Category Archive for: komentaryo

bad vibes for NAIA 1 rehab

for a PNoy government that talks about the matuwid na daan, which is to say doing things correctly and properly and justly, they sure know how to reveal themselves to be on some dirt road.

so yes, NAIA 1 is the worst airport in the world, i know that, and i will not pretend otherwise. but of course it will take international disgust over the airport for some change to happen, and in October a world-renowned team composed of Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda unveils a plan, one that’s aesthetic yes, but also real and concrete, i couldn’t even imagine that they thought this up and ignored completely the structural and electricomechanical (!) needs of the renovation.

but this is what the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary Mar Roxas wants us to believe, as he defends the decision to go with an architectural team from the Leandro V. Locsin and Associates (LVLA) for the NAIA 1 renovation, unceremoniously dropping the Cobonpue team. Roxas says:

“They <the LVLA> are in possession of the ‘as designed’ and ‘as built’ plans and blueprints of the airport. LVL’s firm has insights that will be of valuable help in minimizing disruption to operations, as well as shorten the time the rehabilitation will take,” Roxas explained in a text message.

In particular, Roxas said LVL knows the exact location of the duct works, risers, pipes, water drainages and other electro-mechanical configurations of the facility.

according to the DOTC (it’s unclear if Roxas himself said this), the LVLA also “had a distinct advantage over any other architectural or engineering firm in the country because its founder, the late Locsin, was Terminal 1’s original designer.”

so hold on. LVLA had the advantage because its founder, National Artist for Architecture Leandro V. Locsin, dead since 1994, designed the original NAIA 1? the LVLA is being unilaterally chosen — with no plan revealed to the public as of yet — because they have the blueprints of the airport and therefore know where the pipes are? because they know where the pipes are? 

por dios y por santo.

where has common sense gone? the current LVLA, as with any other architectural and design team, would only be looking at NAIA 1’s blueprints, yes? and let’s say members of the Locsin team that put together the NAIA 1 in 1973-1974 were still alive (of course in their 80s now), even they would only be looking at blueprints and old plans, too, yes? pray tell, how would LVLA be any different from other design teams wanting to renovate the NAIA 1?

there’s obviously so much more to the DOTC’s decision to let go of the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team, and it reeks of kamag-anak / kaibigan / ka-barilan possibilities if you ask me. lucky for the DOTC, the LVLA website’s down and there’s no existing list online of who its architects are. it would’ve made for a fascinating task of connecting the dots straight to Malacanang Roxas office (i hear the connection between him and the Locsins are legendary).

but also there’s this. for a PNoy government that demands our support and understanding, they sure know how to put an end to any form of volunteerism from willing citizens. Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda had been working on the NAIA 1 rehabilitation and renovation plan for the past eight (8!) months. and they find out they’re not part of the project only upon the the announcement that the LVLA was the DOTC’s chosen firm.

and as if that isn’t bad enough, the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team are made to suffer soundbites from Roxas, who says that function was higher in their list of priorities than having the airport look nice; and from MIAA General Manager Jose Angel Hornedo who says they didn’t sign a contract with the Cobonpue team.

aba mga ser. the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team put together that plan because they were asked by the members of PNoy’s Cabinet. puro katrabaho ninyo ang mga ito diba? Trade Secretary Gregory Domingo, Budget and Management Secretary Butch Abad, former Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang? these four requested that the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team work on the NAIA 1 redesign. the government asked them to work on that redesign. and this team agreed to work on it, for free.

kaya po walang kontrata mga ser.

and just because something looks nice doesn’t mean it isn’t functional. why do you even look down on the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team in this way, Sec. Roxas?

in the end this also reeks of an utter lack of professionalism in the halls of Malacanang. it also reveals how little this PNoy government values creativity and hard work, how little it values the time and energy spent by its own citizens wanting to help out for free. that they can even do this to the Cobonpues and Layugs and Pinedas of this country, few as they are na nga, is beyond me.

by the way, this team was also working within a P1B-peso budget for the complete interior and exterior renovation of the NAIA 1 — way cheaper than the government plan that would cost P1.6B P1.16B (!!) pesos to renovate only the airport’s interiors.

PNoy invokes matuwid na daan. let’s begin with admitting the real reasons behind the decision to go with the LVLA, shall we? otherwise, Roxas the DOTC and Malacanang just prove they’re on a dark dreary road, that’s as dirty as we can imagine.

when Malacanang (via Lacierda) invokes the fact that PNoy’s family only has 1% of Hacienda Luisita, what does that mean? 

1% of 6443 hectares = 64.43 hectares of land.

what is 64.43 hectares of land?

Intramuros is 64 hectares.
SM Mall of Asia is only 42 hectares
The La Mesa Eco Park is 33 hectares (extraneous to the watershed and forest)
The Heritage Park in Taguig (we’re talking the cemetery) is 76 hectares
Ateneo de Manila University is 83 hectares

1%? STOP USING IT TO EXPLAIN AWAY FEUDALISM.

PS: according to the Supreme Court decision, the Cojuangcos earned a total amount of PhP 1,330,511,500 from selling land.

1% of that is 13,305,115. that’s 13 MILLION, 305 THOUSAND, 115 PESOS. let us not kid ourselves about that 1%.

The (Un-)Worth of Words*

Because there are no words, none worth using to talk about the Ampatuan Massacre, no words worthy of lives lost to such violence, to such power. What we should’ve been was out on the streets, angry, fearless, pointing a finger at (giving the finger to) the system that has been feeding private armies. But none of that happened. Instead we were quiet and enraged, watching the news at home, receiving word about the rumored real reason behind the encounter, which involved anti-Muslim Christian-biased notions of multiple wives and girlfriends and patriarchy.

We were more dead than those 57 people, double-dead because we knew this possible but we waited for it to happen. What can only be worse than that is having illusions about our words being worth anything.

This is my issue with the Anthology of Rage in Verse I. It isn’t even an illusion of change that’s here as it is a notion that it matters at all to anthologize 100 poems, with no titles and just poets’ names, collecting rage about the Ampatuan Massacre into one epic poem by various contributors. It’s no surprise that this notion of continuity is possible, because there isn’t much to look at here, not much to read as far as diversity’s concerned. Because whatever the individual perspectives (which tend to speak generally of grief/anger/brotherhood/hope(lessness)/rising from the ashes) the tendency at romanticizing the death of 57 seems all-encompassing, is really quite the default.*

This is easy to understand given the established poets’—all of whom submitted poems—defense of the project. There is Marne Kilates’ take on the goals of this anthology, “Protest poetry or poetry against violence is an act of language. It is an instance of language engaging the physical and the experiential, as language always does in everyday speech. But since poetry is not everyday speech, protest poetry or poetry against violence brings the engagement to a higher level.” This higher level’s relationship to poetry and the Ampatuan Massacre is something that Luisa Igloria works with when she says that the murders’ effect on us all should “rightly serve as ballast and ground for the language and lyric of poetry,” where Gemino Abad’s notion of collecting “the finest rage” perfectly fits in.

But what this massacre requires, its goriness, its kabastusan is the language of the everyday. In fact, it requires the use of a language that will hurt because it screams from the gut, shoots from the hip, or is as dirty and angry as those killers were, as fearless as the Ampatuans were/are. To use what is deemed as the high language of poetry, to insist on rage that is fine, or the beauty of poetic language, seems politically incorrect. In fact, poetry such as what’s in this anthology seems politically incorrect.

Because there are many things to do other than write. If writing is your weapon, then there is writing that matters now because it will be read, because it will be relevant, because it isn’t tied up in illusions of beauty and lyricism, highness and artistry.

Because what is relevant, always is. This is why we go back to the Lacaba brothers’ Martial Law poems. This is why we go back to the protest songs, to the songs of the revolution, to poems of nation. This is why books likeDekada ’70 by Lualhati Bautista and State of War by Ninotchka Rosca continue to be reprinted, year after year after year; this is why the Noli Me TangereEl FilibusterismoFlorante at Laura are deemed national literature required in classes across the country. It is because while it speaks of a different time, it speaks of us now. It is because the reasons for rage against the Ampatuan Massacre have been with us forever, have been here since government ceased to be effective, since families across the country were allowed to keep positions of power, regardless of how.

Real relevant protest literature reminds us of how dangerous the pen is and puts fear in our hearts as we write it. It is here that there is bravery and courage in the act of writing; it is here that there is an amount of danger. Real protest literature is a threat to the always oppressive status quo, it’s something that any tyrant will fear enough to judge it worthy of declaring the suspension of rights to expression.

At the height of relevance, writing in protest puts our lives in danger, it is enough to get us jailed.

Kilates says that it’s possible that “we can never exhaust the subject of violence with impunity and too much random death.” True, but why would we want to? Write about violence when we can do something about it, I mean. When what the Ampatuan Massacre should’ve told us was that all our words that condemn oppression, all our literary work that questions the status quo, ends up being nothing but the status quo because it refuses to be more than just those words, because it is repeated as a mantra, it is celebrated as “the word”, fine and otherwise, and nothing else. It is an end point: this is what I’ve got to say therefore this is what I’ve done.

Luisa Igloria quotes Brecht, “In the dark times, will there also be singing? Yes, there will be singing about the dark times.”

Two hundred five.
One thousand one hundred eighty-eight.
One thousand nine hundred sixty-three.

These are 2001 to 2009 numbers of victims of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and illegal arrests. These are bigger, more urgent numbers, than 57. Where have our poets been through these dark times? Or was the past decade not dark enough? Maybe this was a choice not to speak, not to empathize, not to rage all this time?

Maybe if there was rage then, the Ampatuan Massacre wouldn’t have happened. But then again, that’s giving poets—all of us writers—too much credit. Merlie Alunan says, “<…> let the words flood among us, into us, to grieve, to rage. Maybe to heal this wounded nation.” Ah, but the words that heal this nation don’t come in poems with high language, doesn’t happen on the internet, doesn’t come in any anthology of literary works. It happens on nationwide television, when the media-created messiah says we will be alright, and thousands of the oppressed believe him. There lies the change that disregards our words.

And why there is always reason to rage against the words we use to explain our world. Unless these can kill in the way guns and money and power can, they are nothing but unworthy.
———

Only poems in Filipino and English were read by this reviewer.

Quotes from poets via the comments section of Marne Kilates’ and Joel Salud’s individual Facebook notes defending the anthology.

Data via Karapatan’s 2009 Human Rights Report.

*this was written for High Chair’s 12, 2009-2010, which dealt with the Maguindanao Massacre, the 2nd anniversary of which is today. Read the rest of the High Chair issue here and here and here.

this comes a wee bit late in the day — as i write this the early morning shows are talking about what can happen today to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. and i’m with you when you think: karma’s a bitch ain’t it.

stuartsantiago‘s got us all covered on the whys and wherefores and gone wrongs in the unfolding of GMA’s arrest. but lest no one else points it out, there is something tragic in the undercurrent of kamachohan, of good ol’ Pinoy machismo, that’s in the soundbites that came from Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda with regards Atty. Ferdinand Topacio swearing on his balls that the Arroyos would return if they are allowed to leave.

i mean Topacio living off of soundbites is expected, that the mababaw-ang-kaligayahan media will lap it up even more so. but for the Presidential Spokesperson to fall into the same trap? for someone like Lacierda to even justify what Topacio swears on, even talking about his wife! and her needs, is not just irresponsible, it also reeks of how petty kamachohan lives in the halls of Malacanang.

and it comes to a head at that press briefing on November 18, where after a good 27 minutes or so of Sec. de Lima seriously talking about the warrant of arrest for GMA, and about where PNoy stood on the matter, Lacierda goes up to the podium only to say:

“I think the decision of the Pasay RTC will allow Atty. Topacio to keep his family jewels.”

and walks off to the tune of male laughter — male laughter! — which ends the press con. it is beyond me why Lacierda even thought it correct to throw in that punchline, at a press briefing that’s so serious, no jokes or puns or soundbites no matter how difficult to ignore, should’ve been on anyone’s mind.

good job Lacierda. you’ve just revealed that in the halls of Malacanang shallow petty macho thinking lives. i hope you know a sense of humor doesn’t mean any more balls than the next Pinoy man.

i wonder what jokes are being said about the RH Bill.

let’s begin with the fact that this video/docu was well done, shall we? it’s 15 minutes, with more information than we get out of a regular TV documentary, had no voice over, had short effective copy, great animation, a clear narrative line. and the best questions: who are the Cojuangcos, why have they gotten away with murder — literal and figuratively — in this country?

that it has gone viral, which is to say its hits are at 337,048 as we speak, is no surprise. the form allows for it, the content even more so. there is no way to measure how many of those hits actually mean people changing their minds about the Cojuangcos or how many brush it off, how many believe it and how many look for sources and say, ah, these are all lies.

the point being that in this age of texts made for online dissemination, in this age of social media, while much might be said about putting our names on everything we write, there is also the fact that sometimes it matters very little because what’s being said is more important, the discussions it forces on us are bigger than who said what and why. and isn’t it that in the end the parts that are factual, the story that is hacienda luisita, the fact of oligarchies and feudalism, the fact of government’s inability to deal with both, aren’t these parts of that video that are more relevant than the parts that have yet to be proven?

granted, this was a telling of history that was slanted. but whose history telling isn’t? we disproved objectivity a long long time ago and in the end we deal with the subjectivities that are intrinsic in texts we encounter, historical and otherwise. in the age of online media and viral videos, every text requires us to be responsible and discerning. we must deal with questions of why we share what we do, and how we respond to something that’s being watched by more people — the youth, especially — than we have readers.

now with regards the latter, and i say this with all due respect, it seems unproductive for xiao chua to riddle his response to the video with: i’ve written about this before and this is nothing new. that information exists doesn’t necessarily mean it will be read, and in the end, when we are up against a well-done fast-paced video, the notions of leaving things up to the courts, or asserting that there are two sides to a story, will just go over the heads of those who were already drawn into the narrative. we fail to engage them in a better discussion on history in general, and the Cojuangco question in particular. it also ends what should be the beginning of a discussion on history and propaganda, fact and fiction, and where those lines need to be drawn, if at all.

but more problematic might be the noise that followed this video’s going viral, at least in so far as noise has to do with the self-proclaimed guards of online media and twitter- and FB-kind.

randomsalt asked momblogger: is blogwatch now in the business of spreading pseudo-history? after the latter posted the video on the site. to which momblogger replied that she was in the business of spreading both sides which is why she got xiao chua to respond to the video and posted that response, too. (click here for the rest of the exchange.)  what interests me about this exchange though is the fact that momblogger herself proves that she cannot see her own biases, the slant that she takes, when she introduces the video with:

Thou shalt not be ignorant. Infamous facts about the Aquino-Cojuangco family. I found this video from the PinoyMonkeyPride youtube channel. He writes the following disclaimer below. You might be also interested to read Philippine historian Xiao Chua’s initial Comments and Anton Dulce‘PinoyMonkeyPride’, ‘Yellow Magic’, at ang Magkabilang Panig ng Parehong Pisoafter watching the video.

this video, whether psuedo-history or not, should not be equated with making us all less ignorant. in fact, as unsigned online video, it is everything and dangerous to say that these are “infamous facts about” something. to say “you might also be interested” versus “do watch” all responses to this video, is also momblogger’s subjectivity working against her insistence that she was being responsible when she put that video up.

the only thing worse than momblogger’s denial of her own biases, is the manner in which she handled the questions from randomsalt:

momblogger1
momblogger1
momblogger2
momblogger2
momblogger3
momblogger3
momblogger4
momblogger4

it is beyond me how inaccurate information can ever be balanced, nor how an anonymous video such as this one can be seen to come from just one side which makes another side identifiable. here, what momblogger proves is that when faced with a video that goes viral, she will go the way of the very simplistic, ultimately uncritical assessment of the text, while at the same time thinking that she is objectively disseminating facts, even as her own subjectivities are there for all the world to see. and she will take offense at being questioned, even as we all know this is the price you pay for making a career out of online media.

meanwhile, these questions remain given a video with historical fact and inaccuracy, but issues that remain relevant, gone viral: what is our responsibility here? what is it that we end up doing by the act of sharing? how do we respond? what do we do when someone argues with us about what we said or did?

momblogger did the most juvenile thing: she blocked randomsalt.