SUSPECT INDEPENDENCES IN THE YEAR OF GEO-REALPOLITIK

photo from http://bmag.com.au/things-to-do-in-brisbane/latest/2015/05/06/experience-the-philippines-at-the-barrio-fiesta/

SHOULD every Filipino behave or think like a neocolonial lumpenbourgeois according to the preaching of his favorite real neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders? Sa ngayon kasi ay hinahati tayo sa dalawa ng lumpenbourgeois factions sa ating pulitika ng ganito:

    Kung mas marami kang pakinabang sa Amerika at galit ka sa Tsina, dapat ay anti-Duterte ka. At kung may galit ka naman sa Amerika, for reasons as small as having been served water instead of a lauriat (lao diat) merienda during a visit to an American office, or having been denied a tourist visa once, ay dapat pro-Duterte at pro-China ka na. Ito ang tanong ko: pag anti-America ka ba, ibig sabihin nationalist ka na? At ganun din pag anti-China ka? Baka kailangan nating lahat bumalik sa kolehiyo para mapag-aralan muli ang buong kahulugan ng mga salita, dahil may mga pangyayari sa mga nakalipas na buwan (kung di man sa nakalipas na mga taon) kung saan tila napakadali lang sa ating mga pulitiko (o aktibista man) ang mag-preach o mag-claim ng posisyon ng nationalism at independence, ipse dixit—ito’y habang may paghinala sa kanila (o sa mga grupo nila) bilang mga resipyente ng pondo galing sa kung anu-anong banyagang bangko, mga kompanya, o mga indibidwal na di-malayong may kani-kanyang interes na maaaring taliwas sa nasyonalismo o independensiya na isinusulong ng mga talumpati ng mga pulitiko o aktibistang ito.
    Here’s my next question: nationalism, according to what concept of nationhood? Or according to whose perspective on the idea of ideal nationhood? Now, I’ll grant that patriotism is what binds us together as citizens of our country, and that—as a friend of mine quipped—this patriotism can derive from different orientations, religious affiliations, political ideologies, ages, economic brackets, and so on. Indeed, we can always choose to focus on the power of the positive fact concerning this common ground’s goal instead of on the doldrums of a non-goal with our often-ready list of differences. For, after all, it's this love of country—albeit a country molded by our conquistadors, the Spaniards—that has retained our wholeness and coagulation as tribes or linguistic groups, and we’ve remained relatively undivided for decades since the fall of the Spaniards and our independence from the Commonwealth. True, also, anyone who has attempted to strike at our motherland in order to subtract from it, e.g. the long Islamist separatist insurrection in Mindanao or the battles in the North before the establishment of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, would always be countered by the center with the ample defense of unity against these many efforts at wedge-building.
    But here’s the problem: we've been ruled by neocolonial lumpenbourgeois interests since the beginning of our republic/s, and these interests have been imposing their neocolonial lumpenbourgeois formulas on the nation for the same length of time, all in the name of patriotism and nationalism! Yes, to the point that the connect between these impositions and the nationalist ideals these lumpenbourgeois factions claimed would be questioned many a time by many a cynic from both the academia and not. In short, it’s not the lack or absence of patriotism and/or nationalism that’s the issue but who the people are who have had a handle on these ideals and used the very same for intents many would regard as other than what nationalist ideals proclaim.

    And as for love, that great intangible almost guaranteeing the ultimate sacrifice for its service, it has been used in the same breath that some leaders of France bandied it for a rationale to side with Hitler. And it is in this sense of a problematic regarding the concept of love that I would here unabashedly assert that perhaps our current President, Rodrigo Duterte, may be allowing an emotional love for Freddie Aguilar’s country music to influence his pragmatic love of country, by which I mean mistaking self-centered love (controlling love from an emotional utopia) for selfless love (love of a democratic nation). The first kind of love (emotional and self-centered) may be sincere and real in a lumpenbourgeois leader, but is it the kind of love the majority really want (or need) or are truly empathetic towards from their democratic voice, post-election?

MY friend the banker and gallerist Boy David says: “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. The challenge is that it is harder to be subtle than strident.”

    And that’s the crux of our problem today as receivers of a media image, isn’t it? Consistency, as a requisite of the art of media image-making servicing the star system-leaning presidential form of politics that we have, would find the need to be subtle about the devil in the details (that would often require analysts to appear on talk shows) waylaid by our political culture as a whole in a manner that would not be done in a parliamentary system’s culture of constant debate. A shallow consistency of and for a media image becomes the science as well as the subject of political scientism, precisely what we see stretched to its utmost level of ludicrousness on Fox News and CNN regarding the US’s own stars in their presidential system. Was his smile the right kind of smile for the right kind of audience? What did his/her offensive statement achieve, poll-wise? Woe to the devil in the details as they continue to dress up as PR and marketing angels upon public ignorance.

    And what details are we talking about? Well, here’s a sample of the sort of Facebook discussion that I would prefer (not that this sample is as “deep” as an esoteric, academic thread, which we do not need to be):

WHILE on the issue of the division in our society/nation, our friend the Perth-based painter A- referred us to a 1970s root division in the study of Philippine history: “Kuyang, nahati sa dalawa ang mga Filipino noon—yung mga nagbasa ng aklat ni Teodoro Agoncillo, at yung mga nagbasa naman ng kay Gregorio Zaide. Tila ang problema ay mas marami ang nakabasa nung kay Zaide. :-p”
    “You zaid it well, kuyang Art. :),” I replied. “Ang problema, ang mga nagbasa kay Agoncillo ay nag-aala-pro-American-Zaide na rin pagdating sa China. Nagiging pro-China Zaides. :v”

    “Lol... :-p,” wrote Kuyang Art.

    “At pa’no naman ang mga nagsunog ng kilay kay Renato Constantino at sa mga namulat at namumulat pa sa patuloy na nagbabagong anyo ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, halimbawa sa pamamagitan ng mga akda o lektura nina Ambeth R. Ocampo, Ka Inggo (Domingo C. de Guzman), Xiao Chua, atbp.?” asked our friend R-. At maganda na nabanggit sila ng ating kaibigan, dahil interesado akong malaman kung ano nga ang masasabi ng mga historyador na ito tungkol sa tunggalian na nangyayari ngayon sa pagitan ng TeamAmerika of anti-‘Dutertards’ at ng all-but-TeamChina apologists ng Duterte-ismo.

    Totoo, marami tayong lalong mauunawaan tungkol sa ugat ng katiwalian dito sa ating bansa kung mababasa natin ang aklat na The Evil That Men Do (a Philippine history book) ni Ka Inggo. At malinaw din sa mga pahayag ni de Guzman na pro-Duterte siya, ayon sa ating kaibigan. Pero pro-Tsina rin nga ba? Marahil kaugnay lang sa tipong pang-malayang patakarang panlabas, sabi ni R-.

    Ngunit, kung usapang geo-realpolitik na, kalayaan how? By joining them when you can't beat them? Hmm. If so, I wonder why those who would be espousing this sort of logic towards China weren’t so enthusiastic in applying the same logic towards the statehood-for-the-Philippines-in-the-US-federal-union movement’s cause? Is it because China is socialist and worth “joining” our islands to, and the US is not?
    If so, for socialism’s sake, it begs the corollary question regarding how socialist China is. Is one-party communist rule, with its own communist party elite of businessmen and new capitalists, socialist? How? How (plutocratically) not? Is the sort of socialism in some parts of the EU despicable or lame to Chinese communist partisan capitalism? Would the sort of socialism espoused by the left of the US Democratic Party be regarded by it as equally lame? What would be their comment on Trotskyist takes against the Communist bureaucracy? Or on anarchist communist takes against this same statist bureaucracy?

    Sana ay kalayaan talaga sa puntong walang pagdidikta o pagdodomina ng mas malakas, was the articulation of our friend R- of an oft-repeated expression of hopefulness among those sympathetic to or hopeful for the President’s veering the Philippines away from the West towards a closer-to-China foreign policy. But ‛sana’ is a too-hopeful prayer-cum-gamble hovering above the current Duterte excitement over a hoped-for Philippine future, wouldn’t you agree? Our friend Wilfredo Gallinero’s comment on another post of mine treats of concrete examples for this very topic, and it doesn’t beat around the bush. He wrote: “why don’t we ask some of the former satellites of Russia why they broke away from the USSR (and then aligned themselves with the rest of Europe away from Russia)? Or why Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Taiwan, do not like mainland China that much. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered around the globe why they ran away from their homeland (and would still be wary of going back)? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to the United States the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China or Russia? Why not ask the Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why not ask the Cubans if they think they deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a vintage Chevy Cadillac?”

    There you go. So, it’s not Duterte, Our Deliverer, then, is it, Mr. Gallinero? Appears more like Duterte, China’s Deliverer. Tama ba ako? And so, who, then, is fit, or should we trust, to deliver for us a truly independent foreign policy, if it is possible?—asked our friend R-. This is definitely a question worth delving into in order to look the devil-in-the-details in the eye. Without beating around the bush, let me go straight to my abstract, which goes thus:

    An independent foreign policy is policy reached by choice of principle, not by the dictate of, say, one's campaign or regime foreign-bank donors, for example. And while the rumor that the AIIB donated a sum to Duterte’s campaign may be a wicked lie, it is also a fact that there was instant communication between the AIIB and the Duterte transition finance team after the President’s win. (Remember: while it was indeed the Aquino government that started mulling the possibility of the Philippines' joining the AIIB, President Aquino himself would later issue a caveat concerning being quick to bite the temptation, even though he would later announce in December 2015 that we shall be joining the Bank).
    We are not saying that Duterte is selling us to the Chinese quick, the way the Makapilis sold some of our grandfathers and grandmothers to the Japs during World War II. But remember that the bulk of the Makapilis, who were promised lands through land reform or peace or good times in Japan, did not become Makapilis by choice of sober principle, but either from duress or from sheer hatred of their neighbors or present landlords. Duterte has been expressing a personal anger towards Americans as a nation of loud people, which could be blamed for the impression that his anti-American friendliness towards China is not entirely derived from a sober principle.

    Pero, whatever sort of principle is behind the Duterte plan, ang problema natin, ultimately, is not whom to trust to deliver us to a zone with an independent foreign policy, but that we have a presidential system where the president is the dictator who decides for the destiny of 100,000,000+ individuals outside of his possibly neo-lumpenbourgeois present luxury. One should wonder why no one is yet calling for a referendum on at least one of Duterte's humongous decisions.

    Ser Boy re-entered this part of the conversation with this: “Right now, China succeeds in peeling the Philippines away from the United States; it is whipping a major win in Beijing’s long-term campaign to weaken U.S. alliances in the region. It will feed fears that the right mix of intimidation and inducements could influence other partners to distance themselves from Washington.”

    “The pre-election rumor that Duterte was a candidate funded by the AIIB turning out to be an earth-shattering reality?” I offered a wicked, gossipy conjecture.

    Here, our friend Don Miguel came in with a re-post of a status post by one named Randy Valiente, who wrote: “Mami-miss ko yung mga sigaw sa kalsada ng 'Tuta ng Kano'. Baka nga mas cute pakinggan yung 'Chihuahua ng China'. Chos. :P”

    Hahaha. :)

YES, our thread ended in laughter. But it was not just that ending that made the thread not the kind of exchange you’d read in comment boxes with Duterte loyalists (on one hand) and opposing politicians’ loyalists (on the other) in them. For, given that some of my friends are sympathetic to certain or all Duterte policies, with others not, I believe that they have all been demonstrating amply well the fact that the brain of each member of this Filipino nation of ours can behave or think beyond being a merely neocolonial lumpenbourgeois echo chamber for the preachings of its favorite neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders. I think an independent foreign policy can begin with each of our nation’s members’ exercise of its independence from the chains of politician- or party-directed blind loyalism. Otherwise one should have no business waving about the word “independence” when he cannot himself be independent enough to be able to examine or question his own idol-politician’s or idol-party’s suspect use of words. [S / -I]

What you consider as yours and what He considers as His are two different things: a comic report

A Philippine-American military exercise (photo from http://dailysignal.com/2013/04/19/americas-ally-the-philippines-requires-continued-support/)

DEAR lords and ladies of JoJolion’s Diet. Today I report to you this:

    I, Josuke of JoJolion, was there to personally hand to the King of the Philippines our Emperor’s invitation to visit the Empire of JoJolion immediately after that very period of His Lordship’s visit to the Empire of China. In all honesty, I was sent by our Emperor for the simple reason that I could speak English and some Tagalog and fully understand Tagalog and Bisaya; all of these three languages being what His Lordship the King has at His disposal. You also all know I know nothing much about Philippine ancient history, and I know that some of you have stated on Tokyo television that you would rather that the Emperor sent somebody else. Thankfully, my lords and ladies, you might like to know that while I know nothing much about Philippine ancient history, well, neither does much of the Filipino population! Anyway, my lords and ladies, that night in China when I watched and then sat with His Lordship the King of the Philippines, I was sipping tea and listening to him speak.

    "Today I announce my separation from the United States," said King Rodrigo I of the Kingdom of the Philippines that very night of October 20, there speaking at the court of the Empire of the Communist Partisans of China. Incidentally, my lords and ladies, the 71-year-old King said this between the 70-year old Philippine-US relations and the 72nd anniversary of General Douglas MacArthur’s Landing in the Barony of Palo on Leyte Island on October 20, 1944, whatever all those numbers might mean to you. I just came to learn about this from my Joestar family.

    Well, I am also happy to report that there is one thing you don’t know about this King, my lords and ladies. He actually likes the country music of Freddie Aguilar! As well as guns, of course. That makes Him a sort of cowboy in a Western film, doesn’t it? He even asked the Filipino country music singer to rewrite the lyrics to one of his songs so it can serve as a theme song for His reign, a fanfare of sorts to be sung by electronic minstrels wherever he goes. But here’s my question: Is superior love for Freddie Aguilar's country music enough to substantiate the King's claims of supreme love of country? For it seems he has a knack for claiming this. A knack, Anak, get it? [Pause here in case The Diet laughs]

    Anyway, my lords and ladies, after the King’s appearance at the court of the Empire of the Communist Partisans of China, we went to the balcony of the Imperial Communist Hotel to join a bevy of Filipino journalists on separate tables.

    “Naaalala ko ang lahat ng tinuro sa akin sa elementary tungkol sa mga pinaggagawa sa amin ng mga Amerikano at ako ay galit na galit hanggang ngayon,” whispered the King to me in a Tagalog with a Visayan accent that I could fully understand. We were seated at a merienda table full of what our Chinese chef called His Lordship’s Favorite Fried de-Lima Saba (all in all, five saba bananas on each plate, each banana halved right down the middle and fried and cinnamon-flavored).
    “Ang di ko maalala ay yung mga sinabi ng Nanay ko tungkol kay King Ferdinand of Marcos noong Queen Cory lady pa siya,” the King continued. “Di ko na nga rin maalala kung totoo nga bang si Queen Cory ang nag-appoint sa akin kaya naging Officer in Charge ako ng Duchy of Davao Siti (better known in all the Kingdom by the acronym DDS), wala na talaga akong maalala tungkol doon.”
    “Basta ang alam ko lang,” he continued, “salbahe talaga itong mga Amerikano. Bakit ba nila pinatay si General del Pilar, ang bata-bata pa noon at masunuring bata sa mga utos ni King Emilio del Aguinaldo, isa pang idol ko. Grabe talaga.”
    I attempted to ask the King details about the names he mentioned, but he was quick to follow up with:
    “Pero itong si King Ferdinand of Marcos, ha, di naman siguro totoo na salbahe ito kasi sa tingin ko kung naging salbahe man iyon, malamang dahil sa mga utos ng mga Amerikano, kasi salbahe talaga itong mga Amerikano, naalala kong turo ng mga titser ko sa elementary,” he said, looking at his plate of de-Lima Saba. I here again attempted to ask who---
    “Naalala ko rin yung sa collegium pa ako . . . iyan, mga classmates ko sa Ateneo de San Beda yang mga secretary ko na yan sa kabilang mesa, mga honor students yan silang lahat, gustong-gusto ng mga praile ng San Beda yang mga yan, sus ginoo. Ako 75 lang palagi,” he said, expecting laughter, which I promptly gave him and his joke.

    You laugh, my lords and ladies. But I expected that, that refrain of His Lordship’s overplayed song: “ako 75 lang palagi.”
    Anyway, after a pause I again attempted to ask about where Ateneo de---
    “Naalala ko, . . . ang daming rally noon dito sa Duchy of Maynila (better known throughout the kingdom as DOM). Kasi, siyempre, kaya siguro kami pinag-iinteresan ng mga Komunista noon kasi nandito kasi ang mga Amerikano, salbahe talaga, tsk,” he said, shaking his head.
    There was, again, a bit of pause here as the King rolled up a sleeve and reached out for a fried saba on my plate while side-glancing toward a female journalist. I felt like peeing from all the many cups of tea I had drunk and there stood up, and---

    “Kaya sabi ko, . . . para di na kami pag-interesan uli ng mga Komunista, pabalikin ko na lang si Joma, yung Robin Hood na titser ko, naalala ko, tapos makipagkaibigan kami with the Empire of China and KGB tsars-ruled Rusya, para wala nang gulo ba, o di ba? Mag-share na lang kami sa West Philippine Sea na yan. Tapos, laswik, pumunta ako ng Vietnam ni Bảo Đại, isa pang Komunista yan. O. di ok na ang Pilipinas, di ba? Sus ginoo, believe me.”
     At that moment I wanted to ask permission to go pee, but---

    “Kaya, sabi ko, itong 2016 Philippine-American military exercises, this will be the last, kasi mga salbahe talaga itong mga ito, naalala kong sabi sa akin ng mga titser ko sa elementary. Dito na lang ako sa Empire of China at sa KGB tsars ng Rasya---baka mababait pa itong mga ito, sabi ko, kasi biruin mo binigyan pa nga kami ng perang pangtayo ng drug rehab centers dito sa, saan ba yon? Basta meron dyan. Isipin mo yan! Saan ka ba---” I couldn’t understand the rest of the words he was munching on at that moment as he chewed on more saba. “On the other hand,” he continued, after wiping his mouth with toilet paper he got from one of his pockets, “wala talaga akong maalala na may ginawang salbahe sa amin itong Tsina at itong Rusya o Rasya. Wala talaga. . . . Well, wala akong maalala. . . . Ang parating naaalala ko ay itong Amerika. Sus, ginoo. Elementary pa lang ako, salbahe na talaga ‘to, putang ina!!!”

    I ran out to pee.

WHEN I got back I saw the King winking at a female journalist. I said to Him:

    “My Lord, can we get serious about this?”
    He looked at me as if to say he is always serious about anything and everything under the sun, even when he’s joking.
    “Let's say your Kingdom becomes more pro-China and -Russia than pro-Westeros from this moment forward,” I said, “okay, but what do you give away and what do you get?”
    A lady at a nearby table with her back turned to us almost half-turned at that moment, as if to listen harder to what might be the answer to the question I just threw at the King.
    “Let's do some real math and realpolitik here, my Lord,” I said. “Your subjects are warring with each other on abstractions like ‘sincere leadership’, ‘His caring presidency at the Presidium of Lackeys’, ‘nationalism’, and ‘independence’, which are---for now---still really nothing more to most than noisy, empty kettles of nice words they can't get water from for a jasmine tea of substance.”

    I didn’t notice Prince Wilfredo of Gallinero, son of the King’s estranged brother, sit at the table. He proudly swung the saba on his fork from left to right as he loudly, sarcastically said:
    “Instead, let us ask the former satellites of the KGB-Tsardom of Russia why they broke away from the USSR. Why the Tibetan Empire, The City Formerly Known as Her Royal Highness’ Hong Kong, Bảo Đại’s Vietnam and the Kingdom of Tungning (oh, Taiwan to you, ser Josuke of JoJolion) do not like mainland China. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered around the globe why they ran away from their homeland? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to the United States of Northern America the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China or Russia? Why not ask Guaicaipuro’s Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why not ask Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar’s Cubans if they think they do deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a vintage Chevy Cadillac?”

    Ser Dexter of Amoroso, son of a cousin of the King, was now also at the table. He said, joining the conversation, with the King not minding anyone as he busied himself with his saba, “If we are allied with the US of North America and the KGB Tsardom of Russia starts war, China as our ally would most likely be in charge of the Pacific front and use our islands for bases. And having the US of NA as our ally, well, they’d most likely request use of the burghs of Clark and Subic. That would make us a primary target, and same goes with the Empire of JoJolion and South Goguryeo.”

    We all stared at him, even the King.
    “Well,” ser Dexter continued, “if we are allied with China, same goes din. Either way, no choice. Two-edged sword ang pagiging strategic ng bansa natin. Di ba, My Lord?”
    “A, ewan ko sa iyo; not my cup of tea,” said His Lordship, who quickly went back to winking at the female journalist while he sipped tea.

    “So, siding with China is safer with that Pacific front scenario?” I asked ser Dexter, in my English with a Nihonggo accent.

    But before ser Dexter could answer, ser Wilfredo there addressed the King, again sarcastically: “Just asking, my Lord, but why are we so hyper about changing our status quo? Our big problem before was Drugs and Corruption. Now we are so involved in geopolitics?”
    “I think they belong to the same category, ser Wilfredo,” I hastened to offer an explanation on the King’s behalf, who might find the good ser not his cup of tea of a conversation mate. “One seems eager to sacrifice all geopolitical complexities in exchange for rehab centers.”

    I couldn’t believe that that was what came out of my mouth. The King there turned to me, stared at me, but soon smiled and moved back his stare to another female journalist at whom he also winked tirelessly.

    “And as for the corruption of others,” I ventured to utter a joke, sensing that the King was up to receiving jokes at this hour of the night, “I dunno if theirs are bigger corruptions than the rumored one that says One actually got his prime campaign money from the AIIB.”
    Sers Dexter and Wilfredo looked at me, shocked, then giggled. The King turned to me again, stared at me, but after four seconds on a grandfather clock smiled at me for having the ambassadorial charm to crack such a joke, only to be frightened by the Kingly stare, haha. He threw his cooking oil-stained fork at my livery, over which act sers Dexter and Wilfredo LOL’d.

SER Wilfredo was saying: “China will deal first with JoJolion, South Goguryeo, HRH Australia, Bảo Đại’s Vietnam, and most likely the rajas’ India and Indonesia. If we remain neutral it will be worse. Warring factions within our country will be armed by each’s opposing powers. We become like Syria, killing each other 'til the fight between the superpowers end.”

    I suddenly realized that Ser Hubert of Posadas, a freelancing knight of sorts, had been standing behind Ser Wilfredo, holding a cup of tea. He said then, “I do not think there is an exit from this. We have always been primed for proxy wars, so either end of the situation we will still be like Syria. We cannot escape playing the geopolitical game at this point in history. We have to at least take initiative, or be, as always, victim to the external manipulation by foreign powers. And how could we not, with our strategic location and weak military? The end goals, gentlemen, however you play it, are 1) industrialization while expanding our agricultural base, 2) equitable growth, 3) a strengthened local military’s technical capability, and 4) unified internal warring factions. The homework is more internal, regardless of the externalities, because once we achieve internal technology to a level of sustainability and equitably utilize our resources, we can then start to assert control of the strategic location that we have been blessed with by the Lord Bathala. Play them against each other is what I say. Eh, my Lord King?”

    But the King was suddenly not there. Ah, he was now standing in front of a bunch of seated and smiling journalists.

    “Why not concentrate on improving our economy to solve our poverty problem?” asked ser Wilfredo, turning to face the freelancing knight. “We are rich in everything. All we need to do is manage it well and share it fairly among us. That is how our leadership should show genuine love for its people.”

    “Yup,” said ser Hubert, “but as someone exposed to risk organizations and the intelligence community, that is the crux of the problem. If you try to do exactly that, foreign special interests and powers will neutralize you. This is well documented in our own Alexandrian libraries, and if you talk to any careerist in the NSC and NICA or even ISAFP, they will privately say so. It’s just that we are so enamored with our relationship with the US of NA and, as ser Josuke of JoJolion has been wont to point out, the internal colonizers are easily swayed by US of NA companies, Indonesian big money, China money, Malaysian money, that you will find that goal unattainable. Many have tried and literally died.”

    Everyone stared at ser Hubert, shocked at the reality bite he shared, their hands stopping short of bringing their sabas to their respective mouths.

    “The SOP,” ser Hubert continued as he strolled around the round table, “and I have worked with mining companies and contractors, is to start with AID while they steal the land, and many times stealing the health of the community as well. If the community is not compromised, brand their leaders as communists and place them in the OB! Then it will be easy to kill them.”

    Everyone slowly pushed their sabas to their mouths, still eager for ser Hubert to continue.

    And ser Hubert continued. “The AID,” he said, “is used to get baseline data and a social survey. Third parties then use bribery to buy the local dukes, extract resources. All standard playbook procedures.”

    Everyone slowly chewed on their sabas, looking down at the linen of realization on the table of globalization, as ser Hubert moved on to another table.

I DIDN’T know it was Lady Melanie of Victoriano at the nearby table. She swung around and asked: “So, ser Josuke of JoJolion, what items are on your ‘give away’ and ‘get’ list?”

    “Sa Those Chinese-American Companies In Manila That Cannot Be Named na lang ako manghihingi ng get list ko, ma’am Melanie,” I said, smiling, as I struggled to flaunt my Tagalog with an anime accent. “As for King Rodrigo I, I think rehab centers okey na sa kanya; yun lang yata hinihingi niya, simpleng probinsiyano lang naman daw siya. Tsaka isda promdi Iskaroboro?”
    She smiled and turned back to her table.

    Ser Wilfredo said: “We give away our natural resources and we get low-paying jobs as promoters of their products at the expense of our Overseas Filipino Workers.”

    I said, “Your country is so used to doing those, ser Wilfredo. What's to stop your lumpenbourgeoisie from giving away the same to a new colonial party? :)”

    He smiled and returned to his saba.

    Lady Melanie turned back again, saying: “We won the case at the inter-nations arbitration table, didn’t we? The King won't even get what is ours?”

    “Madame,” I said, “I think what you consider as yours and what He considers as His are two different things? And I think His definition of ‘bayan ko’ is not so different from the definition of it by seemingly China-funded Bayan Muna? A China-centric Asia Union would be their definition of a supreme bayan, different from your definition of the word, true?”

    “Hmm,” she said. “Do you think His ‘Bayan ko’ (pre- & during the election of Kings) is different now, now that he is the King?”

    “Rumor is creeping in, my lady,” I said, “that what we're witnessing now are the repercussions of that equally rumored pre-election Rodrigo-AIIB connection.”

    Ser Wilfredo looked up from his saba, saying, “Silk road, too, eh?”

    “Silk bridge,“ I said.

    “AIIB controlled by China,” ser Wilfredo continued, glancing with a tinge of bitterness towards his Uncle, “will finance that ambitious bridge project. All member states' banking and private sectors will put in their share. Most material and labor will be from China. It is business as usual for China. They have to think faster because their temporary prosperity is diminishing. In the long end, it will be faster to spread their products throughout the continent. Sounds good, but are we sure China will not use that leverage against the AIIB’s member states? As far as we are concerned, what do we need them for? We have more than enough wealth for every Filipino. All that this wealth needs is proper management!”

    He glanced bitterly towards his Uncle, there flirting with the media.

    Suddenly, Ser Raymond of the Red, the jester-puppeteer, passed by our table, saying to us as he danced to Freddie Aguilar’s music, “One for you, one for me. Two for you, one, two for me. Three for you, one, two, three for me . . .”, as he disappeared into the crowd of standing and talking journalists, among whom was the King, dancing with His cup of tea.

    And that is my report to you, my lords and ladies! Arigato! Here’s hoping you will have use for it before His Lordship arrives for his visit! Just remember this, though, my lords, my ladies. To the King of the Philippines we are a friend. We are not the anime. Get it? Not an anime at all, hahaha. Kanpai!!! [S / -I]

Another advice to the foreign tourist

pgoto borrowed from http://www.factmag.com/2012/07/07/bloc-2012-and-why-speculative-coverage-of-last-nights-chaos-leaves-a-bad-taste/

SIR/MA'AM/MADEMOISELLE, there's nothing to fear, really---in spite of all the news you're hearing, there's absolutely no conflict in our islands; instead, there's total harmony! You often hear that our government here is in shambles? There's absolutely no truth to that bit of propaganda. Let me give you this advice that I have the habit of giving to foreign tourists like you.
    For instance, Sir/Ma'am/Mademoiselle, in the Philippines there is no difference between a majority bloc and a minority bloc; they both belong to the same bloc. In our Congress, it's true that our congressmen are divided into two blocs and the blocs are given different names (majority and minority). And, true, there are times when the minority appears like a true minority, in conflict with the President on a number of policies. But that would be a mirage in the desert, sir, ma'am, mademoiselle. You see, the names majority/minority are just there for the sake of giving tourists the impression that they are different, because, in fact, they're not! It's all theater, you know? And what do they say in theater? They say, "where there's no conflict, there's no story." We have total harmony in our theater, er, country, sir/ma'am/mademoiselle. All right? Absolutely nothing to fear! [S / -I]

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324877/news/regions/davao-mayor-duterte-moonlights-fights-crime-as-taxi-driver

THE faults and loopholes in plans are always clearer in hindsight. And it is from this perfect angle within the present that you might grant me the indulgence to find out where the presently-perceived progressing wrongness in Rodrigo Duterte’s national war on drugs may have started, going even beyond its practical launch during the transition period prior to his inauguration.

    I won’t get into the good things the war brought out from the dark as it exposed to national attention a problem already so huge that the gravity of the situation in solving it seems almost unimaginable now. I’m sure Duterte’s defenders can enumerate quite well enough some of those good things.

    But if the world and a growing number of Filipinos have perceived some things going wrong with the Duterte approach to the problem, so have I, and—thanks to the beauty of hindsight—I may now proceed to venture into where those mistakes may have been lurking prior to and during implementation:

1. First, it seems to me now that when Duterte made his drastic solution to the drug problem as one of the highlights, if not the sole highlight, of his presidential election candidacy and campaign, that was perhaps also when he practically started to shape what would later be his impending war on drugs’ problem with critics (perhaps also this war's later-found difficulty in quickly and efficiently obliterating the menace). True, Duterte the candidate might not have been the Duterte candidate that many wanted to see blossom, though we don’t know that, if he had not harped too much on that subject (or on that solution of his to that subject). But Duterte is Duterte, and if everyone has an obsession, this was his.
       But one thing for sure now, well at least now looking back, is that the loquacity of the campaign rhetoric on it as a problem needing a drastic solution, while it served his campaign was also already paving the way for its potential unraveling. For it was simply by announcing this solution of his to the nation, and consequently to the world of criminals (and to the parallel universe of policemen frustrated with the requirements of the law and the corruption in the judiciary) that he may have unwittingly planted the seeds of the war’s own defeat.
       We might remember that the death toll from this war actually already started during the transition period when Noynoy Aquino was still commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Duterte was still the president-elect with diktats in waiting. When, during this period, Duterte made speeches encouraging police to kill drug criminals who opted to fight it out with arresting officers, the encouragement certainly sounded like an offer to policemen to use that scenario as their perfect alibi for the summary execution of confirmed drug dealers that the President might have wanted done (as per some other contents of his speeches). The encouragement would likely also have been useful to erring or criminal cops friendly to drug lords, who may have used the same scenario as the same perfect alibi for the elimination of would-be-whistleblowers (small pushers, runners, client users).
2. The garrulousness of Duterte’s anti-illegal-drug campaign never changed its ways after his inauguration, maintaining a high profile via its appetite for loudness. That practically functioned as a warning to big drug criminals of their impending arrests. In fact, Duterte and his henchman, newly-installed Philippine National Police chief Gen. Bato de la Rosa, would state very explicit warnings to those drug lords on broadcast TV, saying, clearly or in effect, “get ready, we’re coming for you”. This ill-advised loudness defeated the potential of getting to the big drug lords through the quiet use as assets of small dealers (and client users). Instead, the government practically encouraged and aided the elimination of these small dealers, in the process eliminating their potential use as assets and witnesses necessary for getting to the big drug lords and necessary for the latter’s later ultimate conviction in the courts. In short, the Duterte proclivity for braggadocio made it possible for the program to only get the small fry as it practically warned the medium and big fish to get out of the way, even aiding the latter in eliminating elements in the equation who would potentially rat out on them. Thus the so-called “vigilante killings,” which, for all we know, may likely have been killings of simple users who necessarily knew who were who in the trading of the drug supply. These “vigilante killings” by drug dealers would be exacerbated by such programs as 1) Oplan Tokhang that encouraged the surrender of runners and users for listing and 2) mandatory drug testing that announced results: these two programs exposed users to the world of drug dealing as potential testifiers, which would be reason enough for their later or immediate assassination/elimination by the drug dealers. The programs' ultimate accomplishment? These eliminated the witnesses, setting free the drug lords. 
3. Another offshoot of Duterte’s loud campaign (which might have been frustrating to the PNP’s quiet spies and assets) was its susceptibility to being used by the regular murderers for hiding the real motives of their murders. It’s not unlikely that some policemen frustrated with the law and the justice system might have been easily taken in by the cardboards laid on top of murder victims' bodies announcing an anti-drug-pusher motive for their killing, a reaction that would lead these policemen to dismiss any enthusiasm to investigate further other possible motives behind those killings. And when one such occurrence multiplies itself to a horrific number that may trouble the media and human rights organizations as well as the rest of the relatively civilized world, then the war on drugs starts to move on its way to defeat. Instead of gathering more fans (in the manner it gathered fans during the enthusiasm of the election campaign period), it accumulated critics.
4. I need not say much about the potential of Duterte’s approach—along with any killings via vigilantism that may likely have been encouraged by Duterte’s passion—to eliminate wrongfully-accused persons (innocent persons) or persons adjudged as guilty by the verdict of mistaken identification.
5. Much of the enthusiasm for and loyalism towards Duterte’s war on drugs seems to have derived from a mythical appreciation of its beauty, lacking any favor for a delicate treatment of the problem. This kind of enthusiasm would necessarily churn out more good-looking braggadocio (bravado) instead of more scientific thinking towards winning the war. The potential unraveling of the still-continuing war (for which the President has asked for another six months to complete) could start precisely from this seeming waylaying of any delicate treatment of the situation in favor of the charismatic carelessness of the drastic, thanks to the penchant for sweeping obsessive thinking in the President himself. Thus his announcements (after the Davao explosion that some have begun to regard as an experimental false flag) that the military might have to be hauled in into this war, without weighing the fact that this solution could bring in more problems (via evolution) instead of real closure. We’re not even talking yet about the announcements that seem to be jeopardizing a long-time alliance with the relatively more democratic West (that has been critical of his war) in favor of a sweet-talking trickster called China (that has offered him rehab centers allegedly already under construction). This obsession by Duterte with one single personal interest (the dreamy utopia of a drug-free world) seems to have become so emotional to him that it has placed the drug problem in a pedestal worth any sacrifice, even the sacrifice by a leader of his country’s national sovereignty, thanks perhaps to a blinded confidence that he will not be deceived by his new like-minded allies from the lands of Qin Shi Huang and surviving KGBs.
6. The recently-accumulating careless statements of the President have made people nervous, primarily of the fact that he may have used this bottom-up war on drugs not for the serious elimination of the trade and drug lords but merely as a casus belli for the establishment of a culture of fear and obedience, fear of and obedience to a loved leader, after which establishment he can perhaps impose whatever personal utopia he has had in that strange 71-year-old brain of his, and likewise place in power the friends and institutions (local and foreign) that he wanted placed in lieu of the old friends his 71-year-old memory had come to hate.

    Sadly, all this developing blindness or myopia (in government or in the people) may perhaps only be proven true when it’s already too late and the only redeeming solutions available are already hidden in the tears of hindsight. [S / -I]





P.S. October 4, afternoon: If I may be allowed to speak in the language of divination priests, I'd bluntly say this to you now, Mr. President: "Here you are again, sir, deciding out loud, making all your thoughts known at a local leaders' congress. Sure you're telling them truths, collective truths and personal truths, but isn't the habitual or continuous screaming out of extemporaneous, lecturing truths risky when you are telling these to the populace yourself, touting yourself as your own best communication expert? Isn't it a disadvantage when you are being heard in the battlefield of your war, consequently warning the enemies you shouldn't be handing the benefit of a warning? Might it not be better to tell all these to key people in your team, giving them the blunt truths they might already know that yet need to be quickly and aggressively addressed? Might not the communication of a positive purpose or goal work better for the people's collective listening ears? Can you come up with a better communication plan than the non-plan you now have of making criminals daily hear your ever-present anger that's enabling them to adapt or be ready for?"
    Here's my joke about you to counter your Hitler rant:
    Kung si Rodrigo Duterte ang naging Hitler ng Germany at si Bato de la Rosa ang kanyang naging Goering, hindi na kakailanganin ni Churchill si Turing dahil walang magiging Enigma.

UNLESS WE PUT BACK THE L IN EDLSA, CHANGE WOULD STILL BE STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND WON'T BE COMING AT ALL

hiram mula sa http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/380824/balitanghali/rep-salceda-mas-nagdudulot-ng-traffic-sa-edsa-ang-pokemon-go-kaysa-provincial-buses

EMERGENCY powers. Ito ang hinihingi ng Malacañang sa Senado para malutas ang traffic at transportation crisis sa Metro Manila. "Change is coming" with those emergency powers, pangako ng paulit-ulit na campaign at government slogan ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Subalit, teka, kung ang departamento ehekutibo ang nanghihingi at hindi ang Senado ang humingi ng hearing tungkol sa usapin na ito ng emergency powers para sa Pangulo, ito ang tanong: Di ba ay may inihanda at isinumite ka na dapat na plano sa Senado bago ka pa man pumunta roon para pormal na manghingi ng emergency powers? Bakit kailangan ka pang tanungin kung ano ang mga plano mo ng mga taong hinihingan mo ng emergency powers?
    Huwag na natin isa-isahin ang mga planong inilahad din naman ng departamento ehekutibo sa Senate hearing tungkol dito, pareho yung wow, na naman at yung maganda o tumpak na plano; kayo na ang bahalang mag-research kung ano ang mga ito at kumumporme o kumamot sa ulo sa bawat isa sa mga ito. Ngayon, gusto ko lang balikan ang mga nakaraan para mailatag ko ang aking pananaw sa buong polisiya sa trapik at transportasyon ng gobyernong ire.


MGA kababayan, may paborting salitang Bisaya na ginagamit ang Pangulo kapag nalalamyaan sa isang tao: bayot. Sa Tagalog, ibig sabihin nito ay bakla. Alam ko naman na ang ibig sabihin ng Pangulo ay malamya lamang, o walang tapang, o mahina, at hindi tunay na bakla, dahil alam naman niya siguro na maraming bakla ang may tapang at lakas ng loob, tulad nalang halimbawa ng tapang na marahil ay nakita niya kina Behn Cervantes at Lino Brocka noong panahon ng Martial Law. Gayunpaman, ayokong gamitin ang salitang ito kung ako naman ang malalamyaan sa isang polisya ng gobyernong ito dahil homophobic ang dating, tulad ng pagka-sexist ng pagsabing "para ka namang babae." Kaya ang gagamitin kong salita pag ako ang malalamyaan sa isang polisiya o kawalan ng isang pagkaklaro at pagkadiretso at pagka-malakas ay . . . malamya lamang. O di kaya walang kuwenta. O di kaya supot. Oops, di rin yata politically correct yon.
    Huwag na tayong magpaligoy-ligoy pa. Ito ang tanong ko:
    Kelan kaya tayo magkakaroon ng gobyernong may buong tapang na i-nationalize ang lahat ng sasakyang pampubliko sa metropolis o di kaya gawin ang ginawa sa Melbourne na di man nationalized ay nasa ilalim ng consortia kung kaya't di magulo, dahilan kung bakit nakaya niyang ipagbawal ang pribadong sasakyan sa ilang daan ng metropolis (maliban sa business cargo vans), at inobliga ang lahat na gumamit ng sasakyang pampubliko, maging janitor man o CEO ng mga korporasyon. Parang sa Japan din, kung saan pati ang mga CEO ay kumakain sa cafeteria ng mga sararimanu (salary men). Kelan kaya tayo makakakita ng ganitong uri ng tapang para sa pagkakapantay-pantay ng lahat sa daan? Kelan? Kailan?!
    Sa ngayon kasi, tila may pagsandal na naman sa rason na ang trapik ay di naman parating "matrapik", at ito ay pinapalala lang din ng isang kathang-isip nating mga komyuter. Hmm. Kaya pala't narito pa rin tayo at may patuloy na pakikinabang ang oil companies sa malalang trapik na nagpapalago sa kanilang mga negosyo, salamat sa pagsunog ng mga sasakyan ng gasolina kahit di umaandar ang mga ito.
    Naroon ang nakapagtatakang mga naunang utos ng LTFRB kung saan ipinagbawal ang pagdaan sa EdlSA ng isang uri ng public transport (UV Express) pabor sa isang public transport (buses), na di ko malaman kung ano ang naitulong sa trapik sa EdlSA gayung dumami lang naman ang nagcolorum na mga vans at naglipana na rin ang mga Uber at Grab. Ito ay habang nagkakakanta ang gobyerno na priyoridad daw nila ang public transport, gayung wala pa namang nagagalaw na paggalaw ng mga pribadong sasakyan at ang UV Express pa nga ang unang pinagdiskitahan, at pinaglakad pa ng malayo ang ilang mga mananakay nitong working class patungo sa kanilang mga MRT connecting stations. At sasabihin ng gobyerno na socialist daw siya at maka-working class? Sus, ginoo.
    (Mabuti naman at pagkaraan ng ilang linggo ay binawi rin ito ng mga taga-Dabaw na nagpatupad nito na tila may weird na konsepto tungkol sa trapik sa EdlSA, bagamat may mga kondisyon pa rin itong di ko pa rin maintindihan. O naiintindihan ko kung umaalis ako sa sosyalistang perspektibo na pinangalandakan ng gobyerno na siya rin daw perspektibo na pinanggagalingan nila. Pweh.)
    Meron ba talagang solusyong bago ang gobyerno natin ngayon maliban sa mga imprastaktura na naman na makikipaghabulan na naman sa dumaraming sasakyan na humahabol sa bilang ng mga indibidwal sa lumulobong populasyon ng lungsod?
    Ang problema ng trapik ay hindi ang trapik, kundi ang kathang-isip ng mga rehimen na ang tanging solusyon sa paglobo ng populasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan ay nasa paggiba ng mga bahay para matayuan ng mga kalsada. Saan ito hihinto, pag naubos na ang mga bahay? Ang problema ng EDSA (at hindi ng EdlSA) ay sa patuloy nating pagsamba sa pagkasanto ng mga pribadong sasakyan nang walang pagtatanong man lang kung alin at sino ba talaga ang dapat na ituring na santos ng highway na ito. Matagal na nating tinanggap na santos ang mga pribadong sasakyan dito, nang walang pagpreno at pagmunimuni tungkol sa kung sino ba talaga ang los santos. The saints. Napapanahon na siguro na ibalik natin ang L sa EdlSA, silang mga tunay na los santos, ang public transport commuters na siyang dapat na sinasamba ng mga polisiyang pang-transportasyon.
    Sa ngayon, wala. Wala akong nakikitang solusyon na magpapahinto sa pagpabor ng gobyerno sa pribadong sasakyan. Ang future transporation utopia kung saan wala nang pribadong sasakyan ay di pa darating sa Pilipinas sa mga darating na siglo. Kailangan pa siguro natin ng liderato na sa isyung ito ay may totoong tapang, tapang na may dalang pagbabago sa buhay ng mga taong di pinagkaitan ng kaukulang pansin ni Lino Brocka. Tapang di lamang sa pagtanggap sa katotohanan na kailangan na natin ng nasyon ng mass transport at di nasyon ng mga pribadong sasakyan na wala na ngang maparkingan ay siya pa nating sinasamba, at lalo ng tapang na igiit ang solusyon na para sa nakararami, o para sa kanila na araw-araw ay gising sa reyalidad na hindi pinalala ng kathang-isip itong mga nangyayari.
    O di kaya, let's gather our heads on this, people! And I mean, let's gather the real bravery of working together on this in a participatory democracy, instead of relying on just the macho bravado of a Department of Transportation that keeps on giving us nothing but the drugged view of a promise of a bogus socialist transport policy that shall be coursed through diktats. Let's believe in us together, instead of just a Tugade. Together, not Tugade, and rally for real change sans the kowtowing to private interests via emergency powers. (Concerning PPP projects, here's a caveat to all optimistic about new government PPP arrangements expected to come from the emergency powers setup, marketed as the Duterte solution. . . . which, for our information, were actually also marketed before as the Noynoy Aquino, Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada, Ramos, and Cory Aquino solutions: read about New Zealand's "promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm", for example).
    I say again: Let's take back our EdlSA, this time with the L that refers to the real santos, the los santos, Lino Brocka's santos, the public-transport-commuting masses. Yan ang epipanyo (o epifanyo, o epiphany) na pinapanangalin kong makita sana ng lahat bago pa man sumambulat ang mga lumang uri ng solusyon na dala ng emergency powers na ito. [S / -I]

An Open Letter to a Socialist President

DEAR President Rodrigo Duterte:

Sir, for describing yourself as a Socialist I already salute you. Not many in our country have a proper appreciation of the word/concept “socialist”; most equate it with being a “revolutionary communist,” even as armed revolutionary communists regard mere socialists as lame while the socialists regard the armed revolutionary communists as party fascists. I salute you for the boldness in your unabashed self-tagging using that word, Mr. President, the same way that I continue to salute Ninoy Aquino for calling himself a Christian Socialist during that time when “confessing” to being a socialist was equal to confessing one had leprosy.

Pero ito lang, Mr. President. For almost a week now the UV Express-using commuting working class has been made to suffer by a memo made by your LTFRB chair appointee, Martin Delgra, care of a legalist rationale. The memo banned UV Express vans from using the length of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue immediately after its release. The objective of the memo? To relax the heavy traffic along EdlSA—as if the UV Express vans ply the entire length of EdlSA and number in the thousands. Mr. President, who are profiting from this memo? There are the bus lines, of course, who now have to carry the UVE passengers from the provinces dropped off by their UVEs at an EdlSA or near-EdlSA corner 200 meters away from their connecting MRT stations. (Some would take the bus for such a relatively short distance to avoid perspiring on their office clothes in a 200 meter walk). And right now, colorum vans (even cars) have cropped up along the highway in question to exploit the shortage of a faster alternative to the slow buses and the cramped MRT (the faster alternative, the UV Express with licenses, are now missing). These colorums don’t have to pick up passengers at UVE terminals, and their passengers don’t have to walk 200 meters to get to them.

In short, Mr. President, the objective of the memo is not at all accomplished by its targeting the UV Express as a culprit, especially since the number one and number two culprits for the heavy traffic along EdlSA are the staggering number of private vehicles and buses plying the route, as well as the taxis and gentrified Ubers and Grabs.

Mr. President, the legalist rationale used by Atty. Delgra has not only resulted in working class commuters’ equating their current suffering (at the heavier traffic now traversed by the UVEs and at their having to walk 200 meters to their connecting MRT train stations) to what they’ve suffered in the long MRT queues from the start of DOTC Sec. Jun Abaya’s secretaryship in the Noynoy Aquino government. And they now equate Atty. Delgra’s use of the law with the Aquino government’s use of the law in relation to laglag-bala victims (which, you'll remember, victimized the victims twice and supported the extortionists).

Therefore, Mr. President, Atty. Delgra’s seeming insensitivity to the working class commuters’ suffering, a suffering produced immediately after his memo’s diktat, does not seem to reflect your Socialist sensibility. In fact, it seems to negate it, defy it, and defame it.

I have no connection with any UV Express operator, Mr. President. I merely have relatives and friends who belong to the UV Express-using working class who have suffered enough, Mr. President. And—like you—I too have claims to a Socialist sensibility.

And speaking of Socialist sensibilities, Mr. President, I would not be surprised if—by your Socialism—you were to nationalize the EdlSA bus route, Mr. President, as well as limit the number of private vehicles using the highway during the rush hours, instead of continue to allow Atty. Delgra to sacrifice one mode of public transport (some of which have ceased to invest in trips) in favor of another public transport (the buses, and the new colorum vans and cars along this route) in order to indulge his mysterious understanding of EdlSA traffic.

Mr. President, I believe that if there is one leadership that can stop the long-standing Filipino culture of favoring the private vehicle over the public transport vehicle, the favor for the vehicle over the pedestrian, as well as a ludicrous favor for a public transport over another public transport, it is your Socialist presidency, Mr. President.

The working class commuters of our republic have suffered enough, sir. That is why we rely on your socialist awareness and here hope and pray that Atty. Delgra will imbibe the same amount of empathy for such suffering that you have used to express yourself through this past year, Mr. President.

We thank you in advance,

Respectfully and humbly yours,

Jojo Soria de Veyra
Citizen