at the bottom of the strata and sinking even deeper.
Politicians, including presidents like Joseph Estrada, for example, professed a “maka-pobre” platform yet did zilch for the workers and farm hands and instead devoted his efforts and time, it has been seriously charged, to further enrich himself and his friends. The entire Philippine political structure, it seems, is there to protect the interests of the economic and social elite and to perpetuate and prolong their dominance over all aspects of Philippine society. The laws provide protection for businesses, and the government entities ensure that such protection is vigorously enforced, most often to the detriment of the working class and even the general public.
This dynamic needs to be drastically altered. And it is just not possible to effect any change under our present structure. Entities that are supposed to advocate for the workers and farm hands, such as labor unions, have failed to substantively improve the lot of their constituencies. Legalizing the Communist Party, and giving people like Sison, Jalandoni and Ledesma free reign to spread the doctrine of working class empowerment would, it is hoped, elevate the conversation from the current platitudes verbalized in the political zarzuela to one that fully addresses the true plight of the country’s chronic poor.
Let me assure the reader that I am not a communist and neither are the millions of Filipinos who are sick and tired of the endless political circuses that emerge every couple of years wherein the focus it seems evolves around the glamorous lives of dimpled, meticulously coifed celebrity-candidates. We need a serious conversation to take place and so far we seem to not have been capable of it. Perhaps these resurrected, aging rebels from the 1960’s can inject a sense of seriousness, and yes, urgency, to our country’s plight. And I believe that our citizenry is mature and savvy enough to effectively sieve progressive ideas regardless the source; that we can separate the chaff of destructive Marxism from the true grain of reform.
We can and must unshackle our workers; we can and we must cast off the heavy yoke of oppression that has weighed down and stooped our farm hands; we can and must march on to become a true democracy; we can and must bring to life the Filipino that our great national hero Jose Rizal so fondly and rightly envisioned. And we need all segments to engage in this mission, old communists included. ldq44@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)