Category: ninoy

Anwar & Ninoy

Na-excite ako when I heard that Anwar Ibrahim was coming for a two-day state visit. Knowing that he is a huge fan of Rizal and Ninoy, I wondered if he would dare speak Ninoy’s name in the same breath as Rizal’s, the way he did in 2011 in a U.P. lecture. Read “Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim: Honor Rizal, Ninoy” and Jose Rizal And Ninoy Aquino And Their Impact On ASEAN Leadership.

But of course he didn’t mention Ninoy, now is not a good time, obviously — why offend one’s host nga naman. In Butch Dalisay’s “A Homecoming for Anwar” the Prime Minister’s remarks upon accepting  an honorary U.P. Doctor of Laws degree resonate anyway.

DALISAY. Anwar argued strongly and eloquently for the restoration of justice, compassion, and moral righteousness to ASEAN’s hierarchy of concerns, beyond the usual economic and political considerations. He was particularly critical of ASEAN’s blind adherence to its longstanding policy of non-interference in its members’ internal affairs, noting that “ASEAN should not remain silent in the face of blatant human rights violations” and that “non-interference cannot be a license to disregard the rule of law.”

Extensively quoting Rizal, whom he had studied and lectured often about, Anwar urged his audience to free themselves from the self-doubt engendered by being colonized, while at the same time remaining vigilant against subjugation by their “homegrown masters.” I found myself applauding his speech at many turns, less out of politeness than a realization that I was in the presence of a real thinker and doer whose heart was in the right place. (And Anwar was not without wry humor, remarking that as a student leader visiting UP, “I was under surveillance by both Malaysian and Philippine intelligence. Now I have the Minister of Intelligence with me.”).

Anwar has always reminded me of Ninoy who was jailed for 7 years and 7 months (1972-1980) for being daw a communist but really because he was a threat to Marcos’s dynasty plans.  Anwar too was a popular oppositionist who was persecuted for his political views, with three prison sentences and 11 years in jail to his name for alleged corruption and sodomy just because he was a threat to Malaysia’s powers-that-be.

GUARDIAN. Anwar began his career in politics as Mahathir’s protege in the early 1980s – having already spent almost two years in jail for political protest – and quickly rose through the ranks to become deputy prime minister in 1993. His first downfall came in 1998, when he and Mahathir fell out over alleged cronyism and economic crisis, and Mahathir began to fear Anwar’s vast popularity. Anwar was ousted from office and then found himself charged with sodomy and corruption.

The resulting court case, the longest in Malaysian history, was an exercise in humiliation for Anwar, who was accused of sodomy with his speechwriter and wife’s chauffeur. “I cannot accept a man who is a sodomist to become the leader of this country,” said Mahathir at the time. Even though the evidence was flimsy and much of it coerced, Anwar was found guilty in 1999 of corruption and in 2000 of sodomy, landing him with a cumulative 15-year prison sentence.

He was allowed out in 2004, having spent six years in solitary confinement, and was allowed back into politics in 2008, when he ran as opposition leader in the election. But his reappearance on the political scene was not without ramifications. In 2010, he was put on trial again for sodomy, in hearings that went on for two years. He was acquitted, then ran again as opposition leader in the 2013 elections, gaining more of the votes, but still losing to Najib. But a year after Najib won the election, Anwar’s acquittal was overturned and he was sentenced to five years in jail for sodomy.  [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/16/malaysia-anwar-ibrahim-released-from-prison. “Malaysia: Anwar Ibrahim released from prison”]

But in 2016 Mahathir Mohamad did the unexpected.

The two men … buried the hatchet in 2016, when Dr. Mahathir unexpectedly showed up in court to support his imprisoned former deputy. It was their first friendly meeting since they parted ways nearly two decades before. Two years later, the alliance was formalized as they joined together to defeat scandal-tainted Prime Minister Najib Razak (2009-2018) in the May 2018 general election. [https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/malaysian-prime-minister/. “Malaysia’s political transition: Mahathir to Anwar 2.0”]

The week after elections, on 16 May 2018, Malaysia’s King, Sultan Muhammad V, officially pardoned and released Anwar after meeting with members of the pardons board and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

STRAITS TIMES. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said he would honour an agreement by the four partners of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) alliance to step down after two years and hand over the country’s leadership to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

“I am confident that he is now more mature and much experienced,” Tun Mahathir said at a gathering with Malaysians residing in Brunei at a hotel on Sunday evening (Sept 2). [https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/pm-mahathir-says-he-will-honour-agreement-to-hand-power-to-anwar-after-two-years “PM Mahathir says he will honour agreement to hand power to Anwar after two years”]

November 2022, ending five days of unprecedented post-election crisis after inconclusive polls, the King of Malaysia stepped up and appointed Anwar the new Prime Minister. Poetic justice.

IMAGINE

What if, ikinulong na lang uli ni Marcos si Ninoy? What if, like Mahathir Mohamad, who valued Anwar Ibrahim enough to keep him alive if in jail, eventually to himself pave the way for Anwar’s release and rise to Prime Minister, the 10th of Malaysia…. What if Marcos, too, had cared enough about nation and valued Ninoy enough to keep him alive if in jail, perhaps eventually to himself nobly step aside, make way for the return of democracy and Ninoy’s turn at the presidency (better late than never)?  Alas, Marcos was no Mahathir.

“Congenital liar” ATBP #MartyrNOTMurderer

Sorry natagalan itong pangako kong next post na WHO’S “THE CONGENITAL LIAR”?  I had actually decided to wait until the film is released. Baka naman kako yan mismo ang pinapa-cut out ng Viva Films, yung sinabi ni Marcos nang face-to-face kay Ninoy na “congenital liar” siya, na isinalin into “Napakasinungaling mong tao!”

Ang knee-jerk response ko was, wow! nagsalita ang hindi sinungaling, sabay flash back, running through things Marcos had lied about over some 50 years, of which parang there are too many to mention so I decided ‘wag na lang, too much work tracking down documented sources that I don’t have time for right now. Besides it might be taken to mean I’m agreeing that Ninoy was a liar, too, which I’m not, not at all.

Right now, all I have time for is to note down, for the record, two specific items that Viva is reportedly wanting to cut out, and “congenital liar” is not one of them.

Adobo Chronicles’ star correspondent Jake D. caught up with the controversial director while he was dining at Mang Inasal. It turns out that the scene Viva Films wanted to cut was that of Ferdinand E. Marcos singing “Pamulinawen” to a tickled Imelda Marcos.

Yap told AC that he will not agree to censoring history and reality in any of his films. https://adobochronicles.com/2023/02/10/why-director-darryl-yap-almost-quit-martyr-or-murderer/

Natawa ako because, of course, we boomers are reminded of Dovie Beams and the audio tape that had a man who sounded very much like Marcos singing the same song to her at bedtime. Pero puwede naman na in happier days Marcos did also sing “Pamulinawen” to Imelda, as it is an Ilocano ditty of courtship and love. Puwede naman.

But this other one, Viva has a point. And here’s the director refusing to remove it:

I am about to give up.
If Viva insists on removing this sequence I’ve been fighting for 2 hours;
let them remove me as well.
don’t show it if it’s not included.
Tired. Motherfucker.
I just want to tell a story, there’s evidence,
may source, may basis!
I DON’T WANT A DIRECTOR’S CUT.
MARCH 1 must contain the ONLY CUT.
GOD!
#MoMNOCUTS
https://www.facebook.com/YouthAndPower2016/

And here he is saying why he is fighting the cut:

When I said, MARCOS did not kill AQUINO—
I meant it with certainty, I know it 100%
and if you symphatize with the former Senator, you will realize we are all entitled to know the whole truth; for his supporters’ peace, for the justice we all deserve to feel.
So who really did it?
#MARTYRorMURDERER HOLDS THE ANSWER.
https://www.facebook.com/YouthAndPower2016/

Grabe. He is 100 % sure that Marcos did not kill Ninoy. Ang sarap sana patulan. But for now the better part of valor is to wait, and see kung anong context. Kasi puwede naman talagang sabihin with 100 % certainty na Marcos did not kill Ninoy. I’m sure marami sa atin ang 100 % sure na hindi si Marcos mismo ang bumaril kay Ninoy on the 21st of August 1983. Pero malinaw ang 1984 Agrava Reports, Majority and Minority, that Ninoy was shot on the stairs by one of his military escorts, not on the tarmac by Galman, and that it was a military conspiracy on top of which was Ver who we all know was a Marcos stooge.  Certainly, 100 %, kay Marcos at kay Ver ang command responsibility.

What we might be seeing is a whole new genre, first with Maid in Malacañang, now with Martyr or Murderer:  creative-fiction-based-on-facts-taken-out-of-context, if that’s what it turns out to be.

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”?

Heroism

RANDY DAVID

Heroes are exemplary individuals who embody a community’s highest values and ideals. “Heroes” and “nation” typically go together because a country’s best-known heroes are those whose lives are intertwined with the nation’s emergence, emancipation, and transformation.

Without any doubt, the Filipino people’s two greatest heroes are Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio. Rizal, for offering through his writings and exemplary life a vision of Filipinos as a people capable of attaining the highest achievement within the reach of nations, including that of self-rule. Bonifacio, for organizing and initiating the revolution that eventually freed the country from Spanish colonial rule.

The Filipino nation regularly celebrates their lives and holds them up as models of patriotism, to be emulated by generations of its citizens, particularly the youth. Other communities have their respective heroes, too. The Catholic Church has its martyrs and saints. Revolutionary movements have their ideologues and warriors.

At about this time every year, the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation plucks out of anonymity some four or five Asians, and casts a light upon the heroic work they do to make the world a better place, especially for the poor and neglected sectors of society. Offering innovative solutions to new and existing problems, often in the face of great adversity, these Magsaysay laureates are living heroes in their own way. They serve as models of an alternative life worth living in a materialistic and self-absorbed world.

A hero is thus the closest personification of a value or set of values that a given community desires to preserve, reinforce, and promote. The battle for a nation’s memory is, at bottom, a battle to maintain its core values in a rapidly changing world. There are, however, times when swiftly unfolding events bring out a change in the national mood that contradicts values enshrined in existing state commemorations.

If the theory is right, the resulting cognitive dissonance compels either a revision in action — for example, by abolishing the commemoration of an event, or a change in attitude, such as by offering a different and less dissonant interpretation of what happened.

The 2022 presidential election brought the son and namesake of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos to Malacañang. The meaning of Marcos Jr.’s election by a big majority of Filipino voters seems to clash with everything that Ninoy Aquino Day, commemorated on Aug. 21 every year, seeks to represent. This special nonworking national holiday, instituted in honor of the former senator and martial law detainee, unavoidably recalls that fateful day in 1983 when, coming home from foreign exile, he was shot to death at the airport while under military escort.

As I argued in last week’s column, Ninoy Aquino’s assassination triggered a national outrage that eventually brought down the Marcos Sr. dictatorship. His martyrdom to the cause of democracy was immediately recognized and was undisputed in the years that followed. The people’s memory and appreciation of his heroism remained stable even after nearly three decades, when his son Noynoy was elected president.

It is remarkable that in a 2011 Social Weather Stations opinion poll on the personalities that Filipinos regard as genuine Filipino heroes, Ninoy ranked No. 3 — after Rizal and Bonifacio. (Thanks to Mahar Mangahas for bringing this out in his column the other day.) Together with Cory Aquino at No. 4, Apolinario Mabini at No. 5, and Emilio Aguinaldo at No. 6 — these names were the only ones that received double-digit percentage mentions. One wonders how the Aquinos would fare if the same poll were conducted today.

What is certain is that President Marcos Jr.’s administration has not seen it fit to remove Feb. 25 (the people power revolution) and Aug. 21 (Ninoy Aquino Day) from the list of official national commemorations. Neither has the administration signified any support for one lawmaker’s proposal to rename the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. It’s not hard to understand this. Not only will doing so appear vindictive, it also directly challenges the Filipino public’s sense of values.

This, however, does not mean that attempts to rewrite history to make it conform with the current political configuration is about to come to an end. As the film “Maid in Malacañang” indicates, the drift of current efforts appears to be toward a reinterpretation of the past in order to paint the Marcoses less as whimsical wielders of power and more as ordinary people with little control over events, and their political enemies less as the self-sacrificing heroes they are held out to be, but more as vicious and opportunistic power players.

Like everything in society, values change. Therefore, our conception of heroism and who our real heroes are is also bound to change. In 1981, writes historian Alfred W. McCoy, Marcos Sr. requested Pope John Paul II to ride a helicopter to bless the giant steel cross atop Mt. Samat in Bataan. By doing so, the visiting pope made Mt. Samat a shrine, “and by analogy honored Marcos as a hero, just as he would soon beatify (Lorenzo) Ruiz as a martyr.”

But only two years later, McCoy continues, Ninoy Aquino came home “to die a martyr before military executioners, stealing the Rizal-like heroism that Marcos so assiduously cultivated and subverting the ideological foundations of his authoritarian regime.”