A Little Act of Terror on the First Sunday of Advent

Somebody threw a firecracker at me last night. Yes, a firecracker.

The firecracker blew up close to my abdominal area. I was a bit hurt by the little explosion, but it didn’t leave any noticeable mark on my skin (I guess my growing belly is thick enough). It did leave a conspicuous piece of evidence, though, by tearing the lower part of the shirt I was wearing last night. It was a relatively costly shirt I bought just more than a month ago when my laundry was piling up in the dormitory. The firecracker also almost tore my favorite slim fit jeans.

The incident, which had been boggling me the whole night, happened at around 9:30 pm while I was inside a jeepney coming from SM North EDSA on its way to the UP Campus (I was seated in front of the public utility vehicle and was close to the driver’s seat). It happened along the street connecting Quezon Avenue to the East Avenue—a route where one quite normally sees the pavements crowded by informal settlers, street kids, and more likely, street gangs. Incidentally, it happened in a quite familiar location in what is touted as the richest city in Metro-Manila.

I had been passing by that route in the past few weeks and it was relatively safe until last night. When that little act of terror happened, I was a bit taken aback. That I could actually be a victim of a firecracker was farthest from my mind on the first Sunday of Advent. While I initially felt disgust towards whoever did such an irresponsible act (I suspect it was committed by one of the street kids or a member of a teen gang), I couldn’t get myself to be so furious to the extent of getting off the jeeney, confronting the group of kids along the street, and reporting the incident to the nearest barangay (village) hall.  Besides, I was also afraid something worse might happen to me if I did all that in a zone where I would be treated as the intruder and never as the victim.

When I sniffed the burnt smell on my shirt and felt the hole on it, I began to imagine the worst that could have happened.  The firecracker could have exploded on my face, but thank God, it didn’t. It could have bruised me, but it only burned and tore my more-than-a-month old maroon polo shirt. It could have been a bomb—which is not impossible given the tense political environment in this country—but it was just a firecracker.

And then my mind swirled and twirled and whirled a bit more.

That could not have happened had I stayed put in the dormitory working on and analyzing my texts on a Sunday afternoon. Or I could have been spared from the incident had I opted to take a cab to the campus and paid ten times the jeeney fare (which is ten Philippine pesos). Or the kids or teens wouldn’t have inflicted that little act of terror on a commuter like me if an Efren Penaflorida or a CNN Hero of the Year were in that community keeping the kids busy with books in a pushcart library. Or they wouldn’t even have bothered playing with firecrackers and inflicting discomfort on passersby had there been a Manny Pacquiao boxing event scheduled at that time. Or they wouldn’t be cramping that part of the city had the local and national executives been busy doing their jobs rather than politicking. Or there wouldn’t have been informal settlers and urban poor causing pedestrians and commuters discomfort had the wealth of this country been equitably distributed!

Or, …I think I have digressed too much.

I guess when the Christmas season is fast approaching, such untoward incidents happen more often.  In a country ravaged by poverty and usual elitist indifference, the poor, I suppose, don’t seem to have much of a choice but to inflict little acts of terror in order to rivet attention from those who they perceive to be in more comfortable stations in life. Unfortunately, their victims, more often than not, are those that aren’t that well off—ordinary people who also struggle in the big city.  Because those who are really comfortable are usually shielded from those little acts of terror in their fancy cars, and perhaps, at this time, are just too busy prettifying their swanky houses with glittering Christmas lights.

(5:38 am, Room 4, Bonifacio Hall Dormitory, UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations)

On gay marriage and the parliamentary struggle

The fear that an LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) group in the party list system would usher in the erosion of the Filipino family is unfounded.

Of course, the fear emanates from the fact that some sectors of the LGBT community are advocating gay marriage, a position which allegedly poses a potential “threat” to existing legal and constitutional provisions on “the Filipino family.”  (Ang Ladlad, the party list group recently denied recognition by the Commission on Elections, has, in earlier reports, however, clarified that gay marriage is not among its agenda.)

It should be made clear to the public that an LGBT party list group in congress doesn’t necessarily mean a vote for gay marriages. The issue of gay marriage, after all, does not and should not define an LGBT representation in a hall of democracy.

On the one hand, there are other (in fact, more pronounced) forms of discrimination against gay persons in various spheres of public life (work place, school, government offices, etc.) that need to be addressed by such a representation. On the other hand, there is still (a healthy) debate going on among gay circles on the issue of gay marriage. In other words, not all gay people are advocating gay marriage.

I for one am not convinced with the idea of gay marriages.

I do not believe marriage is the only legitimate place or “the holy ground” for the expression of love including consensual, responsible, and yes, passionate, genital expression. To embrace the idea of marriage as the only legitimate ground for such human expression is to submit and be complicit to the heterosexist invention that human love is circumscribed. I don’t think there is anything liberating about that.

What is liberating to me is when respect and recognition are accorded to partnerships that do not necessarily fit within the heterosexist definition of marriage.  Respecting these partnerships would mean not using them as bases for discriminating people when applying for employment or for admission to schools or for promotions in the work setting. Recognizing these partnerships would mean an end to their construction in media and public spaces as objects of spectacle—as curious cases of human intimacy (what is so curious about two people loving each other?) and as targets of ridicule.

Such respect for and recognition of the diversity in human-to-human relationships can only be achieved, though, within a context that is devoid of feudalistic, unequal power relations, which ultimately sustain the hegemony of heterosexism in Philippine society in particular and in human societies at large.

In other words, there are bigger social problems that are beyond the immediate concerns of gay people but that a gay representation in Congress should pursue and address. These social problems (e.g., militarization in the countryside) may appear to be remotely related to what is purported as the “gay cause” (e.g., an end to discrimination), but whose resolution remain significant to the gay cause and other liberatory causes nonetheless. They are problems within which the experiences of Filipino gay people and other minority groups are deeply implicated.

Addressing these social problems through parliamentary struggle and through representation in the Philippine hall of democracy should therefore not be denied of gay people and other minority groups. 

 

"Half-full" and some musings on an early Friday morning

(Written at 1:38 am at Room 4, Bonifacio Hall Dormitory, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, UP Diliman Campus)

It’s 1:38 in the morning and I can’t get myself to sleep.  There are a lot of things going on in my head; chief of them is how to get a chapter on what to me is a rather unexciting period of recent Philippine presidential history over and done with.

Yesterday, I was supposed to resume academic work after a brief vacation in my hometown in Albay. But it was gloomy the whole day in this side of the world, and so was the progress of my writing.

There were a few bright spots though.

 First, I was able to successfully send via facsimile to my home department at NUS a completed form of the renewal of my research scholarship for another year—my last year—an ‘endowment’ without which I would have difficulty surviving in a very expensive city-state.

Second, I was able to procure back issues of the journal called Public Policy, some of whose articles I need to have some sort of an academic handle of the Philippine socio-political context of the last twenty years.

Not to be forgotten was my meeting with Jas—a former student, an aspiring pedagogue, and most likely, a future colleague—who gave me a glimpse into another interesting version of life after getting a UP diploma and who, I’m very glad to know, has shown great interest in education work and how its complexities can be viewed using a disciplined lens. She is now doing her MA in Language Education in the Diliman campus.

Another interesting moment was getting myself (and Jas) suddenly interested in what the ‘museum’ in the Museum Café, located in the (literal) margins of Diliman’s Vargas Museum and the Filipiniana Research Center, has to offer.

Incidentally that afternoon, after sipping hot lemon tea and taking several measured bites of some fancy slice of cake with Jas at the somewhat funky Museum Café, there was the opening of an exhibit of art works featuring youtube star Juana Change in various modes of undress. Her curvaceous, voluptuous body on canvas and in photos tells me that I was right when I foisted sometime ago that “flab is fabulous.”

Body beautiful doesn’t always mean Slimmer’s World or Vicky Belo. (If you are in Quezon City, do visit the exhibit at the Vargas Museum in the UP campus. It is a testament to what art can do in tweaking, if not recreating, reality to the advantage of those deliberately disadvantaged by big business and consumerism. Art thumps advertising this time.)

The icing on the cake offered by that visual feast of an opening exhibit was getting to hobnob with the delight of the (contemporary) Philippine art world. There, Jas and I came face to face, side by side, with a section of the Who’s Who of Philippine Art (thirty six artists were there according to Juana) – a crowd with whom Mr. Carlo J. Caparas, Malacanang’s or Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s National Artist for Visual Arts and Film, would probably detest hobnobbing.

But perhaps, the highlight of my Thursday was reading Conrado de Quiros’s rather optimistic take on the world economic slump—which has incidentally taken its toll even on scholarship grant packages offered to so-called foreign talents by “posh” global universities. How he capped his article captures the kind of optimism he projects in his usually captivating prose imbued with his characteristic criticality: “Maybe in this hour of want, we may discover abundance.” 

Such point is made resonant by an earlier passage in the piece: “On a still broader plane, I am glad the slump has happened because it forces us to wonder about the things that matter in life. It’s not just a question of settling for less, or even doing more with less, it’s also a question of doing better with other things. If the slump makes us a little less material girls and boys, if it makes us a little more spiritual travelers or seekers, then it’s worth its weight in, well, gold” (“There’s the Rub,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5 November 2009).

For some of us whose life stations are too remote from enjoying the guilty pleasures of the rich, the slump is nothing new. It’s same same.  In one of our conversations some time ago, when the world was just starting to come to terms with the reality of an economic slowdown, a friend said that the “crisis” shouldn’t be a problem for the majority of the Filipinos who have known poverty all their lives. She adds, “The Philippines has been in an economic crisis for centuries; what else is new?”

Arguably, the slowdown only poses to be a major problem to those who aspire for or are used to the media-constructed “good life.” And I will have to agree with Mr. de Quiros that the crisis should give the affluent—and even those of us who do not belong to the affluent category but more often than not get deluded by media constructions—time to reflect on “what matters in life.”

But it’s not actually the critical optimism in Mr. de Quiros’s article that struck me the most. It is the portion on developing a sense of wonder and on being a spiritual seeker or traveler that did. And these are apparently recurring themes in his essays with or without an economic crisis at hand.

My 12-hour day trip by bus from Legaspi to Cubao on Wednesday actually rekindled that sense of wonder and I would like to thank Mr. de Quiros for helping me articulate what I had felt throughout the journey.

On my way to the Philippine’s capital region last Wednesday, I realized things haven’t really changed significantly in the regions south of Metro Manila since I left the country to study in a foreign land. No, things haven’t really changed significantly since I started traveling fifteen years ago from Legaspi to the Southern Tagalog region to study communication arts in UP Los Banos.

In the countryside—which easily dwarfs in proportion the business districts of any major city in the Philippines, you still see public school children in worn out uniforms and tired slippers earnestly braving long distances of stony, dusty sidewalks just to be able to get to school, and then you wonder how many of them would enter universities and read the kind of books you are excited to devour at your own pace and during your precious “study time.”

In the countryside, you still see public school buildings ingloriously painted with the names of some self-indulgent local politicians or of a national leader, who, in asserting her legitimacy, makes sure no stone is left unturned, and you wonder whether the many books and articles providing incisive critiques of the personalistic and patronage oriented character of Philippine politics ever get to seep through the Filipino public mind.

In the countryside, you constantly see parents of these school children carrying heavy loads of produce from the farms they till, and you wonder whether topnotch research from the best schools in the country has ever made the lives of these farmers better or lighter.

Still astonished by what one discovers when looking through the glass windows of an air-conditioned provincial bus, I have begun to wonder on the relevance of my research agenda. It is an unwelcome thought especially at this time when I could actually visualize a homestretch in a year’s time. But it is a thought worth pondering nonetheless.

(At this point, I couldn’t get off my mind a question purportedly posed by a student to Dr. Ruanni Tupas when he was still teaching in UP Diliman, “Will Critical Discourse Analysis feed the poor?” Hell, I don’t even know how to deal with that question squarely at this point!)

I don’t know if deluding myself into thinking that I am “ahead of my time” would work this time.  (With candor, I am inclined to think that a “sophisticated” reading of Philippine presidential discourse—in English—is something that would be better appreciated in a more developed Philippine context.)

I am inclined, though, to accommodate the unwelcome thought, that source of disturbance, for a while, if only to keep reminding myself that it will take more than my modest scholarship to create even a minor dent in the Philippine countryside.

 ***

Warsaw, Frederick Chopin, and the intrusive, 'exotic' gaze

A day-long tour around the city of Warsaw after the 3-day International Conference on Political Linguistics in Lodz in September 2009.

UP FILM CIRCLE - TO ALL FC MEMBERS AND ALUMNI SEND ME A PICTURE AND THE INFO

http://upfilmcircle.multiply.com/journal/item/9/TO_ALL_FC_MEMBERS_AND_ALUMNI_SEND_ME_A_PICTURE_AND_THE_INFO
A request from UPFC Alumna NIna Rita Simon

Noynoy Aquino for President in 2010 Philippine Election - The Petition Site

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/noynoy-aquino-for-president-in-2010-philippine-election
I just signed this petition for Noynoy Aquino for President in the 2010 Philippine Election. You might want to consider signing.

Hairloom, Caramel, and Kampong Glam

Sunday brunch with ComArts friends Cecille Gonzales and Charlet Quitoriano at the cozy Hairloom and Caramel; tour at the fabulous Hadji Avenue and Kampong Glam; Church attendance at the more than 200-year old St. Joseph Parish Church along Victoria Road; walk at Orchard Road.

‘The best story we’ve ever covered’ - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090821-221316/The-best-story-weve-ever-covered
Foreign journalists' perspective of "the Philippines' finest hour"

Celebrate what Cory truly represents - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20090809-219363/Celebrate-what-Cory-truly-represents
Emmanuel M. Hizon, a debt and public finance campaigner of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, provides a critical appreciation of President Cory Aquino as a symbol of democracy. In his article, he writes:

"...while the nation grieves for Aquino’s passing, let us remember and mourn the countless and nameless people who have been wronged, oppressed and in so many ways deprived because of decades of systemic neglect and elite rule which Aquino’s administration was a part of.

"Justice must be served and the privileged ones, the ruling class, must be held accountable even if it means revisiting old unhealed wounds and/or sullying reputations."

The Candid Cory (Final part of the May 19, 1997 interview)

This is the final part of the transcript of the interview with President Cory Aquino on 19 May 1997. In the transcript I note two instances of the former President laughing. I don’t exactly remember how she laughed (the interview was conducted more than twelve years ago), but if there is one thing that these instances show, it is that beyond the apotheosizing, the woman Filipinos and the world came to know as Cory was just as human as any one of us:

[...]

Gene:  You mentioned about (sic) Teddy Locsin. How much should a political leader make use of speechwriters?

 

Ms. Aquino: Oh yeah, you have to.  When you are president, you don’t have the time to be doing the speeches yourself.

            The only speeches that I would do [were those] in the political rallies where it would be, more or less, extemporaneous. Like – I could not see if you’re old enough to remember – after the 1989 coup attempt, very serious coup attempt in December. I could not remember…Siguro mga 2 or 3 days after we defeated them here in Makati.  The EDSA shrine was going to be inaugurated and I was there and that was the time I called [name of politician] a langaw (laughter*). That was me (laughter). In fact, nobody knew what I was going to say. Normally I try not to make so many appointments especially on the day that I’m going to give an important speech especially in a political rally because you cannot be reading anything when you’re addressing a huge crowd. So I really have to be myself and think carefully of what to say and what I hope will create an impact.

 

Gene: How do you “commune” with Teddy Locsin so that your ideas will be translated through your speeches?

 

Ms. Aquino: At first, I call him and tell him exactly what it is that I want to project. Like in my last speech, which was for the Fulbright Award for International Understanding, I told him that I would like to mention Nelson Mandela because I admire him so much.  Then, I told him also what it was that I’ve done in the past [that] I hope to share with others. Normally, I include a personal experience or personal anecdote because it is then my experience that…people want to be told stories.

 

Gene: One last question: in a nutshell, who is Corazon C. Aquino?

 

Ms. Aquino: I want to be remembered as a sincere person: that whatever I say I truly mean. My work [as president and leader] was a continuation of [that of] Ninoy’s.

            The Corazon C. Aquino now is a person who serves first and foremost, God; second, the Filipino people; and third, herself.

 

*In the transcript of the interview appended in the thesis, I used the term ‘laugh’ instead of ‘laughter.’ I think I used it as a noun (*cringing*). It is an error that I cannot alter in the copies I sent to the university main library, the department library, my adviser, my critic, and to President Aquino. Well, that is the problem with the printed word. It immortalizes error.

First part of the interview with President Corazon Aquino on 19 May 1997

This is the first part of the transcription of my interview with President Corazon Aquino on 19 May 1997 in her office in Makati City. I was 19 and came all the way from Los Baños to conduct the interview. I was undeniably starstruck and was just so awed by what she was telling me. In fact, I was too starstruck that at times, I could not get some of my questions right. During the interview, I kept referring to the interview schedule I sent her in February of the same year. I didn’t want to commit mistakes before President Aquino.

During our meeting, she gave me copies of three of her speeches: the speech she delivered when she accepted the J. William Fulbright Prize in 1996, her lecture at the University of Oregon on 24 April 1997, and a speech titled “Martyrdom and Redemption on the Filipino Highway to Peace” delivered at the International Prayer Congress for Peace in Florence, Italy on 22 October 1995.  The first two speeches are notably printed on yellow colored paper while the last is published in a booklet titled “Corazon C. Aquino: A Week in Italy” by the Friends of Sant’Egidio Community. The last two served as focal texts of two sections of my rhetorical criticism of President Aquino’s speeches. I have kept them all these years in one of the boxes of my "college memorabilia" back home. I consider them treasures especially because they were given to me by a national treasure herself.

 

Gene S. Navera:  The purpose of this interview is to know your perspective (of leadership) and how this perspective is translated through your speeches. First, I would like to know your concept of leadership.

 

Ms. Aquino:  In fact I can just show you this (showing a copy of her speech at the University of Oregon in April 1997). I must tell you that when you sent me these questions (referring to the interview schedule), it gave me ideas on my speech at the University of Oregon.  They told me that I could talk about anything that I wanted but I felt it would be good to talk about leadership getting the idea from you.  Anyway…can I just give you this so that it would be easy for you?

            It says, “Allow me to summarize my thoughts on leadership.  For me, leadership is about being sincere, being true to oneself and being true to others. And leadership is about being selfless – it is about caring to others more than oneself.  It is about using power to better the quality of life of the underprivileged and the poor. And to be a leader one must be courageous; ready to risk one’s personal safety whenever the situations call for it or whenever the need arises.”

            I also said that “Finally, leadership is about being humble – about acknowledging that one cannot do it alone.” And that when I was president, I made it a practice to consult with others especially in matters where their very lives will be affected.  Also because I know that all power comes from the Almighty God.  And that along with that power comes a corresponding obligation – to serve God and to serve one’s people. So in the end leadership is about service.

 

Gene: Who do you consider as models of leadership? (Among the living and those that died.)

 

Ms. Aquino:  Well, I’ve always considered as my model my husband, Ninoy Aquino.  And certainly, I learned a lot from him not only by his telling me but also by his actually living it, especially when he was in prison.  And he was willing to suffer there so that he could provide an alternative to the dictatorship or to communism. Because at that time – I don’t know if you’re too young to remember this – at that time, Marcos would say that if people did not obey him or follow him, the alternative would be communism.  And Ninoy felt that he and others like him, like Pepe Diokno, provided the third alternative and this is a democratic alternative.  So not only did Ninoy expound on his ideas on leadership but most importantly, he practiced what he preached.  And the fact that he was willing to come back.  In spite of the threats, he believed it was his obligation to bring back a peaceful transfer of power.  He wanted to talk to Marcos and ask him to call for elections so that there could be a process of succession.  Because before, until the snap elections, nobody knew who would succeed Marcos in case he died or in case something happened to him because there was no clear process of succession.

 

Gene: How were you chosen?

 

Ms. Aquino: Well, it was like this.  I had announced… I think this was before one of the sororities in UP and I was the guest speaker and someone asked me “Is there any particular situation where you would consider being a candidate (for President)?”

            I really was not aspiring for the presidency.  And prior to that speech, people had been telling me that, “You know, so many people are hoping that you would take the challenge.  And that we are afraid that if you say no right away and if (you) won’t give it the time that is needed for you to think it over, people might just decide that it’s not worth their continuing to join in the protest marches.” So parang, it also made me think that it’s not just my own personal desires or considerations that have to be put into this.  And I also have to think about other things and a number of people among them Senator Tañada – the late Senator Tañada – would tell me, “Alam mo Cory, ikaw talaga ang maaasahan na makapag-unite ng opposition. You know with these others we will be fragmented.”

            So going back to the open forum, I said maybe if these two conditions arise: first if Marcos calls for snap elections. Originally, elections were supposed to be held in 1987 but then there was a talk Marcos would probably call for snap elections earlier than the 1987 scheduled one.  The second consideration would be, maybe, if at least one million people would sign a draft.  And I thought I’d be pretty safe with those considerations. And although I did not want to discourage them outright, I wanted to make the situations almost impossible.  And at that time, for Marcos to declare and call for snap elections is unthinkable because he would still be there until 1987 so why should he call for early elections.  And in the case of one million people signing up for me – it’s really quite a task because so many people were still afraid of the dictator.  So I felt that I was more or less safe with those two conditions.

            But then, in November of 1985, Marcos said on the David Brinkley Show in the United States – when he was asked by Dave Brinkley (he was being interviewed via satellite) – that he would call for snap elections. So that was November. At 1:30 in the morning here, Ninoy’s brother in law, si Ken Kashiwahara, who is one of the TV commentators of ABC in America called me and said, “You know Cory, President Marcos has just announced that he would call for snap elections.” And oh, I was just so sad. And then at 6:30 or 7:30, former Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma was calling me up and said: “You know Cory, I’m calling for a meeting of the opposition leaders here at home because of these announcements of President Marcos, so could you be here?” I was there and I was feeling so sad and I said: “Oh gosh, what am I getting into?” Then I hoped that at least the election would be soon enough so that one million signatures would be hard to come by.  But even before the announcement, Chino Roces was ready, you know, calling on people to sign up. And when my friends and relatives asked me about it, I said: “If you want to be my friend, don’t sign that draft.”

            But anyway as the things turned out, after the snap elections, I would commit myself to the two conditions. Before that I used or liked to think that all of us human beings have a certain quota for suffering. OK, you, Gene, if you have suffered five or six times, that’s it.  And you’ve done your job. I thought that my husband was imprisoned for seven years and seven months. He was assassinated and we really had a difficult time under the dictator and I felt we had already done our thing.  And I had already served the opposition. I would lead protest marches and I felt, “Siguro, tama na naman itong ginagawa ko.” But I suppose there is never a quota for suffering and for service to the people. So in the end, I accepted and challenged the dictator.

 

Gene: Did you have any premonitions before you got the presidency?

Ms. Aquino: No, I never…It was Ninoy my husband who worked hard for it.  He was only seventeen when he was a war correspondent in Korea. And at the age of 21, he was able to convince Luis Taruc who was a communist Supremo then to come down from the hills and to talk to President Ramon Magsaysay and the government.  And at the age of 23, he was elected mayor of his town. Then after that, 27 he was vice governor; 29, he became governor; 35, he was the youngest senator. So he knew that he wanted to become president and he was certainly working hard for it.  But then Marcos was so obsessed with power so he decided to declare martial law and the first person arrested was Ninoy.

            In my case, I felt my primary obligation was to be a good wife and mother.  And also because I was married to a politician, I felt it even more urgent to take care of my children.  I think that it is no secret in this country of ours, even in other countries, that children of politicians tend to be left in the care of others. Well, this is in most cases.  I didn’t say in every case.  So you hear of many problems connected with children of politicians.  So I was determined that that would not happen to my children.  And so I was really a full-time mother. I would enroll them, I’d take care of all their material needs and would also help them in doing their homework and I would also be very good in attending PTA meetings and I (would) accompany them to movies and children’s parties. Talagang, full-time mother and also very supportive wife. So I never thought of a separate career for myself. I believed that that was my primary duty. Of course, we had maids but still my children always knew that I was there for them and if I had time, I would even pick them up in school.  So to them, I was the very visible parent because my husband was very busy and so…In fairness to my husband, during Sundays, we’d all go to mass together.  And he would take us out for lunch or for dinner once a week. For the older ones, we’d all take them out to the movies with us.  But in so far as their daily needs were concerned, I was the one.

 

Gene: Do you have any woman leader in mind?

 

Ms. Aquino: Well not a leader of a state. But I admire Mother Teresa.

            If I were to be asked (to choose) a present leader of state or government, I’d choose President Mandela.  To me, it is just too amazing for one to have undergone so much suffering for having been incarcerated for 27 years and still come out of it without so much bitterness and still wanting to do so much for his people. It’s truly admirable and we humans are so lucky that there is someone like him that we can look up to – somebody so selfless and also so caring for others.  Remember, he was also brokering on the talks between, I think Zaire and, was it Congo?  But anyway, yes, I admire him.  I also had a good fortune to meet with King Baudouin of Belgium.  He, to me, was also quite outstanding and his humility was something that was – you know, there is a king whose ways are just so caring.  These are the people who have impressed me a lot.

            And of course, the Pope. I certainly am a fan of Pope John Paul II and again it amazes me that someone is able to accept all these burdens – do it with so much love for the people under his care.

 

Gene: In what terms have these models affected your leadership? Well, how did Ninoy, for instance, influence you?

 

Ms. Aquino: Well, ‘yun na nga.  The selflessness. There came a time when his own interests were no longer important… [And there was a time] when he was ambitious and he wanted to become president.  That was uppermost in his mind.  During the period of incarceration, he was completely transformed, while – maybe, he would still have wanted to be a leader – but more important to him was the restoration of our rights and freedom. And the fact that he was willing to come back here and gave up his life in the US.


[...]


(The continuation of the interview is found in the preceding blog entry.)

Excerpts from an interview with President Cory Aquino on 19 May 1997

Below are excerpts from the transcription of my interview with President Corazon Aquino in her office at the Jose Cojuangco and Sons Building in Makati City on 19 May 1997. (The entire transcription is appended in my undergraduate thesis.  I thought I should share this rare experience with President Aquino. The excerpts center on how she viewed her role as a political leader and the process of speech making during her presidency.):

 

[…]

 

Gene: How do you view yourself as a political leader?

 

Ms. Aquino:  When I am asked what it is that I am proud of, well, I guess it is the fact that I was able to restore democracy in this country, of course with the help of people power and maybe…How old are you Gene?

 

Gene: Nineteen.

 

Ms. Aquino: And you know very little about martial law.  Many people, especially the younger generation, think it was so easy that people just went to EDSA for four days and the dictator was ousted.  And we’re able to restore democracy.  But that is not the total story and in fact, we in the opposition then, from day one of martial law were standing up to the dictator. We were willing to take risks in order to keep the hopes alive.

            When I accepted the challenge, there was no guarantee that I would win. In fact, what was very sure was that it would be a difficult fight and that the odds were against me because Marcos had all the money. He had the Armed Forces of the Philippines under his control. And the Commission on Elections was also a puppet commission at that time and the parliament was a puppet parliament also.  So I’ve tried to make people understand especially for those old enough to keep on remembering that the restoration of democracy was not an easy thing and that it required the sacrifices of so many people. In fact, not only Ninoy but so many people gave up their lives in order to keep the hope of democracy alive in the hearts and minds of all the people.

            Could you imagine, if everybody just surrendered to the dictator, then where would we be now?

 

Gene: Taking into account all the events in your term as president, what are those that mostly needed the invocation of political leadership?

 

Ms. Aquino:  Well, I guess during the coup attempts. Those were the most serious threats not only to my leadership but also to the democracy that had just been restored.

            Political leadership is not only confined to politics. To be a true leader, one must also believe in the Almighty. That one must accept the fact that he cannot do it alone.

            Luckily for me, early on in my life, I was a firm believer in the power of prayer especially in my very trying moments and very difficult moments, I have also resorted to prayer and offered my problem to the Lord.

            Then, I suppose you could also say that I continued to have faith in the people, that I believe that if one is fighting for a good and noble cause, then one will be able to influence others to support him or her.

 

Gene: Perhaps, we can now [move on] to the speeches. What are the basic considerations that help you in the process of speech making?

 

Ms. Aquino: Let me just tell you about my speeches, at least those that are best known.  First there is my speech before the US Congress and this was in 1986. In preparing for the speech, I had asked – this is SOP – the members of the cabinet to instruct their staff to prepare drafts.  So I remember I had about six drafts. Unfortunately, I didn’t like any of the drafts.  And the thing was, they were following the same procedure.

            Normally in the address before the US Congress, the visiting head of state or head of government will dwell on economic concern in one’s country and will reside in a whole litany of statistics.  I had seen, I think, two videotapes of two heads of governments who had visited the US Congress and I was saying that I guess it was just all right to follow the same pattern if I do not have anything new or original to say.  But I felt I had a very unique experience and I wanted to share this. Besides, in preparing for the speech, some American friends of mine and some of the members of the US Congress told me that, “Just be aware that you will not be speaking to the US Congress but, in fact, your message should reach out to the American people because this would be on television. And so do not confine yourself to thoughts that would interest the American senators and congressmen.”

            So as the day was approaching and as I said I did not like any of the drafts, I called my number one speech writer, that is Teddy Locsin and I told him, “Teddy, I do not like any of these drafts.  Let me tell you what I have in mind.” I said, “I want to tell the US Congress and the American people about our story – the story of how we restored democracy – this will have to include Ninoy and me and the Filipino people who composed the people power.” So he understood exactly what it was I wanted to say. So I said, “Three years ago I said goodbye America because I was going to bury Ninoy.  I was in Boston at that time.” So we could work on that, like “Three years ago, it was a sad farewell and then today exactly three years after, I have returned as President of the Philippines.” So I said I wanted to include of course the arrest of Ninoy and others like him, the hunger strike – we will have to include there. And also his being brought to Fort Magsaysay.  Anyway, I told him and Teddy Boy knows me so well and it wasn’t difficult for me to tell him what it was that I was going to say. So it worked out fine and it was met with much enthusiasm from the congressmen and in fact, that same day, when the congressmen met, they passed a resolution calling for the US government to give US $200 million dollars of assistance to the Philippine government. So as one senator marked, this is the biggest honorarium ever.  And I was of course just so pleased and happy that things just worked out well.

            Another occasion was in my last State of the Nation Address before our Philippine Congress.  I called Teddy Boy Locsin and said we will have a separate text to tell not only the congressmen but the Filipino people exactly what is the situation here in our country and we will furnish them with statistics and etceteras.  But that will be in a separate booklet and I’d like to make this my farewell speech because I am not seeking reelection even (if) my legal advisers tell me that I’m not covered by the Constitution.  So we talked on that and I gave him two quotes.  What I did was that I read something and when I liked it I jotted it down. Sometimes, people in my cabinet especially Rene Saguisag really has such a collection of quotable quotes and they really come in very handy. And somehow, he has a quote for every occasion. A particular one which he gave me before – this was when – because I was feeling bad – I was feeling so much flak so he sent me this quotation from Abraham Lincoln.  The quotation goes: “If one were to read much less answer all of the criticism leveled against this office, then one may as well just close shop because there is no way for one to have the time to answer all these criticisms.” So it felt good. So I really like that.  If you are in high office and under a democracy, then you will not be spared from all of these criticisms. And I suppose it would not hurt so much if all the attacks were true but sometimes, they were really so false so that is when you just feel so hurt; but at the same time, as I said, that is part of being a leader.

 

Gene: How do you deal with these criticisms?

 

Ms. Aquino: What I did later on… I would only read from the front page of the newspapers in the morning. In the evening, I would read the columns.  Well, to make sure that I did not miss up on anything, it was the duty of the press secretary and his staff to read all the newspapers and to be monitoring all the radio and television programs. And these were some of the things which urgently needed a statement from me. They would advise me on such a thing but otherwise, I felt I should not spoil my day so early in the morning reading all about these accusations.

 

Gene: What other speeches do you consider major?

 

Ms. Aquino: The one…I think this was after the August 1987 coup attempt and I was meeting with the businessmen. Well there was too much apprehension at that time and people were just too concerned that there will be another coup attempt and that they would finally succeed.  So it was really very important to be able to boost their morale and to ask them again to give the support that they used to give me.  So it was a very emotional speech.

 

[…]

My modest Cory Aquino memorabilia

Written by President Aquino on the flyleaf of my undergraduate thesis after she painstakingly went through my draft. She was an excellent language editor.

In the mid-to-late 1990's, while former Philippine President Corazon Aquino remained popular the world over, writing academically about her and her leadership seemed unfashionable. That was especially true in the context of the 'radical- nationalist' University of the Philippines, which, understandably, was critical of the failures of the socio-economic programs pursued during the post-Marcos presidencies. While friends were supportive of my academic pursuits, I could actually sense that some of them were dismissive of, in fact, almost scoffing at what I was doing for my undergraduate research. I understand their sentiments.

It was my academic adviser UP Professor Emeritus Edelwina C. Legaspi who suggested the idea of studying the Cory Aquino speeches and who pushed me into the field called rhetorical theory and criticism. During one of our earliest meetings in UPLB, she said, 'The greatest speeches of the world are born during crises.' That line would inspire me, and somehow conceptually guide me, in studying the Cory Aquino public discourse.

Later, I would read in Professor Legaspi's dissertation ('The Rhetoric of the Anti-Imperialist Movement in the United States, 1898-1900, With Emphasis on the Role of the Anti-Imperialist League,' PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, 1967 published in the Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review in 1968) the following significant excerpt she notes from Chauncey A. Goodrich's 'Select British Eloquence' (New York, 1963):

'If a speaker wishes to get to the bottom of any matter, he must prepare himself to deal with the strongest possible opposition to his proposal...If useful oratory presupposes sound rhetoric and if sound rhetoric requires dialectic, then vigorous opposition would seem to be helpful, if not indispensable. Great speeches may thus be sought in their habitat - controversy in which the requisite dialectic is provided by more speakers than one. Good speeches are likely to be found, therefore, as parts of a whole, of a dialogue involving thrust and counterthrust, argument and refutation, question and answer, proposal and denial, affirmation and negation' (p. ix in Legaspi, p. 126)

As I join the Filipino people in mourning the passing of Cory Aquino, icon of democracy and inspiration during the world-renowned People Power Revolution of 1986, I am posting my modest 'memorabilia' of my brief but meaningful encounter with her.

I thank her for the inspiration.

Remembering Ate Cel (1972-2009)

At dawn, Thursday, 30^th of July, Marcela ‘Ate Cel’ Afuyog, dear friend and colleague in one of my most cherished communities of practice in the Philippines left her cancer-stricken body to embark in a new phase of Life. She was 37.

Tonight, I feel she is with me. And while I imagine her trying to catch up on stories we missed sharing face to face with each other in our most animated selves, I also visualize reminding her not to pull my leg. Not to play tricks on me. I tell her, ‘Matatakutin ako, Ate Cel’ (‘I easily get scared, Ate Cel.’) to which she replies, ‘I know. Alam ko naman, bago pa man ako bumisita sa’yo at sa iba pa nating kaibigan’ (I’m aware of that even before I pay you or any of our friends this special visit.’)

While I continue to imagine things and ponder on what Ate Cel would do when she’s inside my little nook (little sauna actually – it’s not air-conditioned) in Singapore, I am reminded of the lazy Saturday or Sunday afternoons when I would visit her and our friends in their Legazpi Apartment at Umali Subdivision in Los Baños. Those afternoons were of course not really lazy as we would talk about the prospects of our NGO life and catch up on stories we had missed sharing with each other because of our busy schedules. (If my memory serves me right, the last time we watched a movie together in their apartment was the time we saw the Academy Award-winning Chariots of Fire with friends Jundoc, Katkat and Yen. I shall check some clips of the movie at YouTube to recreate that moment. I think she will like that.)

Ate Cel was a colleague in NetWorks, Inc., a non-profit non-government organization committed to the development of organized youth groups in the country using facilitative and participatory approaches. She was the first chairperson of the board of directors of the organization founded in 1997. We had known each other through common friends since college, but it was in the organization that we really became close like family. We worked together as co-facilitators in several trainings conducted within and outside the UPLB campus.

One of my fondest memories of her was that she was an admirer of my ‘male beauty’ (She knew my narcissistic tendencies all too well that she would never fail to call me ‘Sophia,’ an alias borrowed from the beauteous Sophia Loren) and that she was an occasional date during weekend masses at the Saint Therese Chapel in the UPLB campus. She was undeniably a very prayerful person.

I will always remember Ate Cel for providing comforting presence during a dark hour of my stay in Los Baños. At the time when my sister was struck by a very unsettling illness while we were far from home, Ate Cel made us feel her reassuring friendship and I actually felt her turn into one of our staunchest prayer warriors. For a long time, she remained to be so and will be more than ever now that she has gone Home.

I of course envied her for being a jetsetter in the Philippine archipelago. From her early 20’s until she was diagnosed of cancer, she travelled all over the country to serve rural communities first as a Pahinungod of UPLB (she was a university extensionist for a number of years), then as part of an internationally funded project team under a Philippine government agency.

A true-blue Cordilleran and a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture graduate, Ate Cel quite easily established rapport with the many Philippine communities she had visited during her active years in service and created bonds of friendship and lasting relationships with a number of community development workers she had interacted and made contact with. (If I remember correctly, she majored in Plant Pathology (or was it Soil Science?), one of the toughest areas of the agricultural sciences in UPLB.) While working at the university’s Ugnayan ng Pahinungod, she pursued her master’s in development management and it was during her graduation that I first met her family, including her very pleased and proud father who came all the way from Benguet in the Northern Philippines to be with his daughter on a very special day.

Ate Cel was an embodiment of a loving daughter. Because her mother died early, she, being the eldest daughter, served as the second mother to her younger siblings. I imagine her as a pillar that would hold the family together during her short-lived but undoubtedly meaningful stay in the bio-physical world.

We will miss your physical presence Ate Cel, but you have not really left us. The wonderful memories you have given us will stay on.

I am ‘pussyfooting’: Belated (but still tentative) thoughts on SONA 2009

(This is a 'shorter version' of the earlier entry and more focused on SONA 2009. Let me give a caveat. In this piece, I do not intend to validate what the president said against what was done in actuality as that will probably be best pursued by economists, public administration scholars, and even people from the media. My goal is to examine the SONA as a rhetorical artifact, highlight significant conceptualizations that are realized/ expressed in the address, and present possible implications of such conceptualizations on present and future public policies. Photos that appear in this note are courtesy of the Associated Press available at Yahoo News)



The SONA of 2009 appears consistent with the persona-centric approach of the SONA in 2003 (what should/could have been Ms. Arroyo’s valedictory address). Considering that Ms. Arroyo’s presidency has been hounded with questions of legitimacy since she assumed power in 2001, it is not surprising that such is the case. While in 2003 she carved a combative modern leader under the frame of a ‘strong republic’ that complemented the ‘global war on terror,’ in 2009 Ms. Arroyo casts herself as a consistently persistent ‘working president’ while lacing her talk with arguably her most combative rhetoric before the Philippine Congress (yet).

Interesting is how such casting is realized in the national address.

At the onset, Ms. Arroyo boasted of ‘economic resilience.’ The term is an interesting evidence of lexical shift in post-Marcos Philippine presidential rhetoric. In the SONA, Ms. Arroyo sustained a discourse on ‘economic resilience’ (‘the story of the Philippines in 2008 is that the country weathered a succession of global crises in fuel, in food, then in finance and finally, economy in a global recession’; ‘Nakinabang ang sandaan libo sa emergency employment ng ating economic resiliency plan .’; ‘We have a strong economy and a strong fiscal position to withstand global shocks ’; ‘Today the Philippines is weathering well the storm that is raging around the world.’), a curious lexical as well as conceptual variation from the more familiar ‘economic recovery’ very much employed during the time of her predecessors. This, I hypothesize, is due to changes in context/s (national and global), how the national leader views herself as well as changing ways of constructing the national situation. In other words, as in any speech or written discourse, there is proof of the complex interplay of texts and contexts in this year’s President’s Report to the Nation.

It appears though that image building, specifically, the restoration of a perennially challenged presidency, is what instigates this lexical and conceptual shift. The incumbency, after all, has to carve an image distinct from its predecessors and that would help establish – at least discursively – its place in history. Considered the most unpopular president since the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Ms. Arroyo appears resolved to redeem her presidency by bolstering her image on the one hand, and denigrating her critics on the other.

Ms. Arroyo’s 2009 address employed very pronounced strategies of othering by lashing out at her critics – vilifying them, rendering them as delusional (‘And I have never done any of the things that have scared my worst critics so much. They are frightened by their own shadows.’), power hungry (‘Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling like nails to their posts’), hypocritical (‘Many who accuse me have lifestyles and spending habits that make them walking proofs of that crime’), and failures (‘They had the chance to serve this good country and they blew it by serving themselves.), on the one hand, while bolstering her image as a working president who has achieved what her predecessors had failed to do (‘Those in the past administrations conjured the demon of foreign debt. We exorcised it’; ‘The average GDP growth from 2001 to the first quarter of 2009 is the highest in 43 years’), on the other.

She reinforced the rhetoric or should I say the political myth of ‘the working president’ (‘I did not become President to be popular. To work, to lead, to protect and preserve our country, our people, that is why I became President.’) by casting herself as governance-driven (‘Some say that after this SONA, it will be all politics. Sorry, but there’s more work.’), as a national interest-oriented adviser (‘As the campaign unfolds and the candidates take to the airwaves, I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents. Give the electorate real choices and not just sweet talk.’), as the captain of the ‘ship of state’ or direction setter (‘Meanwhile, I will keep a steady hand on the tiller, keeping the ship of state away from the shallows some prefer, and steering it straight on the course we set in 2001.’), as having exemplary work ethics (‘There isn’t a day I do not work at my job or a waking moment when I do not think through a work-related problem. Even my critics cannot begrudge the long hours I put in. Our people deserve-a-government that works just as hard as they do.’), and by denying that she is a lame duck president (‘At the end of this speech I shall step down from this stage, but not from the Presidency. My term does not end until next year. Until then, I will fight for the ordinary Filipino. The nation comes first. There is much to do as head of state—to the very last day.’).

She did the same by rendering her presidency as a do-gooder (‘Had we listened to the critics of those policies, had we not braced ourselves for the crisis that came, had we taken the easy road much preferred by politicians eyeing elections, this country would be flat on its back. It would take twice the effort just to get it back again on its feet—to where we are now because we took the responsibility and paid the political price of doing the right thing.’); a facilitator of development (‘Real government is about looking beyond the vested to the national interest, setting up the necessary conditions to enable the next, more enabled and more empowered generation to achieve a country as prosperous, a people as content, as ours deserve to be.’); and a resources generator/problem solver (‘We only know that we have generated more resources on which to draw, and thereby created options we could take.’), among others.

Quite notable in her strategy of othering is emphasizing certain national values while de-emphasizing others. For instance, she talked of defending democracy by strength (‘arms,’ ‘firmness,’ ‘law and order,’ ‘wise policies of economic progress’) which somehow contrasts with Ms. Aquino’s emphasis on strengthening democracy through ‘organized participation’ (1991). From the following extract, Ms. Arroyo appears to dismiss such rendering (democracy as participation) as nothing but ‘empty liberty’ as opposed to her definition of democracy as ‘a full life for all’ achieved in a ‘strong republic’: ‘As I have shown, I will defend democracy with arms when it is threatened by violence; with firmness when it is weakened by division; with law and order when it is subverted by anarchy; and always, I will try to sustain it by wise policies of economic progress, so that a democracy means not just an empty liberty but a full life for all.’

There is definitely more to the SONA than the formulaic responses we normally get from both the president’s staunch admirers and regular critics. What is crucial for those who dare listen/read the SONA is to tease out and make evident the often ‘naturalized’ conceptualizations that may or perhaps, will be transformed into such ‘non-negotiable materialities,’ into more ‘authoritative contexts,’ into what would later be long-standing public policies that have definite impact, positive or otherwise, on people’s lives.

‘People Power,’ ‘Global Competitiveness,’ and ‘The Warrior/ Working President’: A Commentary on the Post-Marcos Presidential Swan Songs in Philippine Congress

(For Jao and all the others who might be interested)

The Philippine president’s valedictory State of the Nation Address (SONA), delivered a little less than a year before he/she relinquishes his/her office to the next person-in-charge, is particularly special in that it allows the president to look back and assess what he/she has done over a period long enough to produce a legacy. 

This essay examines four SONA’s of post-Marcos presidents – what may be considered swan songs in the Philippine Congress of the Fifth Republic.  These are the speeches of Corazon C. Aquino in 1991, Fidel V. Ramos in 1997, and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2003 and 2009.  Ms. Arroyo’s case is special in that her final SONA during her first term as president (20 January 2001 to 30 June 2004) can be considered part of a full presidential term started off by her ousted predecessor, President Joseph Estrada. Her 2003 address was also curiously delivered seven months after she declared her decision not to run for the 2004 presidential elections and just a few months before she reversed that decision.

In this article, I do not intend to validate what the presidents said against what was done in actuality as that will probably be best pursued by economists, public administration scholars, and even people from the media. My goal is to examine the SONA's as rhetorical artifacts, highlight significant conceptualizations that are realized/ expressed in the addresses, and present possible implications of such conceptualizations on present and future public policies.

Having led the restoration of Philippine democracy after the EDSA People Power Revolution ended the Marcos dictatorship, Cory Aquino had had the unique role of setting off the framing of Philippine democracy in the post-Marcos presidential discourse. Several conceptualizations of democracy can be gleaned from her 1991 speech. Among them are the following: THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY IS A NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT, A STRONG DEMOCRACY IS PEOPLE POWER IN ACTION, and DEMOCRACY IS KEY TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

Ms. Aquino described democracy as an achievement – a ‘steadfast, unalloyed’ one, ‘destined…to outlive our problems and deck with the graces of liberty the material progress of our future.’ It is an achievement ‘that is better seen from the disinterested distance of foreign admirers than from the myopic view of those at home who wish to destroy it.’ This conceptualization of democracy as an object of praise and national pride signals what the Aquino presidency deemed as its legacy.

As in her previous SONA’s, Ms. Aquino used words such as ‘restore(d),’ ‘strengthen(ed)’ and ‘enhance(d)’ to describe what had been and can be done with such national achievement. In 1991, she advocated people empowerment as a means to strengthen democracy, explaining that ‘empowering the people… means enlarging their contact with government beyond elections to its daily workings – so that the vast resources of one support the initiatives of the other; and the policies of government are refined by the insights of the people.’ It also ‘means the lives of the people shall be constantly improved and the people themselves empowered by the habit of directing their own government.  The constant revision of flawed policies and the wider application of good ones are possible only by bringing together the people and the government.’  And this is perhaps one of the most important conceptualizations of the Aquino presidency: that a strong democracy is people power in action.  She exemplified this point by stating that, ‘People empowerment, through people’s organizations, NGO’s, foundations and cooperatives, is the surest means we know to make government mirror the aspirations of the people. We want elections to be just one of the other more effective means to bring the people into government and government to the people, to make it truly a participatory democracy.’ She also presented a rather lengthy exposition of what she called the ‘Kabisig movement’ – what she regarded as people power in actuality. It should be interesting to note that the preceding passage from her 1991 SONA echoes her better known speech before the joint session of the US Congress in September 1986 where she talked of ‘restoring democracy by ways of democracy.’

            Even Ms. Aquino’s discussion of  'economic recovery' after the 1986 revolution was reflective of the centrality of ‘democracy’ in her speech. Describing the final years of the Marcos regime she said, ‘By 1985, the economy has contracted considerably, its rate of growth had been negative for two consecutive years. The country was at a standstill, as if waiting only for the last rights to be performed.’ In her final Report to the Filipino People, it was the restoration of democracy in 1986 that accounted for the ‘economic recovery’ or ‘the powerful rebound of the Philippine economy.’ Such ‘powerful rebound’ was however ‘cut off’, ‘strangled’ by the August 1987 coup of military rebels, considered by the administration as among several groups of ‘anti-democratic forces’ including what she labeled in her accompanying report as ‘Major Threat Organizations.’

To Ms. Aquino, the government’s role is to ‘shepherd’ democracy and to encourage ‘active participation of people in government’ while learning from its ‘pitfalls’ and taking advantage of its ‘blessings.’ The following is one of several extracts where Ms. Aquino underscored the importance of people’s participation:

 

The organized participation of the people in daily government may provide the stabilizing element that government has always lacked. Policies have radically changed with each administration, yet the basic needs of its unchanging constituencies have not been met: less bureaucracy for business, more public services and infrastructure support for agriculture and industry, an economic safety net for the common man.  The active participation of the people in government will lend proper direction and continuity to policy. (emphasis mine)

 

While democracy was the privileged term in Ms. Aquino’s final SONA, ‘global competitiveness’ became the recurring and salient term/concept in Fidel V. Ramos’s 1997 valedictory address. He talked of the need to ‘find our competitive niche’ in a ‘survival-of-the-fittest economic order’ where ‘great opportunities await the intelligent, the self-disciplined, the innovative, the daring, the young bulls, and the tiger cubs’ and which ‘imposes several penalties on the inefficient, the unskilled, the non-productive, the timid, the disunited, and the lame ducks.’ The image triggered by the phrase ‘survival-of-the-fittest economic order’ as well as the deeply polarized representations in Mr. Ramos’s utterances show a kind of social Darwinism present in his interpretation of the globalist discourse.

Mr. Ramos’s emphasis on ‘global competitiveness’ was clearly linked to the discourse of the ‘new world order.’  He exhorted that instead of ‘[r]etreating from the challenge of globalization,’ the government should find ways ‘to ensure that our economy remains vigorous and sustainable – and resilient enough to resist outside manipulations and strong enough to compete in the world.  At the same time, we must reinforce the safety nets that we have put in place for our disadvantaged sectors – our poorest classes throughout the archipelago. We must work hard to win our place in the world – because the world will not stop for those who stand idly by on the roadside of development.’

Several conceptual metaphors can be gleaned from the above-mentioned extract. One is that THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER or THE ‘NEW WORLD ORDER’ IS A SPORTS ARENA which entails that economic competition is a sports, that the Philippines is a global player in the new world order, and that integration in the world economic order is participation in competitive sports.

Also employed in the extract is the conceptual metaphor SPORTS IS A JOURNEY (as evident in the line, ‘the world will not stop for those who stand idly on the roadside of development’) where the source domains of journey, road or path, traveler, speed and agility, and destination are applied to the domains of sports, the arena, player, competitiveness, and goal, respectively.

Combining the two conceptual metaphors can yield the following conceptualizations: that THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER IS A PATH TO DEVELOPMENT and that GLOBAL COMPETITION IS A NECESSARY JOURNEY TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER.

That the global economic order is a sports arena as well as the inevitable road to development is best reflected in Mr. Ramos’s use of the term ‘pole vaulting’ to refer to the development strategy that the Philippines should pursue even after his term of office. In his final SONA, Mr. Ramos declared:

 

The plain truth is that we can no longer make do with economic leapfrogging – because other countries are leapfrogging, too.  Our aim should rather be to pole-vault into the twenty-first century.

 

 

The passage implies that ‘the pole-vaulting strategy’ which is deemed superior to a less elaborate game strategy ‘is the Ramos’s administration’s legacy to future administrations.’ It is a strategy which would supposedly ‘complete the transformation of [the Philippine] economy from an inward to an outward orientation.’ With it, the government will be able ‘to move aggressively to bring our people up to speed with the global economy.’

In his speech, Mr. Ramos reframed democracy in cognizance of the new global order and his administration’s quest for global competitiveness. In his schema, he viewed Philippine democracy as ‘our unique comparative advantage in the new global order’ in that ‘only democracy can release the spirit of enterprise and creativity among our people.’ Moreover, he stated that ‘without freedom, economic growth is meaningless.’ Interestingly, while he echoed some of the democratic values affirmed by Ms. Aquino during her leadership, Mr. Ramos was obviously inclined to appreciate and make use of ‘democracy’ along the lines of the ‘free market’ or ‘market-driven economy’ which was essentially the thrust of new world economic order.

            Ms. Arroyo’s 2003 speech differed from those of her predecessors in that she focused on national security. Belligerent rhetoric that used the metaphor of war appeared salient in her SONA. On the one hand, this may be understandable as the president was still reeling from her recent victory over a failed mutiny mounted by some disgruntled members of the military. On the other hand, the militaristic stance may be attributed to the Arroyo government’s earlier declaration of support for the US government-led global war on terror. In her speech, she assured the audience: ‘[Now] we should be at peace: at peace in our countryside, safe in our homes and secure in the communities.  But we remain at war. At war against terrorism. At war against corruption. At war against disease.  At war against drugs. The greatest menace facing our country today.’ In addition, the president made mention of ‘war against the destabilizers’ referring to the mutineers in the military. By employing the war frame, Ms. Arroyo was able to put national security as the top priority of her administration.

            The focus on war on poverty, notes Malaya and Malaya (2004), is ‘emblematic of the country’s status as a developing country.’ It is actually not unique to the discourse of Ms. Arroyo.  A military man before his presidency, Mr. Ramos is noted to have declared the following words in his inaugural: ‘We must wage war against poverty the moral equivalent of war.’ What makes Ms. Arroyo’s use of the expression curious and compelling is that it came at a time when her government aligned itself to the US-led global war on terror. The expression seemed to have worked perfectly in conjunction with the Bush government-inspired frame.

In her 2003 SONA, Ms. Arroyo also found the opportunity to discuss ‘the virtues of a modern leader.’ ‘In this setting,’ she asserted, ‘the first virtue of a modern leader is a constant sense of correct perspective, the capacity to retain her original focus, and plod on regardless.’ She added, ‘She must stick to priorities that were carefully chosen. Rather than dump them at every first issue that is recklessly raised.’ This exposition on the virtue of modern leadership seemed to fit well in her use of the war frame that likewise suggested an emphasis on national security (something that was evidenced by her rather lengthy discussion on drugs as ‘the greatest menace facing the country today’ and her exhortation on the need to pass an anti-terrorism law in Congress.)

The complementation of the war frame and modern leadership created a narrative where the underlying conceptual metaphor is: MODERN LEADERSHIP IS ENGAGING IN WAR or more generally, GOVERNANCE IS ENGAGING IN COMBAT. This entails that a MODERN LEADER IS A WARRIOR-GUIDE (somebody who has ‘a sense of correct perspective,’ is consistent with her 'original focus,' and can 'plod on regardless'), WAR IS A NECESSARY JOURNEY TOWARDS ENSURING NATIONAL SECURITY, and that NATIONAL SECURITY IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE GOAL OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.  

On another level, the use of a war frame called for national solidarity and unity much needed by the Arroyo administration to ward off elements of discord and to undermine challenges to her legitimacy. These challenges had come from various groups which included, among others, loyal supporters of former President Joseph Estrada – Ms. Arroyo’s ousted predecessor, some members of the military, the communist insurgents, and Moro secessionists. By constructing a national ethos within the narrative of war, any form of dissent would be seen as uncalled for and putting the country at risk. In a way, a war frame was necessary to consolidate her presidential power and assert the legitimacy of her leadership.

A summary of the emphases, privileged terms, and source domains used in the SONA’s of 1991, 1997 and 2003 is shown in the table below

 

Table 1. Conceptualizations of key/ privileged terms in the 1991, 1997, and 2003 State of the Nation Addresses

Speech	Emphasis	Privileged Term/ Target domain	Source Domain
Aquino (1991)	Democratic/ participatory governance	‘democracy’	People empowerment
Ramos (1997)	National economy	‘global competitiveness’	Competitive sports
Arroyo (2003)	Peace and order situation	‘war against terrorism, drugs, etc.’; ‘national security’	War

 

 

The next table shows the common themes present in the three speeches but with varying conceptualizations. In this table, the conceptual metaphor in CAPITAL LETTERS and in shaded cells indicates which theme was emphasized in a particular speech. On the other hand, the conceptualizations of the less emphasized theme are shown through entailments (not capitalized) gleaned from the analysis of each speech text.

 

Table 2. Varying conceptualizations of common themes in the 1991, 1997, and 2003 State of the Nation Addresses

Speech	Governance	National Economy	Peace and Order Situation
Aquino (1991)	A STRONG DEMOCRACY IS PEOPLE POWER IN ACTION	Economic recovery can fully take off in a liberalized and democratic environment.	Insurgents and military rebels are threats to the democratic government; they get in the way of the economic order.
Ramos (1997)	Philippine democracy is a unique comparative advantage of the country in the global economic order.	THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER IS A COMPETITIVE SPORTS ARENA	‘Political stability’ is a prerequisite for economic liberalization which is necessary for the country to compete globally
Arroyo (2003)	Modern leadership is engagement in war; a modern leader is a warrior-guide	Economic progress can pursued only when there is national security.	NATIONAL SECURITY IS THE GOAL OF WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, DRUGS, etc.

 

So what about the 2009 SONA?

The preceding discussion is an important backdrop in the analysis of the 2009 State of the Nation Address, purportedly Ms. Arroyo’s ‘final’ President’s Report to the Nation. Below are my tentative thoughts on the most recent presidential speech in congress:

The SONA of 2009 appears consistent with the persona-centric approach of the SONA in 2003.  Considering that Ms. Arroyo’s presidency has been hounded with questions of legitimacy since she assumed power in 2001, it is not surprising that such is the case.  While in 2003 she carved a combative modern leader under the frame of a ‘strong republic’ that complemented the ‘global war on terror,’ in 2009 Ms. Arroyo casts herself as a consistently persistent ‘working president’ while lacing her talk with arguably her most combative rhetoric before the Philippine Congress (yet).

Interesting is how such casting is realized in the national address.

At the onset, Ms. Arroyo boasted of ‘economic resilience.’ The term is an interesting evidence of lexical shift in post-Marcos Philippine presidential rhetoric.  In the SONA, Ms. Arroyo sustained a discourse on ‘economic resilience’ (‘the story of the Philippines in 2008 is that the country weathered a succession of global crises in fuel, in food, then in finance and finally, economy in a global recession’; ‘Nakinabang ang sandaan libo sa emergency employment ng ating economic resiliency plan.’; ‘We have a strong economy and a strong fiscal position to withstand global shocks’; ‘Today the Philippines is weathering well the storm that is raging around the world.’), a curious lexical as well as conceptual variation from the more familiar ‘economic recovery’ very much employed during the time of her predecessors.  This, I hypothesize, is due to changes in context/s (national and global), how the national leader views herself as well as changing ways of constructing the national situation. In other words, as in any speech or written discourse, there is proof of the complex interplay of texts and contexts in this year’s President’s Report to the Nation.

It appears though that image building, specifically, the restoration of a perennially challenged presidency, is what instigates this lexical and conceptual shift. The incumbency, after all, has to carve an image distinct from its predecessors and that would help establish – at least discursively – its place in history. Considered the most unpopular president since the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Ms. Arroyo appears resolved to redeem her presidency by bolstering her image on the one hand, and denigrating her critics on the other.

Ms. Arroyo’s 2009 address employed very pronounced strategies of othering by lashing out at her critics – vilifying them, rendering them as delusional (‘And I have never done any of the things that have scared my worst critics so much. They are frightened by their own shadows.’), power hungry (‘Many of those who accuse me of it tried to cling like nails to their posts’), hypocritical (‘Many who accuse me have lifestyles and spending habits that make them walking proofs of that crime’), and failures (‘They had the chance to serve this good country and they blew it by serving themselves.), on the one hand, while bolstering her image as a working president who has achieved what her predecessors had failed to do (‘Those in the past administrations conjured the demon of foreign debt. We exorcised it’; ‘The average GDP growth from 2001 to the first quarter of 2009 is the highest in 43 years’), on the other.

She reinforced the rhetoric or should I say the political myth of ‘the working president’ (‘I did not become President to be popular. To work, to lead, to protect and preserve our country, our people, that is why I became President.’) by casting herself as governance-driven (‘Some say that after this SONA, it will be all politics. Sorry, but there’s more work.’), as a national interest-oriented adviser (‘As the campaign unfolds and the candidates take to the airwaves, I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents. Give the electorate real choices and not just sweet talk.’), as the captain of the ‘ship of state’ or direction setter (‘Meanwhile, I will keep a steady hand on the tiller, keeping the ship of state away from the shallows some prefer, and steering it straight on the course we set in 2001.’), as having exemplary work ethics (‘There isn’t a day I do not work at my job or a waking moment when I do not think through a work-related problem. Even my critics cannot begrudge the long hours I put in. Our people deserve-a-government that works just as hard as they do.’), and by denying that she is a lame duck president (‘At the end of this speech I shall step down from this stage, but not from the Presidency. My term does not end until next year. Until then, I will fight for the ordinary Filipino. The nation comes first. There is much to do as head of state—to the very last day.’). She did the same by rendering her presidency as a do-gooder (‘Had we listened to the critics of those policies, had we not braced ourselves for the crisis that came, had we taken the easy road much preferred by politicians eyeing elections, this country would be flat on its back. It would take twice the effort just to get it back again on its feet—to where we are now because we took the responsibility and paid the political price of doing the right thing.’); a facilitator of development (‘Real government is about looking beyond the vested to the national interest, setting up the necessary conditions to enable the next, more enabled and more empowered generation to achieve a country as prosperous, a people as content, as ours deserve to be.’); and a resources generator/problem solver (‘We only know that we have generated more resources on which to draw, and thereby created options we could take.’), among others.

Quite notable in her strategy of othering is emphasizing certain national values while de-emphasizing others. For instance, she talked of defending democracy by strength (‘arms,’ ‘firmness,’ ‘law and order,’ ‘wise policies of economic progress’) which somehow contrasts with Ms. Aquino’s emphasis on strengthening democracy through ‘organized participation.’ From the following extract, Ms. Arroyo appears to dismiss such rendering (democracy as participation) as nothing but ‘empty liberty’ in contrast to her definition of democracy as ‘a full life for all’ achieved in a ‘strong republic’: ‘As I have shown, I will defend democracy with arms when it is threatened by violence; with firmness when it is weakened by division; with law and order when it is subverted by anarchy; and always, I will try to sustain it by wise policies of economic progress, so that a democracy means not just an empty liberty but a full life for all.’

There is definitely more to the SONA than the formulaic responses we normally get from both the president’s staunch admirers and critics. What is crucial for those who dare listen/read the SONA is to tease out and make evident the often ‘naturalized’ conceptualizations that may or perhaps, will be transformed into such ‘non-negotiable materialities,’ into more ‘authoritative contexts,’ into what would later be long-standing public policies that have definite impact, positive or otherwise, on people’s lives.