Category: advocacy

environment & revolution

if junie kalaw were alive he’d be saying i-told-you-so, just like odette alcantara.   junie and odette were our leading environmentalists, pioneers, who didn’t live to see the great floods wrought by ondoy & pepeng [and some dam(ned) officials] but who warned us often enough since the 1980s that this would happen one day unless we changed, radically transformed, our politics and lifestyles.

i never got to meet odette but junie i knew very well.   youngest son of maximo m. kalaw, the author, educator, and fierce advocate of philippine independence from the united states in the early 1900s.   met junie in ’84 through jorge arago and it was as researcher and managing editor of his journal Alternative Futures that i learned all about the sad state of our environment, thanks to bad government policies.

in ’97 anvil came out with junie’s book Exploring Soul & Society, a compilation of papers on sustainable development published and presented in different publications and fora here and abroad from1986 to 1995.   the first part, Environment & Revolution, opens with a call to empower ourselves a la EDSA.

finally the time has come.   john nery is correct,  the political dynamic has changed, the environment is an agenda waiting for a president.

A LETTER TO FUTURE FILIPINOS

by Maximo ‘Junie’ Kalaw

Our story began more than 14 billion years ago with a burst of cosmic fire and the evolution of our solar system. Ten billion years later, life forms were spawned on our planet, followed by the emergence of human consciousness, which formed and informed different cultures.

Early myths speak of a Being who created us, our land, forests, rivers, mountains, oceans, and all living creatures. This Being — known as Apo to the Lumads of Mindanao, Kabunian to the Kalingas of the Cordilleras, and Bathala to the Negritos of Central Luzon — imbued all creation with a sacred potential.

Beginning in the 16th century, however, waves of colonialism washed over our island archipelago. The Spaniards, then the Americans, then the Japanese brought with a different source of power and revelation about the nature of life. The Divine was driven up to the heavens and life hereafter. Nature was viewed as a mere resource for making mechanistic and utopian dreams come true, legimitizing conquest, exploitation, and two world wars.

Five centuries later we find ourselves at a critical moment in our history. Our survival as a people is imperiled by the destruction of our tropical rain forest, the erosion of our topsoil, and the killing of our coral reefs. We are shutting down, ierreversibly and at an alarming rate, the very systerms that support life.

Yet our population continues to increase, even as more than half of us live on incomes inadequate to feed an average-sice family. Because every one of us owes foreign creditors over Php 3,000, we sell what remains of our precious natural resources at undervalued prices and allocate more than 43 % of our foreign exchange to servicing foreign loans. If present conditions continue, the sustainability of our society is doubtful.

We cling, however, to the belief that grave crisis is a correspondingly great opportunity for change. This crisis is pushing us to take a different view of ourselves, our Inang Bayan, our planetary home, and the process we call development.

It is an opportunity to recover our cultural identity and affirm the values of our indigenous peoples; to create with them an alternate way of caring for the life that flows through all beings; to translate this vision into new forms of villages, farms and factories, transportation and communication; and to live a sustainable spirituality which translates the teachings of great spiritual traditions into norms and ethics that can guide the realities of large wholes and systems.

It is an opportunity to empower ourselves anew, as we did at the EDSA revolution, by participating in decisions that affect our future. We need to create a completely different chapter in our story as a people and as a species where the predominant ethics of our actions will be based on the authority of Nature and our interconnectedness with her, thus empowering us to transform state, party, and church bureaucracy.

It means the exercise of a different kind of politicalwill, that is, a new politics of facilitating the flow of life/resources rather than accumulating it as political bounty. It means the exercise of true service in the noble enterprise of creating a Filipino community within the sacred community of life on earth.

On our ability to transform ourselves rests your future.

Time Magazine, December 1990

stop sulpicio?

the exchange in the comments section of manolo‘s post supporting the blogswarm “stop sulpicio lines” is worth sharing – an edited version, of course, highlighting why the stopping of sulpicio is problematic.

banat ni djb rizalist (bully for him ;)

Considering the volume of cargo and passenger traffic that Sulpicio Lines handles, it is inconceivablethat their operations would be entirely taken out…that would cause a major economic dislocation, not to say suffering on the part of many impoverished families and big and small businesses.

Could the upshot (of) a successful campaign against Sulpicio then merely result in the government taking it over, as GMA has hinted? Would that not conceivably result in some even bigger tragedy, considering that the typhoon season has barely begun? I’m mad at Sulpicio Lines too, but what exactly are we asking for here?”

susog ni bencard:

given that sulpicio is the ONLY major shipping line in the philippines providing relatively cheap transportation to and from each major island of the country, how could you afford to stop its operations instantaneously, even if you could legally? do you think “accidents” would not occur under someone else’s control, including the government’s? meanwhile, should life for all the people and families depending on the company be put on hold while a suitable replacement is being determined?”

agree si dominique:

More than punitive measures we need remedial measures to address the shipping industry, in terms of safety, competition, and cost.

suggest ni cvj:

Since the government needs funds, taking over Sulpicio so that its earnings from operations can fund the improvement of the shipping industry, instead of further enriching the Go Family, should be looked into. Perhaps it can temporarily be attached to the Philippine navy, which also need ships.

agree si leytenian:

This tragedy is not only domestic. The history and bad reputation of this company will actually scare foreign capital and hurt our credibility even further. Let’s do what’s right for the country and for the majority. (Under the government) the students and seniors will enjoy a discounted rates, at the same time small businesses can be subsidized thru discounted shipping of goods. The government can hire more employees…

unimpressed si kg:

government takeover? yeah winston garcia should do it but with the same fleet? rejects junk and retirable vessels, what can a government takeover do. are we back to the question of nationalization and denationalization.

say ni bencard:

cvj, while the navy may have the knowhow to sail a ship for sea battle, i don’t know if it has the expertise to operate a shipping line to transport passengers and cargo. it sounds “simple, really” but i think there’s more to sailing a commercial ship than just keeping it afloat and reaching its destination. so you guys think the government can handle it better, huh? can you name one government-run common carrier that operates efficiently and prosperously? are you familiar with the manila railroad co. and what happened to it after the politicians took over?

balik ni cvj:

The logic of resorting to privatization because we fear the incompetence of government has reached its limit in the case of Sulpicio. We have seen how market forces and private competition are useless against the negligence of an oligopoly. In any Society, government is the last resort to handle these kinds of failures, so at some point,we have to tackle the problem of government incompetence head on. Failing to rejuvenate government would leave us at the point where the public has no choice but to tolerate the practices of Oligarchs like the Go family.

sa ganang akin cvj and leytenian have a point, but it aint gonna happen – there’s simply no rejuvenating government overnight; maybe in 2010 ;)

samantala it doesn’t have to mean we’re tolerating the practices of oligarchs like the go family. not if sulpicio is allowed to resume operations only under certain conditions:

1. ititigil nito ang paghahabla sa pagasa at ang pagbintang kay god. sa halip ay aaminin, aakuin, ang major responsibility for the disaster, magpa-public apology, and magpa-promise to indemnify both survivors and victims’ families in appropriate amounts, the records to be open to public scrutiny

2. upang ma-break ang pattern of disasters na associated na with “sulpicio lines,” the owners will change the name of the shipping line and the ships – enough already with the donyas and prinsesas – again in the full glare of the public eye, sabay upgrade its safety standards, thus signalling a rebirth, a new beginning, and hopefully better karma all around for a change.

there ought to be a law

senator ping lacson said on tina monzon palma’s talkback that he didn’t think there was anything wrong with doing a TV commercial selling a facial lotion for men because there is no law forbidding it.

i suppose, correct me if i’m wrong, there is no such law in the u.s. either, which might explain why we copycats don’t have one?

yet i’m sure no u.s. senator or representative or governor or mayor endorses commercial products (even if there is no law forbidding it) simply because the american public – which holds elected officials to the promise of public service, nothing more, nothing less, and who are a lot more sophisticated than we are about tv commercials – would raise a terrible howl and question his/her integrity and credibility to kingdom come. s/he’d be the butt of jokes – tagged a sell-out – from jay leno to whoopie et al, and would never hear the end of it, unless/until the tv commercial is made to go away.

pero dito sa atin, inaakalang okey lang itong pag-e-endorse ng government officials ng commercial products. anong masama kung kumita sila ng extra, maliit daw ang suweldo ng senador. the attitude is, basta he or she is (perceived to be) doing a good job as a public servant, okay lang to do movies, tv commercials, whatever he or she wants to do on the side, just like any enterprising citizen.

excuse me, but this is precisely why we get the kind of government officials we do, for whom public service is a parttime job, who say one thing and do another, and who do not have the brains or the chutzpah to get the country out of the economic pits but instead have only a lot of the same old same old faith na hindi tayo pababayaan ng diyos. meanwhile, they make hay while the sun shines, sell soap and skin whitener and facial lotion and fabric softener and herbal supplement and cheap instant noodles, que cheap!

a lot of credibility is lost when a senator peddles a branded product whose advantages over other brands is questionable because it’s just a lot of hype, as all advertising is. a lot of credibility is lost when a senator makes movies to entertain the masses when s/he should be working for higher national interests such as food security, quality education, and a host of other concerns.

and it is certainly not in the national interest to encourage crass materialism and consumerist values, raising needs essential and non-essential that are beyond gratifiying for the masses of ill-fed poor who watch tv in this third world country.

what will it achieve

i take it as an auspicious sign that the first response to HUWAG IBOTO was a “second the motion without any reservation!” thanks, anna de brux :)

but being contradicted is cool, too, and arbet bernardo‘s quick riposte, “kesa naman kay Miriam o Enrile.= P” made me laugh, oo rin nga!

and then i heard dzmm teleradyo listeners weighing in on the matter, and the winning argument was, “may karapatan ang mga senador to do what they want, sila rin merong freedom of speech!” lol.

say pa ng isa, si vilma santos nga, nagbebenta ng sabong panglaba, pero okey lang sa mga taga-batangas, magaling naman siyang labandera, ehek, gobernadora.

mercifully the next reaction was manolo quezon‘s, which gently reminds me that a boycott of those senators and vice-president will achieve nothing of consequence.

…if stuart-santiago says, don’t vote for politicians who do product endorsements, what will it achieve? It will validate the assumptions of the politicians when they undertook those endorsements. They won’t lose or win on the basis of a boycott on the basis of their endorsements. And those who do win despite such a boycott will only serve to entrench the practice. An advocacy of a boycott would only be effective if done -now, prior to elections- by boycotting the products they endorse. A mass-based approach to an issue raised and ventilated (and most effectively wielded) by the middle and upper classes is self-defeating. It’s not that it’s the wrong fight -just the wrong target, considering those expected to do the fighting.”

true. for now we would be a tiny tiny minority at best whose boycott of these politicians would hardly make a dent in the final count. but i have this romantic notion that the impossible, like EDSA, is possible. that one day, a tipping point might be reached and, as in Jose Saramago’s Seeing, the government will hold electionsbut nobody will come until late afternoon, and only to cast blank ballots.

hope springs eternal.