Mga Kuwentong Marites  #NinoyImelda #NinoyFerdinand

Umiikot ngayon sa tiktok ang isang video na pinost ng isang empanadaeditx tungkol sa “one of the most controversial chismis of the history” (sic) that the upcoming Darryl Yap film, Martyr or Murderer, “might tackle” daw.

Might pa lang? Kung sabagay, medyo sablay ang tsismis:

i  That back in the 1950s Ninoy was courting Imelda who “wasn’t wealthy or powerful” and Ninoy’s family disapproved of the relationship “in favor of Cory Aquino” and so he turned his eye to Cory, whose father was “a wealthy politician and businessman of Tarlac”.

ii  That “As Ferdinand and Ninoy became friends before, as they went (sic) in the same fraternity, Ferdinand actually helped Ninoy get heart surgery, with Imelda’s help.”

ANG TOTOO

NINOY & IMELDA were dating for a while but not exclusively. They were both playing the field.  That Ninoy later started dating Cory exclusively was not because his family disapproved of Imelda but because he fell in love with Cory who was, among other things, a math major, minor in French. As for Imelda the beauty queen, the story is that she was actually in love with a certain Nakpil when Ferdinand swept her off her feet in that whirlwind courtship of 11 days. (Read Nick Joaquin’s book on the Aquinos, and Betsy Romualdez Francia’s on Imelda.)

ANG TOTOO

NINOY & MARCOS were never friends in the true sense of the word. They were both Upsilonians but Marcos was batch 1937 and Ninoy batch 1950; hindi sila nag-abot sa U.P.  Sabi ni Kiko Pangilinan sa Twitter: “Pareho naming silang brods kahit na magkasalungat ang kanilang pulitika.” Marcos considered Ninoy his political nemesis, a threat to his dream of dynasty and reigning forever and ever. Kaya niya ito ikinulong. And when Ninoy urgently needed heart surgery, he didn’t agree to let Ninoy fly to Texas out of friendship or generosity but out of political expediency.

SANDRA BURTON. Although Marcos was reluctant to let Aquino leave the country, Imelda was quick to see the advantage of the proposal. “If he is operated on here and he dies, everyone will think there was monkey business,” she remarked. On the other hand, if he were flown to the U.S., the Marcoses could wash their hands of the troublesome prisoner. She won the argument, as she often did. [Impossible Dream page 107]

LUMANG TUGTUGIN. Dati nang ipinipilit ng Marcos propagandists na, dahil magkaibigan ang dalawa, imposibleng may kinalaman si Marcos sa pagpatay kay Ninoy. Sinabi pa nga daw ni Marcos sa kanyang generals na “my best successor is Ninoy.” But it was only a statement of fact (meant to agitate the generals into a conspiracy, I imagine), and not a statement of intent. Ang totoo, matagal na niyang naipangako ang puwesto kay Imelda.

RAYMOND BONNER. On June 7, 1975, in his own tiny scrawl, Marcos wrote out Presidential Decree Number 731. “By virtue of the powers vested in me . . . , I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, hereby decree” that “in the event of my death or permanent incapacity,” a commission shall exercise power. And the chairman of the commission, he also decreed, shall be “Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos.” [Waltzing with a Dictator, 156. See also Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the World’s Most Powerful Women by Carmen Navarro Pedrosa]

NEXT: WHO’S THE “CONGENITAL LIAR”?

‘Ubuntu’ and the Ateneo debaters’ historic win

Here’s hoping that Ateneo shares video and transcripts of the debate.  Let the conversation continue.  #darksideofUbuntu

RANDY DAVID

… The victory of Ateneo de Manila University’s debaters in the World Universities Debating Championship 2023 on Jan. 3 in Madrid, Spain, may be regarded as the present-day equivalent of the achievements that Rizal lavishly praised among his contemporaries. He would have been the first to recognize the significance of this feat.

Like anyone who marvels at the force of a good argument and tries to understand how it works, I, too, wanted to know how the team of Ateneo students David Africa and Tobi Leung formulated their argument. Here I quote from an online report: “The Ateneo team debated against the proposition that it is preferable to have a ‘world where all persons have a strong belief in the philosophy of Ubuntu.’”

“Ubuntu”—I had heard that word before. Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa first popularized it in his explanation of the objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which he headed in post-apartheid South Africa. Ubuntu must inspire the commission, he said, as it pursues its difficult and complex work. A person with Ubuntu, he wrote in his book “No Future Without Forgiveness,” is “open and available to others, affirming of others.” Ubuntu makes him/her aware they are part of a greater whole.

Yet when I googled the word, the first entry that appeared referred to the open-source Linux operating system, which allows and promotes the free exchange of software. Ubuntu was indeed the name given to the free Linux operating system found in computers that refuse to bow to the commercialization of software exemplified by Microsoft and Apple. It was a subtle dig at the privileging of private profits over the larger needs of the community.

Clearly, the meanings associated with “Ubuntu” were all positive. Therefore, to argue against Ubuntu philosophy would be like arguing against the primacy of community or humanity, or God Himself. Coming from a school that prides itself in the formation of “men for others,” the Ateneo debaters could not have picked a side more opposed to the core Christian values in which they were bred.

But like the eloquent debaters they obviously are, Africa and Leung took up the challenge, and prevailed, by highlighting the dark and dangerous side of Ubuntu. This dark side is seen in the widespread tendency to justify tyranny in the name of some abstract community good.

Here is the news report of how the Ateneo team argued its position: “‘These obligations manifest badly … They always will,’ Africa said in his argument. He cited the difficulty of speaking up against the status quo, of people having less time to explore their own identity, and possible escalation of conflict.”

Leung chimed in with a more emphatic depiction of Ubuntu’s dark twin: “Community is a shackle that alienates you from your very sense of self, discourages you from discovering your own preference, and emboldens the worst forms of tyranny.” He was named the second-best speaker in the tournament.

Ubuntu is not exclusively an African value; it is also at the heart of the communitarian ideology behind the so-called “Asian values.” It is what Singapore’s leaders, for example, assert when, in the name of strategic national goals, they must counter their citizens’ growing clamor for greater individual liberties, for individualism can be equally pernicious.

Indeed, in the modern world, it has often become a warrant to allow the untrammeled rapaciousness of the market. Perhaps, the French philosopher Michel Foucault said it best. In his preface to the anti-fascist manifesto “Anti-Oedipus,” he wrote: “Do not demand of politics that it restore the ‘rights’ of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to ‘de-individualize’ by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations.”

Instead of the sheer quest for individual liberties, what is most needed in today’s world is the kind of freedom that encourages openness to the diverse affiliations that our common humanity offers.