Para-Parochial Promise

KUNG gagawa ng masama ang aming pari o Obispo, o kahit ang Santo Papa, hindi ko ipagtatanggol. Sasama pa ako sa mga magkukondina sa ginawa o mga ginawa.
    Ikaw? Kung ang pastor niyo . . .

Ukol Sa Mga Panawagan ng Pagtiwalag o Di Na Pag-ambag

HINDI lahat ng ordinaryong Katoliko sa ating bansa ay naging anti-RH Law, o kasalukuyang anti-divorce or even 100% anti-abortion, to mention a few contentious positions sa Simbahang Katolika sa Pilipinas. I may even dare say that, bagamat lahat sila ay patuloy na nagsisimba at nag-aambag sa Iglesia Katolika, lahat ng Catholics are actually cafeteria ones. Naniniwala akong ganun din ang mga miyembro ng Iglesia ni Cristo at Jesus Is Lord Church, hindi ko nga lang alam kung ilang porsyento sa kanilang populasyon ang hindi nagpapadala sa anumang groupthink na mayroon na isinusulong ng isa o ilan sa kanilang mga lider. In my case, totally na titiwalag lang ako sa Roman Catholic Church, temporarily man o permanently, o ihihinto ang aking pa-₱20-₱20 na inilalagay sa collection bag tuwing nagsisimba (na, I admit, ay ilang beses lang naman sa isang taon), kung akin nang makikita na ang LAHAT ng lider, o ang MGA NASA TUKTOK, ng aking Simbahan . . . ay kampi sa mga tao o kaugalian na di ko kailanman maaaring kampihan.

Ano ka?

Siyempre wala

photo from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/137508/137508

ANG problemang trapik sa Metro Manila ay problema ng tao, hindi kotse. Mantakin mong napakaraming meyor ang nag-dedecide tungkol sa traffic flow at traffic harbingers sa metropolis na ito at kailangan silang konsultahin lahat ng MMDA at sumang-ayon sa bawat panukala ng nasabing ahensiya.
    Iisa lang ang meyor ng New York City at mas malaki ang land area ng New York City (hindi pa kasama ang water area) kaysa sa total area ng buong Metro Manila! Matrapik din sa New York City, ngunit walang napakaraming meyor na kailangan konsultahin at kumbinsihin.
    May gagawin ba si Presidente Duterte o ang Konggreso sa problemang ito? Siyempre wala! [S / -I]

A Brief Deconstruction of a Drunken Logic

THE "death penalty" (already an oxymoron nobody cares to deconstruct in our drunken nation) is a direct admission of the Philippine prison system's inability to truly isolate from society perpetrators of heinous crimes. Therefore, it---as a solution to that prison system problem---makes it no different from a man's resorting to drinking wine when he can't anymore drink from his long-broken water faucet. Like Mr. Bean, this man will stupidly applaud his own newfound solution and will avoid arguments against problems that may arise from his habitual wine-drinking. Like this man, the "death penalty", in fits of beating its chest like a man excited with having found a manly solution to his stupid problem, will avoid arguments against historically-proven new problems that could arise from it---such as wrongful executions of persons adjudged as "criminals", or criminal society's countering with its own death-brandishing judgments upon all privileged. Bur even before this, like Mr. Bean, the death penalty (or capital punishment) would avoid the basic introductory question we hinted above, which asks whether death can be considered a form of punishment, or whether a dead man made dead by the "death penalty" can both be considered as one that "has been punished" as well as one now "resting in peace". If it is the death process that is actually being referred to here as the punishment and not death itself, then is it possible to have that sans the death? Thus, torture? Or should we be done with all this stupid nonsense and just call a spade a spade, so to stop all this bullshit about the death penalty being a penalty. Let's all call it what it is, the extermination of what our civilization would judge as our society's "true criminals" (some of whom may actually have logical reasons for considering our neoliberal or "jedem das Seine, mir das Meiste" civilization as criminal by itself). In which case I may be all for it, this extermination after having honestly called itself so, . . . with the hope that I won't end up like Mr. Bean or a knocked-out Manny Pacquiao after a media-publicized wrongful execution happens years from now. [S / -I]

Isang Maiksing Reminder Tungkol sa Anatomiya ng Pilipinong Botante at ang Ugat ng Abuse of Power sa Ating Bansa

ANO ang mali sa pronouncement na ito?
    "Jojo, di ba ibinoto mo rin si Duterte? Tapos wala pa yatang isang buwan ay kung anu-ano na ang pinagsasasabi mo tungkol sa Duterte government na binoto mo? Kung gago nga ang Duterte government, ayon sa punto ng ilang kritisismo mo laban dito, aba, isa ka rin sa mga dahilan kung bakit ganito ang nangyari sa bansa natin under the Duterte government. Kaya ang masasabi ko sa iyo ay ito: dun ka na lang sa binoto mo, gago ka! Panindigan mo na lang, punyeta ka!! Di ka namin kailangan sa panig namin!!!"
    Obvious naman na ang nagsulat nito ay hindi bumoto o nangampanya kay Duterte. Dahil ang bumoto kay Duterte ay ganito ang isusumbat:
    "Ang problema sa atin, boboto tayo, tapos sa huli tayo ay magrereklamo. Ganun ba parati? Di ba dapat suportahan na lang kung sino man ang nanalo dahil yun ang pinili ng tao? O totoo nga bang mahilig lang talaga tayong maging parating opositor? Kaya siguro hindi umuunlad ang ating bayan."
    Hokey. At ngayon, ang sagot ko sa mga mungkahi na yan, na ilalatag ko ng mahaba at ng ganito:
    "Ser, ma'am, ang pagkakaalam ko po, lahat po tayo ay nalalagay sa single-issue activism o single-issue politics tuwing eleksyon. At least sa case ko ganun ang tingin ko sa sarili ko bilang botante. Ibig sabihin, binoboto ko ang tao na nagmumungkahi na gagawa ng solusyon sa single issue na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan. Oo nga't marami tayong nasa ating mga listahan na di angkop sa kandidatong iboboto natin at maaaring angkop dun sa kabila, kaya lang hindi iyon ang nasa tuktok sa listahan natin, at kahit man marami tayong magkakaparehong causa sa ating mga listahan ay magkakaiba tayo ng piniling issue na ilalagay sa tuktok ng ating kani-kaniyang listahan. At dahil alam ko iyan, ser, ma'am, nung ako'y bumoto, pinangako ko sa aking sarili na hindi ako magiging loyalista ng sinumang pulitiko at ng kanyang mga pagpangako kundi ng pagtupad sa mga issues sa aking listahan. Kaya . . . dun sa sinasabi niyong pareho na dun na lang ako dapat sa binoto ko parati, nagkakamali po kayo sa inyong pag-iisip na ang binoto ko ay yung tao at hindi yung causa na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan (na maaaring tinupad niya o tinupad niya ng mali o sinuway niya o iniwan na sa daan). Alam niyo, hindi lang naman ang kandidatong binoto ko ang nangako. Ako rin ay nangako. Pinangako ko sa aking sarili na lalabanan ko ang aking piniling kandidato sa ibang issue sa aking listahan na hindi siya angkop. At, alam niyo, ganun din naman ang pinangako ko sa aking sarili pagdating sa ibang kandidato, na kung sila ang mananalo ay hindi ko sila lalabanan sa lahat ng issue, dahil hindi sila ang kinalaban ko kundi ang maraming issue na hindi angkop sa kanila. Susuportahan ko naman sila sa mga issue sa listahan ko na angkop sa kanila. Muli, . . . sa mungkahi niyo, ser, na doon na lang ako parati dapat sa binoto ko dahil di niyo ako kailangan sa panig niyo, at sa parinig ninyo, ma'am, na tila adik na ako sa pagiging kontra parati, hindi po ako pumapanig sa inyo, ser, o sa kabila, ma'am, dahil sa tao ninyo/doon kundi dahil sa causa ninyo/doon kung saan kaisa ninyo/nila ako, dahil nasa listahan ko rin ang causa na iyon. Ser, kung ayaw niyo akong tanggapin sa rally niyo dahil binoto ko si Duterte, aba, okey lang. Kikilos ako nang hindi ko kayo kasabay, dahil hindi ako lumalaban sa ngalan ng isang pulitiko kundi sa ngalan ng mga causa ko. Hindi ko kayo kaisa sa inyong loyalismo, ser at ma'am, dahil tinuturing ko ring kalaban ang anumang uri ng loyalismo sa tao o partido."
    At dito ay biglang paakbay na pumasok ang aking Facebook friend na si Bert David ng may ganitong mga salita ng pagsuporta sa aking posisyon. Aniya: "Baluktot pa kasi at dapat itama ang pag-unawa ng mga kababayan natin sa kung ano ang demokrasya. Akala pa rin ng ilan, ang inihahalal sa mga eleksyon ay kundi man inihalal upang maging diyos, ay hinalal para maging hari o reyna o diktador, kung kaya't ang mga itoy ay nagiging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao nila. Di pa rin maintindihan na ang ibinoboto at dapat ibinoboto ay ang mga mabuting tao na makagagawa ng mabuti sa bansa at sa kapwa. At lalong di alam na sa demokrasya, kabahagi ang botante sa pang-araw-araw na pamamahala kung saan tinatalakay ang mga bagay-bagay na ginagawa para sa ikabubuti ng madla (hindi para sa ikabubuti ng mga ibinotong akala nila'y dapat lang na naging diyos o hari o reyna o diktador na naging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao ng botante."
    Mismo. Dahil kung ito nga ang anatomiya ng ating pagboto, totoo nga ang kasabihan na ang karapatang bumoto ng tao sa isang representative democracy ay isang karapatan nilang pumili ng kanilang susunod na magiging diktador.
    Matagal ko na ring sinasabi na tae talaga ang isang purely representative democracy na walang kasama o kaakibat na direct democracy instruments para sa tao. Hindi ito totoong "demos kratos" (democracy) o people's rule, dahil madalas rito, ang ibinoto mong tao ay nandun na, nagsisimula nang umalis sa kanyang ilang mga pangako at umabuso na rin sa kapangyarihang ibinigay sa kanya at di na mabawi ng mga bumoto sa kanya, salamat sa pribilehiyong ito na bigay ng taeng pure representative democracy.
    At kahit pa matagal na akong nagdadadaldal tungkol diyan, walang nakikinig sa kuto na tulad ko, dahil buo na ang paniniwala ng sambayanan na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa mga inihahalal, mga inihahalal na sana ay maging mabuti at hindi masama. Buo na ang kanilang paniniwala na ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa pagpalit o pagbago sa sistemang nagbibigay ng pribilehiyong bukas na bukas sa temtasyon ng pag-abuso. Kaya walang natututunan ang bansang ito tungkol sa kasamaan mismo ng sistemang bukas sa abuso ng masama (at ng mabuting maaaring maging masama), dahil sa kanilang malakas na paniniwala na ang taong inihalal lang ang maaaring maging masama (at mabuti), na ang taong mabuti ay di magiging masama sa loob ng ganito kalaking pribilehiyo at poder. At ako'y naging pessimist na tungkol sa future ng bansang ire na reklamo nang reklamo ngunit ayaw umalis sa sistema ng pure representative democracy na siyang ugat ng lahat ng abuse of power ng mga pulitiko. [S / -I]

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]

On our continuing search for new solutions: a discussion with a security consultant

LET’S HAVE a break from all this debate about extrajudicial killings and about death squads and move to more positive stuff, like community development inputs. Or, perhaps we could move to such positive topics as community development that may actually offer alternative answers to these very problems at the top of the news, both directly and indirectly. Is that possible, please?
    Okay. So who do we talk to, then? Uhm, a politician or appointed government official with a plan perhaps? Hmm. Oh, I know, why don’t we talk to a humble security consultant working on solutions, like many others, from the sidelines of the debate?

    Oh, I know, I know. Security consultant, did I say? I realize, of course, that our impression of security consultants whenever we hear that phrase is either of 1) people behaving like loyal knight warriors to kings and princes corrupt or otherwise and deeply knowledgeable about things to do with security and not much else, or 2) a bunch subcontracted by military agencies to implement operations that cannot, must not, be attached to the name of the military force of the land, especially when it involves securing private corporate interests or assassination. But a few years back, during a meeting about an action-genre comic book project that has yet to see the light of day, I had the opportunity to meet Hubert Posadas, a humble security consultant who debunked either of these popular impressions. His concerns definitely went beyond the usual action-genre defense and offense concerns of security science and art and explored social empowerment dreams we usually associate with social entrepreneurs.

    Recently, Hubert and I crossed paths again on Facebook in the light of current anxieties about the goings-on in the administration of Rodrigo Duterte. Though somewhat sympathetic to the direction the government is currently taking, he is far from being uncritical of its overall management of its operations while critical also of mere criticality. It is in that last, in the criticism of mere criticality, that our conversation led to an interesting zone, a zone where, it turned out, he was presently involved in something that economically empowered besieged niches of society.

    As in our comic book project conversation with painter Marcel Antonio (who was supposed to be the prime artist of the comic book and the one who introduced Hubert to yours truly), Hubert was now, again, not just talking about defense and offense concerns in the security sense but also in the cultural sense and even the economic sense. He was now speaking as a co-stockholder of a community security and permaculture-advocating social enterprise called Dagyaw.

Hubert Posadas of the community security and permaculture social enterprise Dagyaw
(Photo by Vanjoe Clemente)

Hubert with UN consultants

    The concept of Dagyaw as both a community security and permaculture-advocating program formally started in 2015 with the challenge of securing a Mindoro tribe as a client besieged by threats of losing parts of its ancestral domain to certain interest groups. This was all happening in the wake of the killings of Lumad chiefs in Mindanao who lost tracts of their ancestral domain to mining interests. As a security consultant who has been everywhere, however, Hubert has learned that not everything about security involves the use of force by a hired group to counter the force of another (hired) group. Sometimes the concept of security is better served by allowing both sides of a conflict or near-conflict to surrender the concept altogether in order to arrive at a win-win situation for all, without each side giving up a claim to anything. Or perhaps security as a concept is best served by the ultimate medium that should be way, way better than any hired security force: the idea of community security.
    Community security is probably familiar to those who've heard of the OSCE-organized Community Security Initiative (CSI) of Kyrgysztan. Or of the Community Security Trust (CST) of the UK. The first, CSI, emphasized bridge-creation between the police and the community, while the last, CST, was focused on community organizing for self-defense. Corollarily, we might remember that in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan, barangay governments and their tanods disintegrated into individuals looking after their own families, with other virtual leaders sprouting up to take the place of those original security organizations that momentarily disappeared (the Pareto principle at work); that would be an example of a natural organization of community personnel for community security.

    Now, talking about Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan, earlier than his Mindoro project Hubert was party, along with several foreigners, to a permaculture training project in Antique—like we said, this was in the wake of the problems that arose from the Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan catastrophe. This was perhaps where Hubert’s idea of securing communities or institutions started to expand, to include food security and economic security, for a program that may fit other types of besieged clients, for instance informal settlements.
    And so, currently, in an Antipolo informal settlement site, you would see Hubert’s group focused on introducing a type of community security that 1) augments the government’s anti-drug dealers program and other policing action against exploiters of the inhabitants of the informal settlement, and 2) bridges the gap between informal settlers and owners of idle lands. In the #2 part of this plan, the informal settlers enter into training with Hubert’s group to be empowered to enter into contract with the owners of the idle lands to permaculture-farm those lands with either monetary or produce rent. What results from this is an economic liberation of a percentage of the community’s unemployed, the provision of self-sustenance to a part of the settlement’s food needs, and the liberation from idleness of the idle lands themselves. We must also take into account the fact that the concept of permaculture is itself a form of security from food source annihilation by catastrophes, if only because it is agriculture that emulates the ecological patterns of nature instead of limiting produce to one source, thus providing a community with surviving food sources after a catastrophe like a strong typhoon has hit it.
    Here are parts of our threads of conversation (adapted for this blog):

Me: . . . the Philippine problem with democracy is that "we the Filipino people" have a political culture of always wanting to fight not for our personal causes primarily but for politicians and such personalities, primarily. We would fight wars and die for these in the name of our politician or celebrity or sports team/athlete or favored TV channel. In that sense, "we the Filipino people" are still living in a monarchic system before the occurrence of the events that led to the French Revolution. . . . That is why I’m advocating for the urgent incorporation of direct democracy instruments into government as what could take us out of that state.

Hubert: Ah, but we are growing. All the institutions are being questioned, all crumbling, in the current government. Catharsis begins with these kinds of events, helped by the dawning of awareness given insight by (various people, like you). Frame the positive outcome and prescription and see that the change is already here with (such people as you). Know that it is hard to break old habits but easy to create new ones. That is why the revolution in psychology has been to steer away from talking about the past and more on reframing the positive outcome one wants to produce.

    Conditioned helplessness is the condition wherein one finds oneself constantly complaining without seeing a solution. The mind must work to find a proof of concept, not just to discuss logics.

    The ability to train the mind to see a problem as a situation is the first skill in training the mind to find the solution. That is why we keep changing our leaders without success, because we only know what we do not want without knowing what we need to do. Most Filipinos think that the rationale for a movement is in finding a fault and in asking others to join in agreeing to find fault or to a found fault and to rally behind that negative statement. They are actually talking about a reaction, not a revolution.

    A revolution is a dynamic of change from one state to another. Without a clear scalable proof of concept, it never really becomes a true movement. I think change begins with a small group with clearly defined action that proves a new reality. Often, everything else around is reaction.

Me: That’s true. But who make up that group and what kind of change they’re advocating is crucial. Historian Xiao Chua said, on a Net25 talk show, something like, "I don't blame the Americans for keeping to their interests. Ang problema is how well we fight for ours." Aside from the “how well,” mahalaga ro’n ang “fighting for our interests” part. And in relation to our common concern, sa tingin ko natumbok ni Xiao Chua rito sa sinabi niya ang anatomiya ng lumpenbourgeoisie-ness ng ating lumpenbourgeois politicians na hindi nawawala sa paghahanap ng ibang amo. Kung ang bagong mga amo ng pagka-lumpenbourgeois mo ay mga Chinese creditors and investors at hindi na American o European creditors and investors, yun lang ang nabago; lumpenbourgeois ka pa rin.

Hubert: Tama ka, bro. Ngayon, pa’no natin maooperationalize yung changes pregnant in the situation you exposed? Currently my group is starting a bottom-up approach with some communities, using an initial framework. Maybe you can help us with it. Kailangan ng proof of concept, pero kailangan din i-mekaniko yung conceptual framework derived from real conditions. Nag-umpisa kami sa baseline data gathering, papunta na kami sa community organizing.

Me: Pareho tayo ng paniniwala diyan sa necessity of proof of concept, to depart from the pure utopia level of such political concepts as left libertarianism. I was actually lobbying my mates in a group that was for a moment devoted to the concept of direct democracy, pero masyadong marami ang obsession ng grupo kaya naging kalat. I was lobbying for the formation of a direct democracy party of sorts, not necessarily with the aim of placing candidates in an election but perhaps of endorsing some. But, anyway, I was primarily lobbying for our group to start our rise at the bottom, by educating barangays on the availability of direct democracy options, starting with barangay officials who would want to cooperate or might even encourage their citizens to participate in this cultural thrust. I was thinking, one barangay people’s initiative alone succeeding would be worth covering, if I were a TV network, as it would be a first—as far as I know—and would have the potential of becoming a model for other barangays to emulate. A new culture of participatory democracy could be jumpstarted there, with the cooperation of the media.

Hubert: In our case naman, we have a good framework that is scalable. We introduce the concept of community security to address an immediate benefit and something to exercise direct democracy with. This framework enables what we call our clients to technically increase their property value and create sustainable food security, thereby creating place-based economics, integrate informal settlers into the mainstream economy, mobilize "tambays", and so on. (We even have an internet media program to cover and document their progress.)

    So, this setup enables what we call our clients to immediately address their basic human needs, prepare them to survive and thrive during disasters, and foster back old values and culture like bayanihan and pakikitungo, pakikiisa, etc. We are even incorporating gamifications in order to land social targets that the shareholders agree upon. The program was designed with a psychologist and an organization development consultant to maximize traction on the ground. We are interested in getting more experts on board in essentially a reality show to create a proof of concept.

Me: This is nice. But what I'm interested in is how this can expand to inhabit national space and national culture. The usual way for extending community-specific experiments into adoption by and for the national evolution is through a political ideological framework as vehicle, thus through empathies like those for social liberal structures, socialist structures, direct democracy or participatory democracy structures, even utopian anarchist structures. So, how a social experiment becomes part of a governmental ideological policy is what I’m interested in, to go beyond being a mere isolated project initiated by a social enterprise, to go beyond being the aid product of corporate social responsibility.

    Like, halimbawa, even in international relations between states, there's really no such thing as aid or donation na walang kapalit. And although corporate social responsibility projects may require no “payment” from its beneficiaries other than a sense of gratitude, it either sustains itself through government “recognition” of their actions or through profits from contributions coursed through foundations. So I’m looking for that kind of aid that doesn’t end as a charitable product that was also profitable for its donor, but an aid that evolves and becomes a part of the national culture.

    So, can a social enterprise-initiated culture at the bottom blossom into something that would not just end up being a CNN Hero thing that governments don’t absorb? Can it become part of national policy, in short a part of government culture?

    Now, I know that you have an answer to that query of mine. Pero, before you answer that, let’s talk first about this obsession ng government ngayon, the illegal drug trade, which some are happy to see finally addressed as a priority even while some are not happy to see it take the limelight of sole focus.

Hubert: Ah, meron ding magandang nangyayari dyan. Yung exposure ng malalim na sitwasyong-panlipunan na ito, kasama na ang iba pang sitwasyong-panlipunan na pinag-uusapan na ngayon, ay di dapat maliitin, kahit na medyo di pino ang nangyayaring pag-address sa mga ito.

Me: Yun. Yun din naman ang magandang kontribusyon ng pamahalaang Duterte, at least in terms of pushing our awareness of the problem to the forefront, the debates on how it's being addressed notwithstanding. Kahit pa ito ay mapatumba as a war, kung sakali, mananatili na sa ating memorya ang reyalidad na inungkat ng Pangulo para ito’y makita ng ating matagal nang tulog na mga mata. Kaya if, kung sakali, biglang may mangyari at kakailanganing pumalit ni Leni Robredo sa trono, it would be interesting to see kung ano ang gagawin niya sa war on drugs, dahil hindi niya ito pupuwedeng itapon sa tabi bigla, bagamat puwede niyang tawagin ng ibang pangalan. That, along with the war on other manifestations of elitism by the ruling class which Duterte brought out into the forefront of the conversation (never mind if his still seems partisan and personal in reality instead of truly ideological).

    Afer all, for as long as we are managed by this ruling class, whether it's an opposition-friendly ruling class or a ruling party-friendly ruling class, we are never going to be united, simply because the elements in this niche (the lumpenbourgeoisie) are working for themselves and their factions and not for the nation, thus necessarily dividing us who are easily duped into siding with the factions the way TV viewers have been duped into joining either a kapamilya or kapuso or kapatid kind of brand loyalism.

Hubert: Tama. Tumbok at tumpak.

    Duterte is a reaction to the historical inadequacy of our ruling class. Now, he may not have the right solution, but his reaction should bring about a coherent response from the citizenry. It is about time we disengage from being purely pro or against in our respective stance with regards to this leader, but sift through the destruction of sacred cows and old boxes to propose and act on the changes we want. That is why I for one do not complain but act.

    Extrajudicial killings, for instance, are a reaction to a corrupt judicial system, so in order to correct it I started to promote and train communities on the concept of community security to both address the drug problem and negate extrajudicial killings. Also, I do not cry over dead drug dealers but advocate engaging the PLEB to strengthen the cases against cops killing the innocent. One of my groups has adopted two community test sites and will start training other village security forces to adopt a framework that uses involving all community shareholders to address the problem in cooperation with traditional service providers. This is a highly technical program that is mission-driven to address the problem. We do not complain. We act on the ground.

Me: Right. So, mabalik tayo do’n sa tanong ko in relation to your other social enterprise that combines community security and permaculture training: again, what I'm interested in is how this can expand to inhabit national space and national culture. Like I said, and to repeat it here, the usual vehicle for expanding community-specific experiments into adoption by and for the national evolution is a political ideological framework, thus through empathies like those for social liberal structures, socialist structures, direct democracy or participatory democracy structures, even utopian anarchist structures, and so on.

Hubert: Mas maganda magtagpo, dahil—on the one hand—kadalasan yung political parties and their programs ay nauunsyame sa IRR. Puro theory, walang binti sa lupa. Most current social changes happen on the outlying, grassroots level; kaya nga lumabas yung community security framework, permaculture aid, at iba pa, dahil nauna yung grappling ng proof of concept, tapos napauso pa. Pati sa libro ni Maxwell Gladwell napatunayan na change comes in the form of a virus. The initial cell is important, mapa-Arab Spring man, Orange Movement man, o internet revolution. Proven na rin yun sa experience ko sa community work. Di mo kailangan i-convince ang lahat. Magsisimula ka lang with a small tribe, tapos kunin mo yung parehong group mo. Pano magpakilos ng isang toneladang kalabaw? Kunin mo yung ilong. :-) Anyway, lahat naman ng pagbabago nagsisimula sa maliit, hindi ito putok sa malaki.

    On the other hand naman, yung experience naman ng community security and permaculture aid ay bottom-up, eventually leading to a national level. Three-tier milestone. From one local proof of concept, the cell expands to the municipal/regional level, then national.

    Sa second tier, meron din kasing opening sa local government level. Polity at the bottom is allowed to create policy. Wala lang naggawa ng technical framework to do it. Yung direct democracy din kasi merong inherent weakness in that it is inefficient without an educated and informed electorate, it could lead to the destruction of national resources at an increased rate unless a universal framework is first established based on a national resource management goal, with a proviso that you lock the policy on a sustainable asset management framework for the greatest good of all.

Me: Well, I would like to see how direct democratic votation on initiatives may have a weakness leading to the kind of risks you mention, Hubert, considering that votes on initiatives usually go through six months to three years of debates among all sectors of society affected by the initiatives. An initiative therefore that allows a provincial government to sell public black sand and corals to foreign governments would be debated on by fishermen and their leaders, and I don't see how such an initiative can win among such a directly affected people. In contrast, a representative democracy legislature can easily pass such a bill without the people knowing anything about it.

    Tsaka it is a chicken and egg thing. The people can never be educated about issues unless you involve them in those issues. The alternative is to stick to status quo, where the few representatives of the people decide for the millions.

Hubert: I guess tama ka. Chicken and egg. Kailangan lang i-mechaniko. Let’s keep in touch as we start documenting our pilot program and share it on the Net.

    Pwede ka ba namin mainterview?

    Or guest host kaya sa show?

Me: May show kayo? :) Saan?

Hubert: Yes. Here's a glimpse of "Dagyaw" on YouTube. :)

Me: Baka naman makasira lang ako sa videos ninyo pag may masabi akong parang devil's advocate ang labas. :D

Hubert: Hindi naman. . . . Yung attitude namin accepts that. Asset-based thinking and De Bono's Six Thinking Hats accept that attitude and incorporate it. Maganda rin para ma-juxtapose sa pag-ba-Bagani na prinopromote naming [no relation to the “baganis” accused of killing Lumad chiefs in 2015]. It is important because you have to start with hard facts, then you turn the problem on its head to see the solution. We just pass it through the process, which is to 1) get the "Problem", 2) turn it into a "Situation", then 3) pass it into a gap analysis, milestones and measurable results. Ang dagdag lang namin dito sa lahat ng ito ay yung pag-apply ng ilang theraputic tools and use of normative culture and practice.

    After the introductory episodes, we set into the laboratory site and use gamification to land social targets, like I said. Yung paggamit naman ng mga science ng mass marketing and propaganda ay gagamitin din naman, as in using the tools used against us to redirect them for social change.

    Mas enjoy kasi sa amin ang operators at hands-on ang approach, e. :-) Pati yung problema masarap!

Me: Pero di mo pa ako nasasagot. How could this evolve into a political system that creates its own laws instead of just adapting into the existing system of laws that could in the end swallow it (you know, property laws, for instance, that would conflict with an attitude towards the commons).

Hubert: Hahahaha! Our goals are closer than you think!
    The difference is in the method, something we would rather show in the series than discuss, to create the correct brand and psychological magic that we intend to create. The key words are: the commons, place-based economics, community well-being, etc. Show and tell and approach.
    This includes, on my part as Security Consultant, taking the bull by the horn and signing a contract of service to former rebels, their communities, as well as indigenous peoples with ancestral domain. Sila ang kliyente ng mga consultants, yung marketing vehicle yung show.

    The resultant political system will follow from the organized network of stakeholders in the place-based economics.

    Ngayon pa lang, yung mga exclusive villages are de-facto states and are a polity themselves. I researched legally if I may treat client communities, informal and marginalized, as well as IP (indigenous peoples) communities as . . . if legal ba to serve them itong mga usual service providers. Sabi ng mga lawyers, NICA, and the Left, pwede raw. Wala pa lang nag-isip gawin yun.

Me: It's good that you mentioned the word legal. Kasi, from what I'm reading, everything you're talking about and describing looks good. That's well and good, for as long as we're aware that there are existing political setups that can intervene and contradict your progress. The movie Avatar is a good example. :) But, seriously and realistically, the laws of the land can creep in anytime and stop you.

Hubert: Yup. Pero ang advantage kasi natin as consultants, e galing tayo dun sa dating system na yan. ika nga, na naging enlightened Intelligentsia doing social enterprise. Galing ako sa isang military contractor kaya alam ko lahat ng ins and outs. Mga kasama naman natin, mga galing corporations; pero yung mga dati nilang methodologies e mamimitigate. In fact, when they see the rationale, ma-aaikido mo pa sila. Biro mo, low start-up, high production and increase in property value that benefit all? Using their language, ika nga, pero addressing social needs, empowering the masses as Clients, and not perpetuating a mendicant's mind. (Yes, hindi mendicants or mere recipients of aid, kasi, siyempre), as Client, kasama dun sa package para sa kanila ang education, training, certification, marketing, etc. All kinds of services that will create a place-based economy and professional citizenry.

    Ang dami ng sundalo at rebelde na sawa na sa gera, farming na ang gusto.

    Yung gamit ng “law of the land”, likewise, pwede rin natin gamitin. Tayo rin naman ay pwedeng gumamit ng lawyer at gumapang. Lahat ng skills ng corporations kaya natin, yung internal wealth distribution lang natin ang iba sa kanila.

Me: Ang primary concern ko ay yung property laws, especially those governing land titles. Pero okay yan kung sa ancestral domain na collective na kaagad ang ownership. Pero paano pag lumabas na roon at ibang kliyente na?

Hubert: Several models ang nakikita namin. Yung sa PPP ang pasok natin, to be recognized by DENR. Yung sa normal community naman ay kukunin natin sa "Community Development Plan" na nakapasok sa Development Plan na pinapasa ng isang developer. Meron na tayong partner diyan. Pag nakita ng mga may-ari ng nakatiwangwang na lupa, nung mga informal settlers, at maging ng mga developers na 1) tataas ang property value at the lowest possible cost, 2) meron silang tax break in terms of environmental incentives under the Environmental Act, 3) pwede pala sila immediately kumita with the informal settlers as Clients and Partners at the production base, e di gagawa ka na ng trend. Yung mga middle-income din makakabili ng Farm Lifestyle plots and/or partner with the community.

    So, Communal Corporation? Socialist Corporation? Kahit ano pa itawag mo, yung operation achieves the stated goals.

Me: Interested din ako dun sa variants ng internal wealth distribution.

Hubert: Merit-based, to address the weakness of Communism, with its own privatized health care, housing, education, etc., to address the weakness of the Capitalist System.

Me: Saan kayo nagsisimula, sa public lands or private?

Hubert: Private na merong informal settlers. Napapayag ko yung developer, yung association at yung mga informal settlers na mag-partner imbes na mag-away.

    Pagtakbo nung model, larga ako sa communities on the edges at sa mga IP. Kailangan ipakita na nagwowork. Percentage ng increase in value ang usapan. Yung mga gap sa framework from the baseline data, i-sinub-contract ko sa mga proven organizations, community development experts, at research and academic orgs, para merong template that will be scaleable. Education naman is community-based, para walang perang maipit sa buildings and stockholders—mas magmura sa mga magulang, experiential, and based sa work for the community and the environment, tapos may kita yung mga teacher at module developers.

    Ang kailangan kasi, e . . . engineering stage pa kasi tayo. Yung general principles ay gagawing policy na pasok sa agreed vision, pero without proof of concept and an entrepreneurial spirit, hanggang vision lang yan. Ika nga, Pinoy tayo e. Kung sa kanila hindi pwede pagsamahin ang Socialism and Capitalism, sa atin pwede. Ism lang naman yan e.

Me: Ang old -isms naman ay nag-eevolve. Ang communism ng China ay ibang-iba na ang mukha ngayon, just as the American Dream is in need of a reengineering to keep it from turning into a nightmare.

Hubert: Good. Now, we can look at what is good about both experiences and come up with our own, based on our own ground conditions. That is pure lateral thinking!

    Ang point kasi nito, parang tubig ang kilos natin. Dun tayo sa merong objective conditions to succeed. Pag umabot sa point na uso na, e di labanan sa market of ideas; pero at least meron nang produktong madaling bilhin, which is yung samahan. Yung economic engine at yung political party iisa.

    Meron pang sweat equity na pang-bayad ng community shares, so ang labas ng tao hindi mendicant. Binayaran niya yung services ng training, certification, benefits. Hinde siya lalabas na kawawang tupa.

Me: One additional question, pre. How do you avoid conflicts between your chosen community leaders and the barangay leaders as well as between your community security force and the barangay tanod? Or is the barangay always involved in the organization of the community security forces? Tsaka what's your concept of community security outside of besieged client communities---is it to build rapport between the police/tanod and the community, thus lessening police abuse, as with the OSCE’s Community Security Initiative in Kyrgysztan?

Hubert: Excellent question.
    The first priority is to establish rapport and gather information about who the community leaders are, to include the informal leaders, NGO heads, and/or, in some instances, the gated community Association Board members, etc. Of course it is easier to work with a gated community or with a subdivision Association, because they already are an organized polity given recognition by the HULRB/Magna Carta for Homeowners' Associations.
    Following the prescribed formula of Saferworld, the community development approach, and from practical experience, the survey proper and needs analysis come first. This part includes interviewing members of the community and stakeholder representatives what "insecurities" they have. Now, the common opening is usually on addressing common pains such as disaster preparation, water, sanitation or even crime issues.
    The dialogue then leads to a workshop to empower these communities. I have yet to come across a community or barangay that did not appreciate and accept the initial workshop, as it constitutes free technology for them to effectively address issues. Usually, bringing a third party technical expert is enough to open the door. The approach is critical in that one has to establish what the relationship is and what it is not. This is also critical in that it is the first reframe.
    Back in Barbaza, Antique, after the Yolanda disaster hit the municipality, I assisted a permaculture aid specialist team that did not bring any relief supply. In fact, the mayor told us the first time he met us to "Please do not give any more relief goods to my constituents as they are becoming like mendicant rats," to which we replied, "Good, we did not come here to give relief goods, but to give knowledge." So we immediately went to Sitio Cadiao and had a dialogue with the Kapitan and the Elders. This was Day 1. After assessing from them their situation, we made a deal to stay and help them if they would meet us as a community early in the morning to do "dagyaw," which is Visayan for bayanihan. In the beginning the men hemmed and hawed, saying they had to work on their respective houses; but Steve Cran, the head of the team, convinced them by asking them how much work they can accomplish as individuals in one day. We then asked them to try us out for one day. By day two, within only 4 hours of work, we were able to clean the mountainside of debris, sort and segregate usable materials, teach them permaculture principles, and, more importantly, taught them with their participation how to plan and execute a structured and prioritized plan of action in an achievable timeframe. We were able to organize them according to their skill sets and turned what was once a feeling of hopelessness into an excited and focused energy that started them on to address their situation. By day 3, two more sitios asked for our help. By the end of the 5th day, we had a project going with the barangay and the school in the area. So, the above example leads us to three crucial principles, 1) the community knows what it needs, 2) the assets are already in place, and, more importantly, 3) the approach: authority by demonstration. This goes both ways, in gaining trust, and then in pinpointing your Pareto principle concerning people on the ground. The immediate hands-on work will bring these out.
    Going further on this, the important initial group to work with is your basic community, along with the Association head if it is a gated community, the Kapitan if it is a sitio, or the Barangay Captain if it is a barangay without a gated community. Get the basic unit of community first. From there, once an agreement is made and signed after a workshop, strengthen this basic unit by experiential education, meaning to say help them by giving them best practices, a workshop, and consultation on what their vision for the community is, how it is related to policy, how policy is related to rules and regulations, and how plans are related to the whole. Basic knowledge on how to conduct a meeting, how to document a meeting and a project, how to form committees, etc. are given.
    Now, here is an important point: walang libre. I learned this from Steve Cran who has proven, as one who has worked on UN-sponsored programs in conflict zones, that it’s better to work with the basic unit of a community as partners, or, better, as clients. Kahit seedlings or sweat equity for workshops ang pambayad, dapat meron silang bayad—because you want to cultivate a mindset of both ownership and non-mendicancy. They take the meetings seriously because they "paid" for it.
    Now, this process, one that organizes them according to their skills set (from a capacity inventory survey), immediately seeing them turn out a group who has the skills and a group that has the planning capability, etc., both working for the low hanging fruit that will give the maximum impact, creates the community esprit de corps, so to speak. You make them aware that, 90% of the time, most communities will argue about the 10% of the things they do not agree on. So the trick is to immediately make them realize that it is better to work for the 100% immediately, on the things they agree on, whatever the percentage, and to empower them further by documentation and recognition of accomplishments as a community and as individuals qua community champions. After the basic community is thus empowered, then and only then do we teach them how to liaison with the next tier of the wider community and what is called the "Traditional Security Providers," the barangay government and the PNP.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hubert: Now, as for your other last question, . . . the community, agreeing to adopt a community security policy, is thus empowered legally, as by law any community may do this provided they do proper coordination in matters of apprehension, crime reporting, etc. Also, a community may also want to enter into a valid contract with a third-party service provider to be thus empowered, especially if the service provider and community know the law relating to this.

    To tell you a story, nung executive director ako sa FORA SECNET, I handled the security problems that ordinary security agencies could not handle for 40 exclusive villages. Dahil naka-lock kami sa valid policy, rules, regulations and contract, hindi basta makapasok ang PNP, dahil empowered by awareness yung mga communities and backed up by documentation process. Yung mga Security Commanders, Security Committeee Chairmen, maski ako, parang mga hepe inside the community. Hinde basta makapasok yung PNP! But because we pro-actively worked with the PNP, we were able to select and work with the police personnel assigned to our area and they became part of the community and looked after the community’s interest. They became friends with the community and dared not do anything to destroy their good name, and the community took care of them.
    When I realized that the principle may apply to the communities of the less fortunate, I asked around first if the principle applies, and I found out that it does but has not been fully explored. That moment of realization was when I set out developing the technical skills to do it, providing this kind of service to the communities of the masses. There is a provision in the Magna Carta for Communities to federate. And once I get a number of gated communities to adopt communities peripheral to their area, to include informal settlers, then we may expand to gated farming communities. Our ultimate goal? IP communities.
    Now, conversely, the setup also aids the PNP and the barangay government. We "help" the PNP and the barangay government by making them do their job efficiently and effectively with the community, by reminding them that the Community ultimately is the Client. We give them recognition of accomplishment, and address their problems, professionally or personally, as part of the Community, which they are also a part of, after all. This acts like a magnet on iron filings!
    So, you see, positive conditioning is the key! [S /-I]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT’S PERSONAL AND EMOTIONAL LEVEL (o, SINO ANG KAWAWANG KOBOY?)

photo from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802103/pacquiao-duterte-wants-to-restore-death-penalty-i-do-too

1. In that corner and in this corner

ALAM siguro ni Senator Manny Pacquiao na bagamat ang pinanggalingan ng boxing bilang organized sport ay maaaring noong tanggapin ito ng mga ancient Greeks bilang isa sa mga Olympic games ng taong BC 688, nag-evolve ito mula sa mga prizefights noong 16th- at 18th-century sa Great Britain hanggang sa mabuo nito ang forerunner ng modern boxing noong mid-19th century, muli sa Great Britain at pagkatapos ay sa Estados Unidos kung saan maraming taga-Great Britain at Ireland ang nag-emigrate. Ito ay mga around the time na nagbabarilan na ang mga later-generation pioneers at mga American Indians ng Midwest at West ng North America na maaari nating tawaging Koboy Age sa westward movement na ito ng mga bagong Amerikano, just for purposes of our non-cinematic discussion. Sa panahong ito, marami ring outlaws ang binitay (literally hanged) pagkatapos mahuli ang mga ito ng mga sheriff ng paparami nang pioneer towns.
    Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
    Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

----------------------------------------

2. The context of this and that

LET’S contextualize the many mobile nouns now contending in the ring:
    When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
    My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
    Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.

----------------------------------------

3. Hindi lang naman iisang source (or, Tsk tsk tsk)

SPEAKING of lists, I understand that all this recent hoopla about the “restoration” of the implementation of an existing capital punishment law is all in aid of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs.
    But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
    In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
    "Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
    By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
    What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.

----------------------------------------

4. Hindi lang naman tayo ang human (or, Tsk tsk tsk, hey-yo, Silver, away!)

MGA kababayan, sa mga naririnig nating diskurso among government people, legislators, and supporters of this government, mapapansin natin na may iisang pagkainis na pinanggagalingan ang urgent clamour for the death penalty at ng agresibong war on drugs na ating tinukoy—ang pagkainis  sa pakikialam ng konsepto ng human rights o paggalang sa karapatan na mabuhay (kahit ng mga convicted na mga mamamatay-tao na nasa death row, na by the way karamihan, kung di man lahat, ay mahihirap at tila walang kasamang mayaman).
    Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
    na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.

SABI NILA, ang human daw ay punong-puno ng takot dahil ang halimaw ay punong-puno ng galit. Kaya siguro naimbento ang human rights.
    Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
    Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
    Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
    Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
    Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]