From Dust Thou Art To Dust Thou Shalt Return

Today I attended Joe’s funeral. It took them over a week to make the necessary funeral arrangements and raise the funds to bury Joe. He was buried in an apartment type crypt in a public cemetery in Lipa City. The atmosphere was tense and emotionally charged. I arrived during the last night of the wake (Sunday) and tried to console the family for their loss.

From what I heard, it was a relative who shot Joe point blank in the head, and that the robbery was an “inside” job. Of course this was unofficial. There have been no official COD statements coming from the authorities.

From what I heard this was among a series of robbery-homicides that have been occurring in and around different provinces attacking remittance deliveries for the past couple of years. This was not in any way an organized effort as in most cases, it was relatives who attacked their own kin to steal. Cops have no way of anticipating when one would occur, but that the series of attacks have been among kin.

The left side of the head had been completely blown off. He was shot with a .45 caliber pistol. At that range the shooter would have had to look at the victim eye-to-eye as he pulled the trigger. This is truly disturbing as it creates at environment where people can’t even trust their own kin. The amount that was stolen was less than 200K PHP. The robber, allegedly a close relative of the victim could have simply taken the cash and walked away but instead the shooter opted to pull the trigger and end a precious life in the process without thinking twice. From what I heard, the shooter casually walked away unopposed down a major stretch of hi-way at high-noon! No one even dared to extend a helping hand. I could not even begin to fathom the callousness and seared conscience of the shooter. It is one thing to kill and quite another to kill a blood-relative over money at point blank range.

I stood silently as their priest gave the final rites. Although my heart was heavy, no tears fell from my eyes. The funeral ended half past noon and the crowd dispersed. Some rode hired vehicles, while others took public transport and headed back to their hometown. Tomas invited me to join them, but I politely declined, as I wanted to head out to an internet café to post my experience while it was fresh in my mind.

I took me a moment to move as I pondered on the events of the past week. I continued to think about this even as I lectured for MBA classes all throughout Saturday in Angeles City.

Why...? There could have been several different ways that this could’ve ended, but the shooter chose instead to kill a blood-relative! Why?

Have a people once considered to be conservative, hospitable, and family-oriented, changed for the worse? My hunch is that there would have been more than one involved in planning for this. This means, that an entire part of their clan was complicit to the commission of the crime. Why did this not bother them?

Indeed money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is! I shall never forget this experience. This event is compelling me to take a second look at the values of modern Filipinos. This was not a crime of passion, or an accident, but a carefully planned heist. The murder was premeditated.

Deep in my heart I am hoping that what I heard would be wrong and that the result of the investigation would prove otherwise. But that would be wishful thinking…

Why?

Hearing about tragic deaths is not uncommon nowadays—unless the victim is known to you. I had the unfortunate experience of knowing one such victim. There isn’t much I can say or write about since investigations are still on-going. All I can do is share the impact it had on me as a person.

Joe (not his real name) agreed to meet with me in front of City Hall at 10 in the morning. I arrived a few minutes early but Joe was already there waiting for me. He and I then made the thirty minute trip to their house located in the rural area of the city where I was scheduled to hold a home bible study for their family.

It was a couple of months ago that I shared the gospel with Joe’s grandfather (let’s just call him Peter). It was Peter who organized this home bible study hoping that opening the awareness of God’s simple plan of salvation to his family would change their lives and outlook. Peter’s 40+ year old son, Tomas (not his real name) was married with a wife and four children and is an alcoholic and drug addict. Joe, 20+ is the oldest among Tomas’ children.

On our way to their home, Joe showed a level of excitement characteristic of one who recently came to know the Savior intimately. He could not stop asking me about the Scriptures, and was making plans to conduct a bible study in the home of his girlfriend and her family. Our conversation was “intense” as the half hour journey went by quickly.

When we got to their home, Tomas’ household and extended household were waiting for me. Tomas’ asked if we could hold the study after lunch as he had invited a few others to join in. I obliged.

A few minutes after we arrived, as I was drinking served refreshments, I noticed Joe busily preparing to leave. I asked him if he would be able to join the study, but he said that he had work that day and that he had only requested one of his co-workers to cover for him for half a day so he can get to meet me. Joe worked for a known delivery/remittance company in the country. He had a quick bite, and then quickly rushed out the door.

The atmosphere is Tomas’ home was charged with anticipation. Joe’s mother, on the other hand remained reserved and skeptical. That was quite alright with me, as it was not my role to convince. I was simply there to serve as a mouthpiece to share what the bible had to say. Spiritual regeneration is completely and entirely the work of the Holy Spirit. Despite the many years of studying the Scriptures, I never considered the work of conviction and conversion as my work. That was entirely God’s work.

The excitement and positive anticipation of the family turned to mourning when, as I began to open our study with a word of prayer, a young man (who I later found out was a family member) rushed to the door and announced that Joe had been shot at point blank range at what seemed to be a robbery-homicide while making his afternoon deliveries at a nearby city.

I was stunned and speechless. It had only been a little over a couple of hours when I last spoke with Joe, and now, he was gone; tragically taken from this world because of someone else’s greed!

At that moment, my mind was racing, accounting for every single word and gesture I exchanged with him. A felt a thick layer of sweat forming on my forehead and my back; my palms began to sweat, and I didn’t know exactly how to respond.

There was a sense of loss that engulfed me especially when I learned that Joe, at a young age, was the breadwinner of his family who gave up going to college because his father was an alcoholic and drug addict. I caught myself surveying the entire room, particularly the reaction of Peter. I could not quite make out Peter’s reaction as he already had blood-shot eyes probably from pulling an all-nighter of drinking and drug use. Peter was motionless and without emotion.

A few moments later, hysteria broke loose, and Joe’s mother started to beat at Peter with her fists blaming him for the fate of her son. What was discomfiting for me was that the first thing out of her mouth was, “Sino na ang bubuhay sa pamilya natin?” It was as if the value of Joe was limited to being the breadwinner of the family. Through the succeeding moments, I caught myself waiting for cues that would tell me that they valued Joe for more than just the money he brought in every 15^th and last of the month.

As I sat there silent, still not knowing how to react, I closed my bible. As soon as I had done so, Joe’s mother turned her attention at me. With eyes glaring, she had blamed me and Tomas for bringing this curse to her family, for bringing in a new religion, and that this was the lynchpin that took Joe (and his income) away from the family. I remained silent and calmly took the blows from Joe’s mother. When she clamed down a bit, drenched from the pitcher of soda Joe’s mother threw at me (thank goodness it was made of plastic and not glass), I excused myself and made my way to the bathroom to rinse-off the traces of soda on my skin, shirt, and trousers.

I spent the entire Sunday with the family, offering what little cash I had to help pay for the meals (as I found out that Joe was supposed to bring home his pay that evening when he returned and that they had no money) as the refreshments that was served came from Tomas and was purchased on credit from the nearby store.

I have gone through a constant stream of struggles and challenges over the past three years, and again, here I am faced with yet another. I tried to muster the strength to ask “what?” I had to learn through all this, but despondency took the reins as I soon found myself asking “why?”

I left the family on Saturday afternoon, and as I made my leave, I will never forget the reaction Joe’s mother toward me. Tomas remained cordial, but somehow distant and ashamed at how Joe’s mother had reacted toward me.

I haven’t recovered from the trauma. I am still asking the question “why?”.

A Difference In Context

There is a fundamental difference between revolutions that are of a religious system from those made on the basis of a political system. In order for any one to come to an understanding that effectively leads to peaceful co-existence, it is important that these distinctions be made.

There are two primary sources of revolutions that exist in the Philippines. One is over 400 hundred years old (Islam), and the other is roughly 60 years old (Communism). Historically, the Philippines was predominantly Muslim prior to Spanish conquest. The earliest records of revolutions against the Spanish were made by Muslims domiciled in Mindanao. The basis of Islamic revolutions from the earliest of times to the present day remains constant: self-rule and self-government. The revolutions spurred by a Communism, on the other hand is more recent. Their plight is to replace the entire political system of the country with a system they believe will more effectively usher in economic progress and political stability. Let’s look at these two contexts as it relates to the situation in the Philippines.

Islamic revolutions (Moro Revolutions). The Islamic revolution is a religious war or Jihad, no matter how you slice it. Unlike other world religions, Islam requires a complete integration of state and church, of faith and politics. This integration simply makes sense to every Muslim, and separating the one from the other is simply untenable, especially when those that govern the land are non-Muslims or “infidels” by their standards. For Muslims, the rule or laws of the land must be governed by the same set of rules that govern faith. The rules of faith transcends any earthly rule and so in this sense they are absolutes and are non-negotiable. Using this sequence of reasoning it will be easy for us to comprehend why the MILF desires to secede from the Republic. This is the reason why peace negotiations take so much time – proponents are parrying between issues of control and autonomy. The ARMM is an attempt to provide Muslim Filipinos with a semblance of control and autonomy. The MILF continues with its struggle only because the feel that ARMM does not give them the level of freedom they desire to establish a system of government that is founded on the absolutes of Islam.

Communist Revolutions. Clearly the basis of this revolution is philosophical/political in nature. Their desire is to replace the form of government of the Philippines from one based on a Republic to one dictated by a model that is alleged to provide all things common, all things shared. There is no single absolute model for Communism. Communism in the Philippines is Maoist in nature (based on Chinese Communism). Over the years, much like democracy, communism continues to morph into a form that allows it to persist and survive. Unlike its European counterpart, however, Chinese Communism (Maoist) initially sought to eliminate the influences of the west and, on the extreme, even traces of their own religion, culture, and traditions. In this regard, it is a form of communism that is distinct from its European counterpart. But unlike its European counterpart, the Maoist form of communism continues to persist and without question, enjoys a larger following than its European version. Because it is purely political, it will piggy-back on any issue that the movement feels will allow them to achieve their ends; and because it is grass-roots driven, there will never be a shortage of issues that they could employ to promote communism.

As one surveys the news from different parts of the world, it is evident that these two contexts are the primary identifiable sources of conflict and upheaval in the world today. Although Islam is taking more of global attention that communism, both contexts continue to persist in the forefront of Philippine news.

Why are these two contexts creating so much chaos in the world today? The reason is that, unlike its counterparts, both contexts strives for complete homogeneity and struggles against heterogeneity.

When we compare Islam against every other world religion (Eastern or Western), we will find that Islam is the least tolerant; and when we compare Communism with other philosophical or political models prominent around the world today, we will find that it too is the least tolerant. Unlike its counterparts, Islam and Communism, it seems, cannot thrive in an environment governed by diversity and change. The absolutes that govern these two contexts make it difficult for each to adopt to change and diversity, for the moment they do, their closed systems will crumble and disintegrate.

It is apparent that there are moderates on either context, but these moderates are viewed as individuals who straddle the fence and are the object of attack from either side of the spectrum. These moderates attempt to establish a form of equilibrium that fosters an environment of co-existence. But with moderation also comes extremes. There will always be those who will hold to extreme positions (we call this fundamentalism – which also exists in virtually every socio-religious, political or economic position), whose mandate is to destroy those who will seek to adulterate or entertain variety.

Islamic extremists, for example, is battling two fronts at one time – moderate Muslims and infidels. Moderate Muslims are those who engage and be-friend infidels, while infidels are simply non-Muslims. Islamic overtones are intentionally amplified by this group only because it creates the confusion they need to hide in the open. The New People’s Army (NPA), the militant arm of the CPP, intentionally amplifies the hardships of the masses as their battle cry and as an effective means of generating a fresh batch of recruits.

Within the militant groups also exists smaller clusters of ultra-fundamentalists or factions that are driven no longer by their beliefs or philosophies, but are driven by personal agendas. These factions often defy even their internal chains of command. In the end, these factions attempt to impose their own version of reality on a world that cannot tell the difference, who, consequently, categorizes all those within these respective contexts (Islam or Communist), as holding to the same views as the extremists factions who wreak havoc on the rest of humanity.

A system that is categorized by extremes will antagonize peaceful co-existence. Take America for example – the self-proclaimed guardian of freedom and democracy. Because of their incessant intervention to anything and everything the US government considers to be a threat to national security, its economy notwithstanding, the US is considered the primary object of hate for those who hold and live within these two contexts. The American people, by and large hates war, but for the government, war is major business (a business that benefits a handful industrialists and government officials). Just multiply the number of launched patriot missiles against a price tag of not less than a few million dollars a piece, or even the number of bullets fired, tanks and troops deployed, and meals served – all of these implements carries with it a price tag (plus an uplift). So in this sense, the US rationale for intervening into sovereign issues is one driven by financial gain. The argument is simple for the US, any country, movement, or cause that will interfere with its financial interests will be considered a threat to national security. Hence, their heavy investments into technology, politics, and commodities outside the US. The contra scandal of the early 80’s showed how the US financially gained from war. That’s their context.

If the US will simply modify its foreign policy to take these contexts into consideration, without pushing its weight and will on those who embrace democracy and capitalism, it will reduce the conflicts that its allies end up absorbing for them. The US must model diversity if it is to convince its detractors that heterogeneity does work. Until then, they serve as the first example of a people overrun by avarice and greed.

When contexts clash, chaos and war ensues. The on-going war that persists in the Philippines is more dangerous than its open counterpart. In our case, we really don’t have a clear picture of who or what the enemy is. In desperation, and in an attempt to project a semblance of control, we attribute our woes to poverty and hunger as if doing so will change the reality, rather than attack the very sources of poverty and hunger. Poverty and hunger exists only when greed and slothfulness mutually co-exist.

In our case, the war we fight is against each other; a war that is now systematically destroying the foundation of our society; a war which is patterned after SunTzu’s idea of a blood less conquest. But who are the conquerors and who are the conquered. Our type of war has a centripetal effect—it forces an already popular Diaspora—a dispersion that will cannot soon be altered or rectified.

So what is the inevitable for the Philippines in our context? We are caught in a pickle for the simple reason that the systems we currently have in place are not mature or stable enough to combat the onslaughts of these two revolutionary contexts—we straddle the fence. Moreover, our chosen ally is more and more becoming, the object of extreme hatred of both extremes (Islam and Communism); and those that straddle the fence will be attacked, and likely consumed, by the very forces it seeks to co-exist with. Unless we stand for something, we will fall for everything.

We can continue to spend money on negotiations between the MILF and CPP-NPA, but I doubt we will come to an agreement in the near future, for the contexts that govern each movement are homogeneous in nature. Islam will want control over Mindanao, and Communists will want to replace the government.

What needs to be tamed, if possible disarmed, are the extremists that give their causes a bad name. The government too, must remove those within its ranks that act in the extreme to protect their vested financial interests and the extreme factions that work more like militia-men rather than intelligent and disciplined soldiers, if we are to model the moral high ground; if we are to successfully model a better alternative to convince detractors that this model has the capability of transcending religious and philosophical barriers, that the beauty of this model is that it is, imperfect as it may be, one that can truly be by the people, through the people, and for the people. If we continue to simply copy the models imposed on us by our allies (they call this best practice), we will never be able to convince detractors that we have a better alternative than the one they have chosen to adopt or the one they chose to detract from.

Our continued failure to understand and establish contexts and the different nuances of each will logically result in an increase in apathy and indifference until such a time when “Filipino” will simply refer to an ancestral heritage, a shell, but no longer to a thriving sovereign people. The increase in emigration numbers is a telling sign that this inevitability is closer than we think.

It all comes down to a difference in context…

Corporate Accountability, Freedom of Information, Judicial Reform

First things first, we need to ascertain whether the platforms that caused political aspirants to win their posts are promises or commitments. We all know what promises are and so we need to shoot for getting these platforms in the form of commitments that serve as the performance metric of each candidate.

The voting public must demonstrate at this stage a tenacity to make elected officials accountable for their commitments if we are to break the cycle of political incredulity in the country with the hope of winning back the public trust.

These metrics are important not only to restore political credibility, but more importantly to allow every citizen to experience the benefits of a purportedly improving economy. These metrics too, can serve as the foundation of introducing a new system of thinking that will lead to new behavior, which will lead to new outcomes.

Here’s my take on the areas that I believe are important performance metrics:
1. Enforcement of Private Sector Corporate Governance policies
2. Freedom of Information
3. Judicial Reform

These three areas address the economic, democratic, and judicial aspects of our country as parts of a whole that are in themselves wholes.

Corruption in the Philippines is fed by private industry. Government left by itself will have no reason to increase bureaucratic processes (red tape) that provides multiple points of failure and multiple opportunities for corruption (it makes the life of everyone simply miserable). Corruption occurs when private industry comprised of big and small businesses both local or foreign intends to beat the system for their own advantage. For example, the incentives offered by the BOI and PEZA for foreign companies to invest in the country are doing nothing to improve the economic condition of the workforce. While they do provide jobs, virtually every single one of these entities practice a 6 month employment cycle which disadvantages the very workforce they purport to help. I would be surprised if any of these agencies even enforce the provision that expatriates must train local counterparts on how to do their work!

These multinational corporations typically operate a koga or cartel style of business. The suppliers that these foreign entities choose to do business with are those that are typically from their own groups who overcharge the local entity for their products and services. The net effect is that the local company posts a loss, but the global conglomerate as a whole (publicly listed) posts surging profits. By posting a loss, the company is robbing the country of the expected revenues gained from income taxes! All you have to do is monitor the performance of these groups via www.hoover.com. The government must control the outflow of cash, by limiting the amount of allowable electronic transmissions that leave the country. There must be some form of an investment lockdown enforced the keep national coffers in a state of balance.

I know of several large Japanese owned manufacturers who intentionally buy expensive raw materials from another Japanese company (within their group) despite the higher prices when there are local suppliers that can provide the same at a much lower price point. American MNC’s have also continued to practice this same cartel-type of operations as most of their suppliers (even when these suppliers are available locally) are imported from their country of origin. The only place where the country expects to benefit from such as secured employment and revenues from taxes are not at all realized. The moment incentives mature, all they do is leave for a more conducive environment in the region.

How large conglomerates gets away with this is interesting. The only reason they could continue to operate this way is that they have put influential personalities under a “retainer” – a mutually destructive agreement where both parties are bound to remain mum about.
If elected officials concentrate on this one area alone for the next three years, and publicly disclose their findings, it may create chaos at first, but the type of chaos that will force big business to become accountable for their actions and make them think twice about actions that protect only their interests.

Freedom of Information. This is something that we need to enforce in the Philippines. There is simply too much confidential information that should otherwise be made public. Have you visited the SEC lately? Have you tried to check on the financial records of major corporations? They say that they do not have the budget to bring their technology up to par. Fine! If they really want to I can give them the technology for FREE (and I’m darned serious about it). This culture of “confidence” is ridiculous and just another opportunity for corruption to fester. Every citizen should be given the capability to secure public information about public officials and corporations. We must be made accountable by each other. If we maintain this culture of confidence, accountability will only be a concept. Too much plausible deniability exists in our public and private systems and it is the primary fuel for corruption

Judicial Reform. We must lobby to force legislators to transform our judicial system from one that is controlled by a single jurist to one that is controlled by a jury of peers. This is the only way we can minimize the corruptibility of jurists. Without a judicial system controlled by a jury of peers, we will never come full cycle to becoming a real democracy. There should also be a unit of law enforcement tasked to protect the integrity of judges, a group of marshals who can ensure the public that judges are beyond reproach. As long as our judicial system is under the absolute control of a single jurist, and unduly influenced by an arrogant justice secretary (who does not understand the meaning of discretion and public trust), the justice system will remain a tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful.

One way to stem corruption is for everyone in public office to receive a decent pay at the end of every month. But unless we make private corporations and big business tycoons accountable (have them pay their taxes), the government will not be in any position to improve the livelihood of its employees. It is impossible to eliminate corruption, but it is possible to make the practice so risky so that its occurrence is minimized.

Virtually every country in the world is plagued by corruption (even the US has corrupt legislators). We are not the most corrupt country in Southeast Asia, but it seems that the most corrupt country is doing far better economically than the Philippines. Go figure! We need public officials with big “cajones” and nerves of steel who will run after and defy even the most powerful every time the interests of the powerful few runs contrary to the interests of the country and our national security (the economy is a matter of national security).

In my humble opinion, the public official who can push for these reforms and enforce the same is a suitable candidate that deserves my vote for the 2010 presidential elections.

Join my network at http://dennisreyes.multiply.com or view my blogs at http://trendsofthought.blogspot.com

Sensitize Yourself

Desensitization is the condition that results from the repeated exposure of one’s senses to a specific emotion, environment, physical contact, or activity. A person who is said to be desensitized will exhibit higher thresholds toward physical pain, environmental noise, emotion, scene and scent, and even exhibit, in the extreme, an absence of what we call a moral compass or conscience. A person who has been desensitized will respond differently under situations that others may consider grave and unbearable.

Desensitization affects both the physiological and psychological. On the physical side, a person develops higher muscular density and callousness that increases tolerance levels to physical sensation such as pain or pleasure. Psychologically, it alters individual behavior that leads to extremes of withdrawal or aggressive behavior, that can lead to anti-social or apathetic behavior. This occurs simply because desensitization disrupts the needed balance on both the physical and psychological as it subjects an individual to extremes. Between the two, psychological desensitization is far reaching and far more dangerous than its physical counterpart. It is far reaching because it is contagious; it is far more dangerous because it spreads like a virus over a series of generations. The only known way to overcome the ill-effects of psychological desensitization is by the process of social reintegration.

Those that are psychologically desensitized will continue to function, but their presuppositions and worldview will stand out in stark contrast to the views of those around them. Let’s take soldiers as an example.

Throughout their short or long careers, infantry soldiers are trained to do one thing effectively, and that is to kill with extreme prejudice. In the firing range, soldiers are repeatedly trained to shoot at “targets” from a distance or to attack and kill enemies in closed-quarter combat. Although the tools used during closed-quarter combat training are non-lethal (for obvious reasons), the repetitive training integrates every learned stroke and stride until it becomes instinctive or second-nature. Soldiers are subjected to these environments to desensitize them. They are trained to follow orders; they are trained to see real people in the battlefield as distant “targets” they need to hit, or objects they need to eliminate; they are trained to suppress their consciences and the natural tendencies, and inhibitions, that make use human that distinguishes us from the rest of creation.

During a work-related trip I took to South Africa, I made a point to visit Suweto. This was a place where colored and black people domiciled during the apartheid days of the country. Upon reaching the town, we parked by the side of the road for me to take pictures. Unsatisfied with the my position, I stepped out of the SUV and I vividly remembered how my driver quickly stepped out of the vehicle and beckoned me to return to the relative safety of the SUV. When I asked him why, he simply said that I was not black.

Having lived in the US for over a decade before my trip to South Africa, the concept of apartheid was something I did not fully understand until I had the chance to view its ill-effects first-hand (although I had a great time in Gauteng where I had to consume a 2-kilo rump steak within 60 minutes) for in every sense I behaved and processed things as an American. My senses were on overload as I found myself trying to mentally and emotionally process too much within a very short period of time. My mind was racing with so much questions. Because I was a foreigner, my questions were reciprocated with a degree of tolerance as both my friends and I knew that I was ignorant about the realities that circumscribed their daily lives, and because in the back of head I knew that there really was nothing I could do in my capacity to change the way things are.

In my work as a minister, I had the chance to visit and minister to people in the most depressed areas in New York and New Jersey, Northridge and East LA, as well as in depressed communities in Indiana, Ohio, Sharon PA, Virginia, and Miami. In every instance where I challenged those I ministered to get out from the rut and to make a difference, they simply looked at me with a stare that I completely understood—I was an outsider.

When counseling couples, I repeatedly encountered cases where couples easily grew more distant from each other as time passed and that even maintaining the same degree of endearment that characterized the early years of their marriage was easier said than done. Spouses ended up doing the very thing they swore they couldn’t do; infrequent physical intimacy and contact became the rule rather than the exception. Again, my counselees would simply look at me and even reason that I there is no way for me to truly understand the uniqueness of their situation.

As a management consultant, I find middle managers, executives, and frontline staff, live in a constant state of duplicity. Theirs is the world where only the paranoid survives. Ethics and morality take a distant tenth in the line of priorities topped by profitability and wealth. They live in a culture where it is justifiably moral to get the most out of nothing – to squeeze every ounce of fluid from a gnat, so to speak, where everything can be for sale at the right price.

Wanting to make a difference, I returned to the Fatherland. And to my surprise, I too was considered an outsider simply because I had experienced the “good life” as a Fil-American. No matter how I encouraged others, they attributed both my failures and successes to the fact that I was returning from America. I found people constantly trying to explain away why such and such happened and what I would need to do in such and such a situation. It was mentally and emotionally enervating to say the least.

Religious rhetoric was plenteous among my fellow, but hardly anyone would dare stand by the mandates of faith especially when it got in the way of putting food on the table. Everyone had their own version of progress, their own perfect picture of the future, their own version of reality, where betting on a series of numbers was considered a progressive act and a quicker way to achieve wealth rather than make sound financial investments. Politically charged messages and controversy constantly filled the airwaves, but most disturbing is the way positive action is easily dismissed as some form of propaganda. I noticed the disproportionate courtesy and opportunities given to everyone and anyone who looks or sounds foreign, and how poorly nationals treat their own. I squirm at the thought of a country that celebrates emigration as an indicator of economic progress and success, how that dishonesty at the highest levels of public and private institutions are quite easily forgotten and dismissed as simply a means to an end.


===================================================
Filipino, Sensitize Yourself!
By Dennis Reyes, Ph.D.

Who shall bear the burden of our actions?
Who shall calm our troubled future ?
Who shall find closure to our troubled past?

I looked, I prayed, I inquired, I acted
But with every opportunity came a response of incredulity
I am a nobody…

Wherein lies the hope of my people?
Shall distress and doubt characterize my peers?
Shall it define myself and my fellow citizens?
The rhetoric of peace, joy, hope, and love overflow in abundance
But in the abundance of rhetoric exists a real absence of substance and intent;

What?! I can’t hear you, the noise of superficial laughter drowns the gravity of your plight
The duplicity in your actions betray the true nature of your slight
Oh, the ends justifies the means you say, but do you really believe that?
Or are you simply cowed to reckon with the reality of your blight?

Take flight my fellow
Sensitize yourself to the prospect of a bright tomorrow
Pull up to achieve, push others and yourself to succeed;
For only then, when we learn to believe shall we truly emerge as a people
Capable of calming a troubled future and closing our troubled past;

I looked, I prayed, I inquired, I acted
And with flight I saw my people prosper, pushed the limits of what others said was impossible to achieve;

Am I a nobody? Are we nobodies?
Not anymore, for my peers and the world shall take notice
Our now and Our future converging and incorruptible
I am proud of my people, I am Filipino
We are Filipino

===================================================

The Meaning of Freedom

For most Filipinos the ideal of freedom means license; a license to do or say whatever they think is right by them without regard to the consequences of their actions or words; a license to do what they feel is in their best interest even when the consequences of their actions represents everything that is against the very ideal of freedom. Understood as a license to unbridled action, the very ideal is used lopsidedly to enslave another; those who take freedom as a license are driven by the “could” and never by the “should” that characterizes free action.

Knowing the difference between “could” and “should” in the commission of action determines the level of our maturity as a free people. These interrogatives demarcate between a freedom that is bound by norms to one that is antinomian in character. Those whose freedom is bound to norms will carefully qualify actions by asking whether they “should” act; those whose freedom is not bound to norms (antinomian) will simply act because they “could” act without regard to any sentient consequence their actions will result in.

I remember my days when I served as a reserve deputy for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department during the mid 1990’s. As part of our training classes and exercises, we were taught how to secure and clear an area when surrounded by hostiles. It was necessary for advance teams to systemically secure an area before allowing the rest of the teams to advance into that designated position. Only after an area has been secured could the rest of the team securely and freely maneuver within that secured area – but not until then. Advance teams take their jobs very seriously as the lives of the men on their detail or unit are at stake. To warrant an area secure is something that no police officer or soldier takes lightly.

The military employs minesweepers to clear an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines. In the old days, soldiers get on their knees and systematically poke through every segment of dirt to ensure that that area is free of mines. The secured areas are then flagged or marked. Today, more high tech means, such as an M1 Abrams tank fitted with minesweeping device, rapidly clears an area from the threat of anti-personnel mines in a fraction of the time it took in the old days, with very little risk to the vehicle operator or its passengers. People are only allowed to freely roam or walk through a secured area. The flags provide a visible reference that demarcates between secure and danger zones.

I brought up these two scenarios to illustrate the ideal of freedom. By analogy, freedom is not without its essential boundaries. While soldiers can, in theory, choose to walk outside the confines of these visible flags, no soldier in their right mind will do so as it will spell certain death. While assault units can choose to freely advance into unsecured areas, no police officer in their right mind will do so as it too will spell certain death.

In the same way the military or law enforcement units secures areas to ensure the well being of their peers and enable the free movement of people within that secured location, so must we establish boundaries that protect the exercise of our individual and collective freedoms. But unlike the physical boundaries employed by the military or tactical law enforcement personnel, the boundaries that circumscribe our freedom as a free people are abstract in nature. These abstractions take the form of values and norms that must be exercised and enforced by every individual within a free society if the system of freedom is to be enjoyed by every individual within that society. The moment any individual steps outside these boundaries and violates the freedom of another without due recompense, the system of freedom will fail.
This means that although we are free to say whatever we wish, we should individually temper what we say by first qualifying whether we “should” say what is in our minds and whether what we will say can edify or build up another or reinforce the values that protect freedom in general. This also means that though we are free to act, we must first ensure that our actions are tempered by the “should” and not by the “could” in order to qualify whether our actions will violate the freedom of another.

The exercise of unbound freedom is as dangerous as restricting freedom. These are the extremes that we must all avoid as these both violate the very principles that constitute the very ideal of free action. A society that allows the actions of a few individuals to curtail the free action of another is not a free society but a shackled one.

Protecting the integrity of freedom is a continuous balancing act across a precariously thin line that separates extremes. Individuals that act out of sheer license (bound by the could and not the should) clearly have no intention of protecting another’s freedom but are people who uses the ideal of freedom (in extremes) to benefit their vested interests and agendas.
This concept of a freedom protected by abstract boundaries is essential to the exercise of a progressive democracy. Without this will and commitment to protect these boundaries, democracies can easily be used by the few and powerful to push their own interests and agendas. The moment this happens, democracy simply becomes a very potent tool for the powerful few. Unless we can guarantee that free men understand and employ boundaries, we will have great difficulty in accepting the will of our very own masses. Unless we provide for systems that reinforce these boundaries, our version of democracy shall remain questionable and incredulous.

Employing these abstract boundaries provides for a tempered democracy and a tempered democracy is crucible to maintaining a progressive democracy. Tempered speech, and tempered action; these are essentials to a progressive democracy.

I pray that the time will soon come when our definition of freedom transforms from one that is unbridled to one that is tempered by conscientious action and bound to absolutes and boundaries that frame our norms and value systems as individuals, as citizens, and as a people that comprise a nation of laws.

Buying and using Pirated Products is Not only Illegal but Stupid

Buying and using Pirated Software is Not only Illegal but Stupid. Unless you have been living in some remote island as a hermit and completely removed from the modern world, most of my readers know that using pirated software or buying pirated video or pirated music is illegal. So, I won’t go into the legal technicalities of the subject. What I want to focus on is the inherent stupidity of sustaining this practice.

We all know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Simply put, ignorance can be cured by knowledge; stupidity on the other hand cannot. Why is using pirated anything stupid? Let me enumerate the reasons and elaborate on the damning consequences that result from this stupidity.

First, let’s define what piracy is. Piracy is theft plain and simple. It is stealing something that belongs to another and profiting or benefiting from stolen goods through trade and personal consumption. It is getting something for nothing. We must realize that the freedom to use a proprietary product does not mean “free lunch” or “free to profit”. Music companies, for example provides consumers the freedom to enjoy their products, but not the freedom to resell those products or freedom to illegally distribute those products.

It is easy for us to get all roused whenever we hear of thieves breaking in and stealing from a local business institution, or about sea pirates who steal cargo and fuel from oceanic liners and transport vessels. We attack these perpetrators with such indignation. This, unfortunately, is not the case when it comes to the subject of pursuing software and video pirates. Because of its distributed form, consumers do not feel that they are stealing simply because they have purchased pirated software. In most cases, consumers actively search out kiosks that sell pirated items believing that they are getting more for less. Just imagine being able to purchase a software product that is legitimately sold in the market for hundreds of thousands of pesos for only a couple of hundred pesos? For consumers this is a no-brainer. The fact that they could purchase a software product for less than one percent of its present market value outweighs much of the ethical value that would otherwise discourage a person from engaging in such a transaction.

Unscrupulous entrepreneurs continue to profit because they know that there will always be consumers and fellow thieves who will patronize their products and services—consumers who will always want something for nothing who even serve as powerful marketing tool for this cartel of thieves. These cartels are driven by the could and ignore the ethical boundaries of the should. This transaction of stupidity allows both retailer and consumer to benefit and profit at the expense of another.

Why is software piracy stupid?

First, it plainly creates and sustains a culture of theft. Thieves think only of themselves, what they can profit from without regard to another’s welfare. Those that buy from thieves, even if they argue on the basis of lower costs, are themselves no better than the thieves that stole the product. Thieves benefit from something they did not work to develop or produce, they simply take advantage of another’s work, they fish from another’s bucket of fish.

Second, it kills the industry by competitive disadvantage. People that use pirated software, for example, can easily drop prices for the goods and services simply because it did not cost them as much to gain the added capability. Multimedia development, for example, requires the purchase of high-end software products in order to produce an output that is at par with market standards and quality expectations. These software products serve as an effective barrier to entry which protects an industry. Because of software piracy, this profession is virtually a dead-end in the Philippines only because pirated development software is available allowing those who use such products to drop their prices (which they could not do if they had to make a substantial entry investment in the software and training) offered to the market. Those who legitimately acquired their capabilities now stands at a disadvantage since the market will now opt for a competitor with a lower price offering for similar products and services. An industry that would have offered great opportunity is now destroyed because someone decided to sell and buy a pirated copy of a high value software product. Because of the availability of pirated software, everyone can afford to compete in the same space. It cannot be said that talent will differentiate one from the other since talent can only go so far especially when the expected deliverable is electronic in nature.

Third, because of competitive disadvantage, it polarizes the investment atmosphere of the country. Since everything could literally be bought for a dollar and with the consumer market losing its concept of value, potential investors of high value products and services will continue to distance itself from the country where the promise of sustainability, much less that of return on investment, will be difficult to achieve.

Fourth, in a lopsided competitive environment, small enterprises will suffer as local big business will certainly opt for the lowest prices possible. Since lowest price is a relative function, and not one based on fiduciary limits, competent and capable resources that comprise small enterprises will continue its exodus out of the country as their businesses and employers are forced to shut down from suffering the ill effects of unfair business practices. Here we will find high integrity businesses, whose owners invested everything to make their enterprises succeed, fall prey to unfair competition, driving them from the middle-class to impoverished overnight.
Fifth, as a result of this exodus of capable professionals, market confidence for local small businesses will continue to fall through and the economy will entirely lose its capability to innovate as it continues to metastasize into a purely consuming (and not producing) economy; and with the absence of thriving small enterprises, the rate of people living under the poverty line will increase and the gap between rich and poor will exponentially widen within a short period of time.

While this sounds like over amplification, it isn’t. This stupidity has created larger systemic social and economic problems that becomes difficult to undo. This stupidity, all for the sake of buying items at the lowest possible cost and at all costs, if not arrested quickly will serve as the lynchpin that triggers economic implosion.

So, the next time you are tempted to purchase pirated products, be it software or video products think about what this “savings” will mean for our country’s long terms survival. The next time a vendor offers services at a price point that is low, you need to ask how they can afford to do so. The next time you try to become “financially responsible” by getting the lowest price, think again…this transaction may be the final nail that seals our coffins for good.

The best at the lowest possible price is not an economically sustainable mindset. We must rather choose the best value at market prices. It may seem expensive, but when viewed as a system, it will more likely put more money in the pocket you drew the money from to buy a value-product at market prices.

Then again, if you would rather buy stolen goods and have no qualms about doing so, or even pride yourself about your ability to do so, then you are nothing more than a thief who gets what he or she wants through fellow thieves. Knowledge cannot help you only because your problem is a character flaw (you are a thief); and where knowledge cannot do anything to change the way you think and behave, you are what I call a stupid individual.

We reap what we sow. If we want to see our country economically progress, then we need to attack those who sell pirated software and video, or anything pirated with as much indignation as what we have against thieves who break-in and steal from stores and banks and against carjackers, and snatchers. Remember the low cost to you means economic disaster for everyone else.

Don’t be stupid and think. Don’t buy pirated products and don’t patronize companies that use pirated software products. If they could afford to steal at this level, they won’t think twice about stealing from you.