www.soriano-ph.com

Judging from the President’s spiritless endorsement of Gibo Teodoro as a presidential candidate and her party’s languid campaign performance, rocked by shifting party loyalties, it would appear that GMA is not keen on, or perhaps has abandoned the idea of, having a partymate succeed her reign. On this premise, I think GMA knows her politics too well.

It will not serve any practical purpose for GMA and her lieutenants to plot electoral cheating in a national scale, or worse a takeover using the armed forces. It would not matter to her who wins, although from many indications she seems to prefer a Villar presidency. It would matter to her though if she can prove and proclaim to one and sundry that the first automated election in this country is perceived as orderly and credible. This is crucial as a last minute attempt to save the sullen image of her presidency once it ends. Yes she will step down – but the credibility of the results of the 10 May 2010 polls is consequential in the pursuit of her post elections agenda.

And what is the agenda?

When GMA filed her certificate of candidacy as a congressional candidate for the 2nd District of Pampanga, she said that “after much contemplation I realized I am not ready to step down completely from public service” – a traditional politician’s favorite tagline as if elective officials have the monopoly of public service.  Obviously, the statement only meant – “I will stay or be back in power“.

She needs to be in the mainstream of political authority, first to avoid a repetition of an Erap-type prosecution for the sins of her administration, and second to take another attempt as Chief Executive of this country working within the limits of the Constitution.

Is it not a source of wonder why GMA did not run as Vice-President or Senator or Governor of Pampanga? The simple answer is that these offices would not serve her hidden but evident agenda. She opted to run for Congress because she wants to control the House of Representative by being its Speaker.

But why the House of Representatives?

We all know that impeachment cases are initiated in the House of Representatives. In case of a GMA prosecution, the case will begin at the Office of the Ombudsman. And there is a public perception that the incumbent is an ally, who cannot be replaced except by impeachment. In the unlikely event that prosecution proceeds, it will surely go all the way up to the Supreme Court, whose members including the Chief Justice would be her appointees by virtue of a recent decision. I would like to believe though that our Supreme Court would assert its independence when confronted with a legal controversy involving the matter. Justices of the Supreme Court cannot also be removed except by impeachment.

We all know also that there is an open constitutional question whether or not amendments to the Constitution may be done by a vote of 3/4 votes of all its members, the members of the House and the Senate voting jointly – which makes the vote of the latter totally insignificant in the process. Again, this issue would eventually fall on the lap of the High Court and its collective judgment would say with finality what the law is.

If GMA and her colleagues in the House succeed in this effort, we might have a parliamentary government with her as Prime Minister holding office side by side with the elected President depending on the quid pro quo and the terms of the charter amendments. The only remaining stumbling block for this is the ratification of the people in a plebiscite. Here, GMA needs to restore the trust of the people. But how?

The key is to make the 10 May polls credible as she gracefully exits the presidency come noon of 30 June 2010. Equally important to realize her political agenda is to ensure the election of her stalwarts in local elective posts for governors, mayors and congressmen, regardless of their party tag.

GMA’s intent is evident when she started releasing the pork barrel of allied solons during the campaign period; was reported to be supporting sympathetic party-list groups; insisted on appointing the Chief Justice and even the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan; tolerated shift of party affiliations if that’s the practical way to ensure that her candidates would win in their localities. This maybe the reason also for the reported scarcity of campaign funds for national candidates but not necessarily for local candidates, particularly her congressional aspirants.

While many sectors of society are worried about fraud in the national results of the automated polls. They could be barking at the wrong tree because at the end of the day GMA might have her last laugh and stand taller over the issue. It could also be a diversionary tactic to cover up for a possible retail electronic cheating in the poll results for local candidates. This could be the reason why Defense Secretary Norberto Gonzales found out for himself that “some people were already trying to bribe polling officials“. Offhand, this seems to be a modus operandi confined at the local level.

Needless to say, there is no pre-proclamation controversy in congressional posts and it is no longer a viable legal option when a winning candidate for other local position is already proclaimed. The sooner GMA’s congressional allies are proclaimed the better for her – and this can be facilitated by the unparalleled speed of electronic transmission.

I hope that this political insight is totally amiss because if it is true I do not see how the results of the coming polls will bring about change and a better life for our people. It would still be the business of politicking as usual.

I do not want to be a pessismist. Thus, I welcome your comment and tell me why I could be wrong.

“Power should be exercised for the people, not over people.” – SC Justice Eduardo Antonio Nachura (During his commencement speech for the 1st batch of eight [8] graduating law students of the Angeles University Foundation School of Law, 10 April 2010)

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 24 February 2008 Issue

Tomorrow is the 22nd anniversary of the so-called ‘people power 1’ that toppled the authoritarian regime of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and brought the country from a brief revolutionary regime to a constitutional democracy. Certainly, it was a fine moment in human history that the country can be proud of.

More than seven years ago, the strong political clamor to remove former president Joseph E. Estrada on charges of corruption gave rise to ‘people power 2’. Following a constitutionally-defined succession in which the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the post of chief executive.

While both versions of people power are being held in high esteem by the international community for the bloodless takeover of political regimes, there is no dispute that they would have not succeeded without military intervention. People power 1 and 2 were peaceful and bloodless because the top guns of the military hierarchy chose to shift loyalties to a new regime.

The sad reality is that no amount of public expression and demonstration of protest and condemnation even by a majority of the citizenry would topple a political regime without military intervention. Political leaders are naturally driven by the desire to preserve authority and power until all the avenues are closed, which only the armed forces could bring about.

Take the case of the ensuing ‘people power 3’ to restore the Estrada presidency. It failed not because it had no popular support, as in fact, Estrada obtained the most convincing and strongest mandate of the electorate in the country’s history when he got elected to the office. It failed because former president Estrada no longer had the organized support of the military generals.

In the current political controversy hounding the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the shifting of loyalties of the military hierarchy seems close to impossible. The commander-in-chief is astute enough to make the military leadership tow her line. Should the disgruntled junior officers in the military establishment decide to take matters in their hands, ‘people power 4’ would certainly be bloody and does not deserve to be called one. It would either be a rebellion, a mutiny or a coup d’etat.

The only constitutional mechanism to replace a president who betrayed public trust is the process of impeachment. But then again, this political process would not have any chance to even take off because of the president’s political dominance of the House of Representatives.

The church is calling for a ‘communal action’ or for a more meaningful or a new brand of ‘people power’ whatever that means. Certainly, street demonstrations, prayer rallies, and similar expressions of public protests would not bring about a new brand of ‘people power 4’ and make President Arroyo give up her office, even if the cardinals and the bishops are able to physically gather a million Filipinos in Luneta to call for her resignation.  The minions of the president have mastered so well the Machiavellian art of ‘divide and rule’.

For people power 4 to succeed in the same context as people power 1 and 2, but without the usual military interference, there must be some collective political will on the part of Filipinos to show that they are the sovereign authority. This could be done perhaps by momentarily withholding government support in the form of taxes, or by exercising the framework of people’s initiative to constitutionally shorten the term of the incumbent president, or a mass resignation or leave of absence of government servants who still upholds morality in public service. All these would be done only to put pressure to the president to resign and allow the constitutional processes to take shape. But obviously these are arduous paths to take.

In the meantime, a long-drawn-out political deadlock is in the offing. This means some setback in the economy and some political instability and maneuverings here and there. The Filipino people need to sacrifice more in the ensuing tug-of-war because whoever of the opposing camps blinks first loses the game.

If there is still a chance for ‘people power 4’, it should be within the constitutional spirit that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Otherwise, people power 4 could be tragic.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 10 June 2007 Issue

It is self-evident that nothing is permanent in this world except change. Ironically, some public concerns in Philippine society today remain either stagnant or perennial. Or perhaps, there were changes but for the worse.

Heavy traffic in the metropolis. Some would say that heavy traffic is actually a sign of progress. It could be true.  But if one closely analyses the bad traffic condition in major thoroughfares, there is actually only the lack of discipline on the part of drivers and pedestrians to blame. Traffic rules and regulations are certainly one of the most violated laws in this country. The strict imposition of traffic discipline would probably solve at least half of the problem.

Tax evasion. The most honest and faithful taxpayers in this country are the ordinary wage income earners.  It is simply because they do not have the flexibility or the schemes to avoid paying their taxes. Taxes are automatically withheld by their employers every time they receive their pay. Unfortunately, paying the right taxes is the least concern of those who could afford to pay and should pay more because they think they have all the legal ammunition to cover their violations. And government lacks the adequate resolve, resources and manpower to run after them. If caught, tax violators know that it is easier and practical to settle amicably and privately than to follow the rules.

Diminishing access to good education.  There is no argument that education is vital to national progress. But every school year, the country has the same concern of lack of classrooms, teachers, and books in public schools, where access to education is supposedly free. There is no telling, on the other hand, when tuition fee increases in private schools, would stop even momentarily. Thousands of private schools mushroomed all over the country over the years because it is one big business. Many parents entice their children in courses where they could easily land a job abroad after graduation. The focus of education in this country is simply employment and not entrepreneurship. Sometimes even the quest for knowledge becomes secondary. The net effect is tens of thousands of Filipino youth graduate every year from many diploma mills.
 
Rising costs of fuel and utilities. The promise of the oil deregulation law is lower prices of fuel. But as they say promises are made to be broken. Oil companies usually blame the high peso-dollar exchange rate for their upward price adjustments for their imported fuel products. And when fuel prices are high, the increased cost of utilities and prices of commodities usually follow. Now that the peso is performing very well against the dollar, prices of fuel continue to upsurge even more.  This sounds illogical, if not irrational.

Electoral fraud. When former President Ramon Del Fierro Magsaysay ran for the presidency in 1953 he knew fully well that the “birds and the gees” voted in Lanao province in Mindanao.  Fifty four years later, they still do but this time in many part of the country.

Lack of a good public health care system. One commercial ad described this issue aptly in the vernacular – “Getting sick is prohibited”. The cost of medicine and hospitalization is becoming more prohibitive and would make an ordinary Filipino want to just die instantly. Social security is weak, benefits are low, and many complain of red tape. Public clinics and hospitals are in a pitiful state. Thus, the drug market is now flooded with herbal medicines and vitamins. But even these supposed preventive and alternative medicines are getting costlier.
 
Graft and corruption. This is the same old problem that continues to hound every political administration since time immemorial to the point that a public discussion of the matter already sounds corny.  

There are other perennial problems confronting Juan and Maria de la Cruz like squatters, beggars in the street, unemployment, and human rights violations.

But who really cares?

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 20 May 2007 Issue

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) reports that there are at least 370 million indigenous people scattered in 70 countries around the world.

There seems to be no standard definition of indigenous people. Almost always however indigenous people generally refer to a group of ethnic people bound by a unique, distinctive, and long-cherished culture, customs and tradition and who inhabited a particular region or territory of a country through some historic claim but were marginalized in the process by the prevailing or predominant culture of the general population constituting the state.

Indigenous people are also referred to as aborigines, natives or cultural minorities.

Indigenous people are considered as among the most disadvantaged communities in the world. Many of them have been dispossessed of their lands occupied through historic title. Others are at the forefront of conflict involving access to natural resources in the place where they live. Their population has been constantly dwindling, or is even threatened of extinction, because of diseases, poverty, extermination, or colonization. They do not usually benefit or refuse to take part in urbanization, economic progress and cultural development because of the natural tendency to protect or safeguard their culture, ethnic origin and traditions. Until today, some indigenous people are predominantly subsistence-based and dependent on farming, hunting or fishing for food.

They say that many indigenous people have accumulated important knowledge and biological resources openly used for generations. But with the patenting system, some multinational companies took advantage of this knowledge and resources and deprived these native people the right to use their very own indigenous resources. This is known as ‘biopiracy’.

Consequently, indigenous people all around the world suffer discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and/or exploitation.

They say that as early as 1923, Deskaheh (also known as the Levi General), a statesman of Haudenosaunee (a group of native Americans originally consisted of five tribes: the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, and the Seneca), in seeking recognition for his people went to Geneva, Switzerland in 1923 to speak to the League of Nations (the forerunner of the United Nations) and defend the right of his people to live in their own lands under their own faith. 

Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana, founder of the Ratana religion in New Zealand in the early twentieth century, made a similar journey to Geneva in 1925 to protest the breaking of the Treaty of Waitangi concluded with the Maori in New Zealand in 1840 that gave Maori ownership of their lands. Like Deskaheh, Ratana was also denied access.

The United Nations Human Rights Council finally adopted on June 29, 2006 the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs. Some reports said that some countries like the US, Australia and New Zealand have been opposed this declaration because “no government can accept the notion of creating different classes of citizens.”

The Philippines has its own share of indigenous people like the Ifugao, Ibaloi, Kalinga, Dumagat, Aeta, Mangyan, and Manobo and about a hundred other cultural communities. The National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, or Republic Act 8371, are legally mandated to address their concerns and welfare.

In a speech before the Asian Development Bank on October 1, 2001, Atty. Evelyn S. Dunuan aptly said: “But today, when one speaks of indigenous peoples, it is not so much about their beautiful story as peace-loving communities bound to Mother Nature and Father Spirit of the Universe; nor their talents and skills and accomplishments. For the term indigenous peoples has been made synonymous to oppression, exploitation, discrimination and poverty. They, whose ancestors were once the proud rulers of this land, are now the scum of the earth, the so-called poorest of the poor in the Philippines.”

The perpetuation of a negative outlook of indigenous people is perhaps the worst form of ingratitude in a civilized society.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 29 April 2007 Issue

Sometime in 350 B.C., Greek philosopher Aristotle said in his work ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ that happiness “is a first principle; for it is for the sake of this that we all do all that we do.”

The pursuit of happiness is a constant aspiration since the beginning of mankind and has been the subject of continuing discussion all through out world history. People seek success, fame, wealth, health, gratification, acceptance, love and affection because of the state of happiness that they thought these human desires would bring them.

Daniel H. Pink, author of the book “A Whole New Mind”, observed that since the time of Scottish philosopher and political economist, Adam Smith, the wealth of nations is used as a proxy to determine the well-being of the nation. Whether life is better is measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), inflation, and similar economic tools. He noted that every American is three times richer today judging from the per capita GDP of the US, which is represented by the total value of goods and services that the country produced, divided by its population. But Americans do not feel one jot happier. He argued that there is ample evidence to prove that material wealth and broader happiness are no longer in sync in post-industrial societies.

Almost a year ago, BBC News Home editor Mark Easton reported that the science of happiness poses huge questions to politicians. Governments have succeeded in delivering greater wealth that has not translated into extra happiness. He cited the 1999 statements of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that money is not everything but in the past governments have seemed to forget this because success has been measured only in terms of economic growth, or GDP alone.

They say that the idea that politics should be about ‘creating the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ dates back to the 18th century when British philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated his principles of utilitarianism.

In 1972, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan coined the term Gross National Happiness (GNH) in an attempt to define the quality of life of his people in a more holistic and psychological terms as distinguished from GDP.  The King wanted to build an economy that would serve his country’s unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual value.  When he abdicated his throne on December 14, 2006, Bhutan’s economy grew by 14 percent and its standard of living is one of the best performing in South Asia.

They say that conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective. GNH, on the other hand, is based on the idea that true development of human society would take place only when both material and moral development is achieved by complementing and reinforcing each other. They further say that there are four pillars of GNH, namely: promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development; preservation and promotion of cultural values; conservation of the natural environment; and establishment of good governance.

In 2006, British think-tank, New Economics Foundation, released its Happy Planet Index (HPI) based on the rationale that the ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy. In that index, Vanuatu, Columbia and Costa Rica were ranked as the first three countries with the highest HPI. The Philippines placed 17th while Bhutan ranked 13th. UK and the US were on the 108th and 150th spot, respectively. Zimbabwe was at the tail end.

The index seems to show that being rich is not the end all to attain happiness. People are happy for as long as circumstances of stability, peace, love and fairness exist in their midst. 

British Conservative Leader David Cameron is probably right when he said: “We should be thinking not just what is good for putting money in people’s pockets but what is good for putting joy in people’s hearts.”

In the end, government’s determination towards progress and development would lose all its sense when people are not happy after all.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 22 April 2007 Issue

“At the age of 38, I decided to step out of the rat race of New York, join the Peace Corps and board a plane for Manila. This blog is dedicated to my adventures in the Philippines for the next two years. Wish me luck.” This is how Julia Campbell, an American Peace Corps volunteer whose dead body was found several days ago by rescuers in a remote village in Mountain Province, described herself when she started her blog in December 2004.

During the past couple of years, the growth of blogs in cyberspace has been remarkable and phenomenal. 

Leading blog tracker, Technorati, reported that as of March 2007 there are more than 70 million blogs in the blogosphere, a term originally coined jokingly, they say, by American blogger Brad L. Graham in 1999, which has reference to the community of bloggers. Technorati reported that there are at least 1.5 million blog posts each day and approximately 1.4 new blogs are created every second.

For those not in the know, a blog, an abbreviated version of the term “web log”, is an Internet-generated journal where the user may write, edit, and post entries, usually displayed in reverse chronological order, about practically anything from facts to fiction, from news to mere announcements, from commentaries or opinions to personal experiences and share them to the on-line community to view, read, link, or comment on. The term “web log” was coined by American blogger, Jorn Barger in 1997 while the short form “blog” was the idea of a certain Peter Merholz.

Blogs are actually the digital evolution of traditional journals and diaries, where people keep a running account of their personal lives. With the facility and convenience of the Internet to capture different media formats, several types of blogs were also born, like ‘photoblogs’ for photographs, ‘vlog’ for videos, ‘podcasting’ for audios, ‘moblog’ for those generated by mobile devices, ‘splogs’ for that pernicious spam blogs, ‘slogs’ for a slice or section of a regular business website, or a ‘blawgs’ for legal blogs.

From being a mere social network of personal and individual online journals and diaries more than a decade ago, the blogosphere is increasingly re-defining mass media, human interaction and global culture today.

Blogs have the capability of shaping and even influencing public opinions and events. Blogs are easy repository of desired information or even entertainment, in the same vein that they could be the root cause of conflict and antagonism. Some fortunate bloggers earn good money from their blogs through on-line advertisements or by publishing a ‘blook’, the term used for published books based on blogs.
 
It is not difficult to understand why blogs are consistently and aggressively becoming a very popular mode of human expression. There is no other form of public and mass media nowadays that could compete with blogs in terms of facilitating, propagating and pushing the exercise of freedom of speech and expression beyond the limits of costs, regulations and censorship.

Blogs are largely anarchic and generally beyond the ambit of prior restraint and the usual restrictions obtaining in mainstream mass media, although bloggers are certainly not immune from criminal liability or certain legal responsibilities by reason of their posts. Each blogger therefore becomes responsible for his or her acts in cyberspace.

On February 22, 2007, a court in Alexandria convicted an Egyptian blogger for insulting Islam and the Egyptian president on his writings in the Internet.

Former flight attendant Ellen Simonetti of North Carolina was fired by Delta Airlines for inappropriate entries in her blog that documented her personal life and experiences. In 2006, however, she successfully published a book about her blog entitled: “Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog”.

Early this month, Malaysian Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin was quoted to have said that bloggers should not be exempt from the same controls as the mainstream media, and accused them of using lies to overthrow government.

Blogging is about human freedom.  And it would be here to stay and further revolutionize human expression.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 25 March 2007 Issue

At least 38 percent of the world’s inhabitants are below 25 years old.

The United Nations reported that majority, or almost 85 percent of the world’s youth, live in developing countries, with approximately 60 percent in Asia alone. Conversely, this meant that industrialized nations have a relatively smaller proportion of the younger generation, which they say is attributable generally to lower birth rates and longer life expectancy.

In a report entitled ‘An Aging World: 2001’ prepared by Kevin Kinsella and Victoria A. Velkoff under the auspices of the US Census Bureau, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom were identified as the first ten countries considered as the ‘world’s oldest’, or with a high percentage of population 65 years and over. 

The report also estimated that the ‘world’s youngest’ countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Philippines, Guatemala and almost all the countries in Africa would have less than 5 percent of their population belonging to the 65 years old plus category by 2015.

From these data, there seems to be a disturbing relationship or pattern between the relative size of the youth population and the state of a country’s economic progress and development. Countries whose population is dominated by young people appear to have greater tendency to be mired in poverty, particularly when government starts neglecting them.

The matter of ageing population, of course, is increasingly becoming a major concern in the world order today, especially for developed countries. But that is another concern altogether. It might be easier perhaps to address this issue when the country is rich than when it is poor.

Obviously, a nation with a larger chunk of its populace being below 25 years old would need to devote more of its scarce resources to address the most vital and compelling needs of the youth to prepare and enable them to become responsible citizens and productive members of society when they reach full adulthood.

It is axiomatic that people who failed to get the right education when they were young would have the least economic and social opportunities later on in their lives. This lack of opportunity then may lead to their own poverty, higher incidence of criminality, more dependency for extended government support, and worse, a breakdown in family ties and the perpetuation of the recurring cycle of doom for the next generation of young people.  

As of the last official census, 56 percent of the country’s population is below 25 years old, with those between 5 to 14 years old constituting 24 percent.

According to the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond, the top ten issues that the youth is confronted with nowadays, that governments should give the highest priority, are the following: education, employment, hunger and poverty, health, environment, drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, leisure-time activities, girls and young women, and full and effective participation of youth in the life of society and in decision-making. And these are equally the same issues that the young generation of Filipinos today faces.

Unfortunately, young people are usually helpless to settle their own predicaments. For this reason, they need their families, their schools, their community, and government to take good care of them during their formative years.

Unless government and society, in general, start paying serious and priority attention to the plight of the Filipino youth, there is little chance for them to become the hope of the Motherland – as everyone believes they would be. Sooner or later, they might just become a part of a bigger problem.

They say that the Philippines is poor nation.  Hopefully, it is not because of its youth.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) – 18 February 2007 Issue

Apathy is defined as the psychological term for a state of indifference. It is a condition where a person lacks emotion or enthusiasm and becomes unresponsive to situations involving his physical, emotional or social life.

For some people, apathy is a given medical or pathological condition. But for others, it is a mental reaction towards helplessness or even to a lack of interest on matters that one does not consider really important even if they really are.

It is an alarming situation when people no longer show some concern to others or about the society and the environment in which they live.

In his speech The Perils of Indifference during the 1999 Millennium Lecture series at the White House, American-Jewish Eliezer ‘Elie’ Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, political activist, novelist and a recipient of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, made a point on the evils of apathy when he delivered these lines:

“Is it necessary at times to practice it (indifference) simply to keep one’s sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Of course, indifference can be tempting — more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person’s pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.”

“In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response.

Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.

Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.”

There is a creeping culture of apathy in Philippine society. Many Filipinos no longer wish to take an open stand between good and evil, to get actively involved in good governance or in looking after the welfare of others, or to do or pursue what is right even if it hurts or is inconvenient.

Who would have the audacity to stand as a witness to a heinous crime? How many would have the kind heart to share to others the little that he has? In seeing a victim or an injured along the road, would there be more people truly rendering assistance or would there be more curious onlookers? How common is it for people to take a moral stand or challenge the status quo even if it meant punishment or losing a privilege?

There is certainly a way to break this vicious pattern of indifference. The question is – who has the resolve?

“There is no such thing as quid pro quo with people you truly care for.” – JNS (in a conversation with son James, 10 January 2007)