Broken bread

Broken bread


Posted 00:22am (Mla time) Mar 24, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the March 24, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


EASTER may have the climax, but Maundy Thursday has the oldest practices peculiar to Holy Week. Of course, many Catholics associate Holy Thursday with the Mass since the day commemorates the institution of the Holy Eucharist. And since the Mass is basically a celebration, it is not surprising that many of the practices revolving around Maundy Thursday are joyous, a foil to the pathos of Good Friday and the grief of Black Saturday.

Since the day has a practical character -- the preparation for the Lord's sacrifice on the cross -- Holy Thursday has evolved into a day of different accessory ceremonies. In ancient Rome, for example, while the preparation for candidates for baptism was being finalized, the Catholic Church also celebrated "missa chrismalis," the ritual for the preparation of the holy oils that would be used for the baptisms and other important liturgical rituals. Along with the baptism of neophytes, penitents took part in reconciliation ceremonies.

That Maundy Thursday is associated with rituals of preparation is evident in the washing of the feet. Biblically, the washing was a prelude to the Last Supper, and was a form of libation or cleansing. Theologically, too, it became a ritual of self-debasement or humility, since Christ made the gesture of washing the feet of his apostles in order to deliver his message more powerfully for the apostles to be servants of the people. Service, to Christ, means nothing short of self-sacrifice. He himself set the powerful example when he died on the cross.

The Last Supper, of course, prefigured that sacrifice. As the central event that instituted the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, it took its chief symbolism from the breaking of the bread, which was both a metaphor for fellowship and for sacrifice. That Christ instructed his apostles to do the supper in his memory indicates that sharing and sacrifice are two sides of the same coin.

All of these injunctions and encouragement should indicate that Maundy Thursday is the day in which Christians prepare themselves in order to be able to fulfill Christ's mandate (Maundy comes from the Latin "mandatum," which means mandate). The Christian imperative is to love one another and share in the fellowship of service and sacrifice.


Broken people

IN THE PHILIPPINES, the joyous preparatory character of Maundy Thursday is quite evident in the "visita iglesia," in which penitents become pilgrims going the rounds of churches to perform in quite a literal fashion the passion of the Christ, as summed up in the 14 Stations of the Cross. The latter devotion has been updated by the addition of a 15th station, the Resurrection, obviously as a corrective to what some critical churchmen and modern Catholics perceive to be the martyrdom complex of the Filipinos, their penchant for bathos and self-disparagement.

The addition is quite unfortunate because the liturgy is performative, and it would be pointless to perform the resurrection while going through the motions of sacrifice and death, which are the foci of the Stations of the Cross. And in the colorful calendar of the Roman Catholic Church, there is an appointed time for everything. Insinuating the resurrection on a day traditionally reserved for the performance of rituals to prefigure the sacrifice is poor programming. It makes Easter redundant.

Moreover, the attitude that looks at the Filipino Catholics' rituals of sacrifice and martyrdom as nothing but defeatist and fatalist is arrogantly secular and liberal, sensibilities that are basically anti-religion. These sensibilities have given rise to the sun-sunny and saccharine attitude of evangelicals and charismatics. Culturally, this is manifested in the media's and other sectors' determination to trumpet "world-class" Filipinos and their international victories. Tired of defeats and sorry stories, this nation wagers on Manny Pacquiao to give it a nice feeling. Now that Pacquio has lost ...

But there's no denying Filipinos are a broken people. But so are the others. Brokenness comes not only from the struggles and pains of existence, but also from the divisions and backbiting that obtain during the struggles. A people's solidarity amid sufferings should indicate that they would come off the challenge whole and more consummate. They go through the rituals of brokenness to be reconstituted as a people. And that's the promise -- and mandate -- of Easter.

Champion

Champion


Posted 00:15am (Mla time) Mar 23, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the March 23, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


FIRST off, it's a lesson for local TV. Next time it covers a blockbuster sports event, it has to do it in real time. The days when networks can be a little avaricious and air those things "on a slightly delayed basis" to crowd in commercials are over. Well before the Pacquiao-Morales fight was shown on Solar TV, the result was already known and talked about in Metro Manila.

I remember that in the 1970s and 1980s, only people in media knew the result in advance. The messengers in the office where I worked were among those who milled around the teletype, waiting for word about the result of a fight, with the intention of rushing off to some part of Greater Manila, as it was called then, and betting on a sure thing. Without fear of being caught cheating and roughed up.

Today, there are all sorts of media reporting events instantaneously. Radio was already broadcasting the result of the Pacquiao-Morales fight shortly after it started on TV. I had resolved to resist the temptation to look at the Internet and at my cell phone messages, the latter being where in the past I learned, to my chagrin, the ending of a fight just as it was beginning on TV, but I let one slip away. I saw a friend's name on my cell just past noon, and imagining he might have an urgent thing to say, read his message. Only to learn of Pacquiao's defeat. I felt defeated.

I was, of course, one of those who mourned his loss. Though while at that, I did not greatly envy him his monumental burdens from the start. It wasn't just his reputation and title at stake in that fight, it was the life and happiness of his country. The country had been pummeled by adversity, natural and woman-made, and needed a win badly to feel good about itself, or indeed have something to cheer about. Well, only Mike Arroyo and a slew of congressmen were there to inspire him. Better if they had sent Ynez Veneracion instead.

While at that, someone sent me this text message after the fight, jokingly quoting President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: "My countrymen, the need to impose new taxes has now become more urgent. Naubos ang CDF ng ating mga congressmen sa pustahan sa Las Vegas [Our congressmen lost their CDF (Countryside Development Fund -- pork barrel) betting in Las Vegas]. We may now have to borrow from Mexico." That is the kind of joke that could make you die laughing.

Like most Filipinos, I expected a dazzling victory and dancing in the streets. My cable TV turned snowy early last week, a development I didn't particularly greatly mind (I use TV pretty much to watch DVD), until I remembered that Pacquaio was fighting last Sunday. I frantically called up SkyCable Friday, and they assured me they'd fix it in 24-48 hours. Friday came and went, and I called them again. The repairmen came Saturday afternoon and were friendly enough. They laughed when I told them the reason why I badly needed the cable fixed, and one said he himself wasn't watching the fight, he was afraid Pacquiao might lose. I told him not to worry: if Pacquiao's showing last December were any indication, he would flatten out Morales in no time. Morales had lost to Barrera, and Barrera had lost to Pacquiao, in a complete rout. Not to worry, I repeated, Pacquiao would take out Morales.

Alas, as it turned out, boxing is not Algebra. In Algebra, if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. In boxing, C can always be greater than A. Morales certainly was so, dominating Pacquiao pretty much the way Pacquiao dominated Barrera. Much would be made of the fact that Pacquiao suffered a cut midway into the fight, but he was already losing the fight to the more savvy Morales even then. The same way he did -- though it was ruled a draw -- to Marquez last year, Marquez clawing out of three knockdowns in the first round and reclaiming the rest of the fight with superior skills.

I still think Pacquiao could have made up, and will make up in future, for rawness with quickness and power. But he has to regain something he has lost tremendously in a couple of years, and that is the fire in his eyes. That was the one thing I saw in his fight with Barrera, and even with Marquez in the first few rounds, which wasn't there with Morales. A fire born of hunger, a fire sparked by desire, a fire fanned by an obsession to excel. It just wasn't there last Sunday, even before a head butt virtually closed his right eye.

I'm glad at least that public officials have commiserated with him, including President Arroyo, who said, "I praise Manny Pacquiao's courage, ability, and fighting spirit." Though I suspect the prepared speech for when he won was far more effusive. If I recall, the President preempted the showing of the post-fight analysis of the Pacquiao-Barrera fight by going on air to congratulate Pacquiao. But like I said, I'm glad at least for the commiseration, including Dick Gordon's "(This will) make (Pacquiao) a better fighter and a better champion in the future. There's nothing to be ashamed of." It has nothing to do with Joseph Estrada's or Robin Padilla's idea of "walang iwanan" [no one leaves anyone behind], it's just basic decency.

A fighter's mettle is not shown in victory, it is shown in defeat. Or indeed, as Muhammad Ali proved, it isn't shown entirely, or even largely, in the ring. It is shown outside of it, in life. Ali's greatest defeat wasn't in the ring and wasn't caused by any of his pugilistic archenemies. It was caused by the US government, which stripped him of his title and his license to fight because he refused the draft. As it turned out, that was his greatest victory, too. I don't know that Pacquiao will ever have occasion to fight a fight like that. I do know that the way he comports himself after this defeat will decide whether he will go the path of Muhammad Ali or Rolando Navarette.

Character. In the end, that's the stuff that makes for true champions.

Vigilance

Vigilance


Posted 11:38pm (Mla time) Mar 22, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the March 23, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



JUSTICE Secretary Raul Gonzalez was being true to character when he blithely told the media that a potential terrorist threat to Baguio City had been "mentioned" at a Cabinet meeting, while saying in the same breath he hoped this didn't lead to assumptions of the government being "paranoid." Philippine National Police Director General Arturo Lomibao tried to be more specific, saying on national radio: "This morning, we would like to say that we have confirmed the revelation of Boy Negro ... Upon interrogation, he said four or five Abu Sayyaf members and one Indonesian JI [Jamaah Islamiyah] have been sent to Metro Manila in the past few days." Lomibao explained that Gamal Baharan (alias "Boy Negro") confessed to the police that at least five Abu Sayyaf members had been given the mission to plant explosives in shopping malls in Metro Manila. "Their plan is to conduct bombings in Metro Manila ... Their target is to put [explosives] in the dry goods section, like clothes, which would easily burn."

State prosecutor Philip Medalle chimed in by saying a person knowledgeable about the Abu Sayyaf's operations advised him to be careful when going to Catholic churches. "If you go to church, don't sit on the last rows or on the side of the pews. Better sit in the middle," he advised helpfully.

The statements made by Gonzalez, Lomibao and Medalle followed a similar threat issued by the spokesman of the Abu Sayyaf. According to Abu Sulayman, the Abu Sayyaf would "bring the war to Manila" in retaliation for the assault mounted by the police in Camp Bagong Diwa. And it is because of the Abu Sayyaf's own statement, perhaps, that tough questions aren't being asked of the three officials.

First of all, although every member of the press finds it most convenient that officials like Gonzalez exist, Cabinet members leaking like sieves is not conducive to forming a calm and sober picture of the security situation. Lomibao, too, failed to explain just how the alleged confession was extracted during "tactical interrogation," since it is public knowledge that such interrogations have involved torture in the past, and confessions extracted from beatings can be unreliable since they tend to reveal what the interrogators want to hear. Finally, Medalle may be trying to help, but are anonymous phone calls giving such specific information really meant to be passed on to the general public?

Whether the Abu Sayyaf hopes to sow terror during the Holy Week by bombing Catholic churches or shopping malls, it's clear that the times call for heightened vigilance among the populace. The PNP has achieved solid and credible gains in arresting terror suspects in the past, through the help of civic-minded individuals. It's been joked about that Filipinos are such notorious gossips and so terribly inquisitive, that they serve as an early-warning system for the police. What is true is that concerned neighborhoods are the bulwark of public safety, and that local communities can have a big hand in securing their own safety. Not only from terrorists, but also from the bad habits of our military and police.

There are thousands of policemen on the front line, so to speak, during Holy Week. They deserve the full support of the public. We cannot leave things in their hands, however. Every person who decides to travel can help make the job of the police easier by being patient when long lines form, and by doing what they can to facilitate inspection. Keeping a sharp eye out for anything that may be amiss doesn't mean panic needs to set in when something appears troublesome. Remember, sowing fear in people's hearts is the primary objective of all terrorists.


Victimized

IT'S unfair, of course, to criticize Manny Pacquiao for hitting the blackjack tables in Las Vegas, but in case anyone wants to do so, remember he was only following the example of government leaders. Millions of Filipinos were content to endure the miserable coverage of his fight on their TV sets, but apparently for our congressmen, television isn't exciting enough. At a time of soaring deficits, a spectacular number of congressmen trekked to Las Vegas to watch Manny Pacquiao in person.

One congressman went as far as to justify his junket, saying it was merely a pit stop on the way to "consulting" with Filipinos overseas. One or two congressmen might have gotten away with such an excuse, but as there were nearly enough congressmen in Las Vegas to constitute a quorum in the House of Representatives, the justification fails to convince.

Fighting spirit

Fighting spirit


Posted 11:42pm (Mla time) Mar 21, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the March 22, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



MANNY Pacquiao fought a good fight, but he lost to a taller, smarter, more experienced boxer. Still he deserves our applause for his courage and fighting heart. He gave the fight his all, but it was not enough to defeat Erik Morales, much less to knock him down.

People will be talking about the slambang bout in the next few days. What if Pacquiao had not suffered a cut on his right eyebrow, the result of a headbutt (which was not seen by the referee)? Would he have seen better and landed more telling blows on Morales? What if he had been allowed to use his favorite brand of boxing gloves? Would his blows have been more effective?

Boxing aficionados will be discussing many "what ifs," but the fact is that Pacquiao himself conceded defeat to Morales. He lost to a better boxer.

Still, he need not hang his head in shame. He did his best, and he even tried to stage a rally in the last round, but he could not turn the tide.

Pacquiao is still young, he has a great fighting spirit and he can still bounce back. He has many fights ahead of him. He has already proved his drawing power at the tills, and should be getting other fight offers in the near future.

President Macapagal-Arroyo rightly said that Pacquiao set an example of the "toughness we need to surmount our trials and in fighting our way to become a strong Philippines." Yes, it's time we discarded our negative, defeatist attitude and became tough, courageous and more determined to attain our goals, despite all the adversity and the bad breaks that we have been encountering.

If all of us can have the grit, determination and fighting heart of Manny Pacquiao, we can overcome all our personal and national trials, achieve more, and ultimately become a more progressive nation.




Big winners

ERIK Morales was of course the big winner of the fight. Before the fight, and during the bout itself, he simply played it cool. He was not affected by all the hype about Manny Pacquiao. He just played it smart, put into play all the ring experience in the 49 bouts that he had previously fought.

The Mexicans were also big winners. They must have believed all the hype about Pacquiao, because if reports are correct, they did not bet heavily on their man. But Pacquiao's defeat revived Mexican pride, which suffered a big blow when Pacquiao beat Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003. Now the Mexicans can even afford to taunt Pacquiao, saying that he is "all sound, no fury," and that he is not that smart and strong.

The promoters also won big and must have made a killing in the sale of tickets and TV rights. But they had a good gate because Pacquiao is "hot property," one of the best boxers in his class, pound for pound. So they have Pacquiao to thank for the millions that they made.

The audience, both at the MGM Grand Hotel Arena and those who watched the fight on TV, also won because Pacquiao and Morales fought a thrilling, closely contested fight. They got their money's worth.

Big winners in the Philippines were Solar Entertainment and RPN 9. The scores of commercials inserted between rounds -- even in the rounds of the undercard fights -- must have made millions for Solar and RPN 9. We wonder, however, if the two organizations did not violate an understanding in the TV industry to limit the number of commercials in a program or the coverage of an event. Is there really no way they can enforce the limit on the ad load of televised coverage of boxing bouts and other sporting events?

Can't we give the TV audience a better deal? Last Sunday, the radio had the results earlier than TV. It was not the first time that happened. Television stations delay the airing of the fight to be able to pack in all the commercials that the program can bear. But the main purpose of TV coverage of sporting events is to give the result -- as soon as possible -- and not only to provide entertainment. And so, in a sense, last Sunday the TV audience was a loser. But of course, the audience stays tuned to the carrying station because nothing beats the visuals of television.

Chicken wire policy

Chicken wire policy


Posted 11:11pm (Mla time) Mar 20, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 21, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.



THE REST of the country may not care about Bayani Fernando's latest experiment in urban planning and development, but we think there are crucial lessons to be learned from the ongoing fiasco that is the "chicken wire" traffic management scheme.

The first lesson is that it is a failure. The scheme, meant to ease traffic on Edsa, the national capital region's main thoroughfare, has instead added to traffic congestion. We are not certain whether Fernando and other officials of the Metro Manila Development Authority recognize this fact, or understand why. But a simple explanation, based on the experience that hundreds of thousands of commuters have endured every day for the last three weeks, should suffice.

The scheme required the setting up of portable chicken-wire fences along certain portions of Edsa, to reinforce the demarcation of the bus lane. In other words, the idea was to force the thousands of buses plying the Edsa route to stick to their lane.

The problem was, by setting up the fences, which at the base took up maybe only a foot and a half of space, but at the designated exits occupied as much as half a lane, the MMDA actually added traffic bottlenecks to Edsa. Instead of easing traffic flow, the scheme, from Day One, choked it instead.

Why? At certain points in the affected stretches, buses and cars had to negotiate a bus lane that had effectively been reduced from two lanes to one.

The second lesson is that the spirit of experimentation is not enough. When Fernando first assumed the MMDA chairmanship, we welcomed his openness to try new solutions to old problems. It is not often, we said then, that we get public officials willing to press initiatives based on the rigors of science rather than the pressures of politics.

MMDA officials defending the chicken wire scheme have invoked the initiative's experimental character, saying we should wait until the findings are in. But this is like saying that any experiment will do.

An experiment must be thought through and thoroughly prepared for. Unfortunately for Edsa's commuters, this has not been the case with the chicken wire disaster.

Every day, the details of the scheme changed. One day, for instance, southbound traffic from Cubao in Quezon City had the option to turn right on Annapolis Street in Greenhills. The very next day, the Annapolis exit was closed off, catching motorists by surprise. For a few days, motorists from Connecticut street in busy Greenhills could turn right on Edsa. Then one day, without so much as a by-your-leave, the MMDA closed the Connecticut exit off.

The sudden changes sowed confusion among Edsa's regular motorists. Worse, the changes were done, not late at night, when traffic is light, but in the middle of the day. There were even a few times when the fences were moved or traffic barriers and gates relocated during rush hour.

Can anyone in the MMDA actually say that conditions for the experiment were stable enough, or controlled enough, that we can draw valid conclusions from it? Anyone who has ever driven down Edsa knows that traffic conditions vary every day, with Friday, for some reason, always bearing the heaviest traffic. How can, say, a one-day experiment for a particular exit point prove anything?

The third lesson is that effective governance requires managing the public's expectations. The MMDA's chicken wire scheme played fast and loose with both motorists and commuters. No explanations were given, no announcements were made. The fences went up, then down, then up again; and the exits moved from one location to another, without any attempt to inform the public beforehand. Is it any wonder that the scheme enjoys little public support?

The last lesson is philosophical, a matter of outlook. Fernando and his MMDA crew seem to have given up hope in the effectiveness of regular methods of traffic enforcement. The pink fences are like an admission of previous failure: we need to put them up, the MMDA seems to be saying, because our traffic enforcers cannot enforce the bus-lane rule. It is all of a piece with Fernando's notorious wet-rag scheme. If pedestrians in that case, and motorists in this case, don't follow the rules of their own accord, then it is the MMDA's job to force them to. But we cannot agree with Fernando. We distinguish between a realistic approach and his cynicism. Thus, Lesson No. 4: Don't expect progress if you treat people like, well, chicken.

World Bank democracy

World Bank democracy


Posted 08:56pm (Mla time) Mar 19, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 20, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



BY TRADITION, it is the United States which nominates the president of the World Bank; Europeans choose the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. In nominating the controversial Paul Wolfowitz, a leader of the American neoconservative movement and the most influential No. 2 man in the history of the Pentagon, US President George W. Bush has prompted other industrialized countries to rethink that tradition.

We doubt whether much will come out of this collective soul-searching. The Europeans, too, have a stake in the post-Iraq, post-reelection thawing of transatlantic relations; they will feel needlessly provoked but, in the end, they will grit their teeth and swallow their pride.

The rest of the world, of course, has no say in the matter. To be blunt about it: beggars can't be choosers, especially when it comes to choosing the new creditor-in-chief.

But those of us who have been on the sometimes sharp end of the World Bank stick can certainly use the next few days-while Europe thinks and US allies in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East come to terms with Wolfowitz's nomination-to raise the necessary questions.

Under James Wolfensohn, the World Bank tried mightily to reckon with some of the unintended consequences of its brand of economic development. Can Wolfowitz take the next step and lead the World Bank to accept its mistakes and change some of its policies?

We ask, because the man Bush affectionately calls "Wolfie" is one of the principal architects of the US invasion of Iraq. The war was waged on non-existent grounds: there was no immediate terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no conspiracy between Saddam Hussein's odious regime and Osama bin Laden's equally monstrous terrorist network. All of these have been confirmed many times since the invasion was launched two years ago. But have Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bush administration's war council taken the opportunity to tender their regrets or issue an apology for essentially misleading the American nation and the rest of the world?

Regrettably, no. They have all taken refuge behind the banner of democracy.

Democracy, Churchill famously said, is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives. Many of the alternatives in the Middle East are unsavory indeed, and like many around the world, we share the hope that democracy's meandering march will also take it through that volatile region.

But the end does not justify the means. Wolfowitz and company, however, think it does. Now that the invasion of Iraq has been belatedly rationalized as the seizing of a democratic beachhead in the Middle East, the lies and mistakes that led to the war are to be filed away and forgotten.

If in the face of incontrovertible evidence, Wolfowitz cannot bring himself to admit any errors in judgment, can we expect him to continue the reform of the World Bank-a process which requires him to publicly accept mistakes? It would be out of character.We worry about his appointment then, because it might cause the return of the unyielding, we-know-what's-good-for-you arrogance of the "old" World Bank.

We also worry about his commitment to democracy, when serious money is at stake. Can Wolfowitz take the next step and lead the World Bank in the direction of debt relief?

If there is one single policy that will help struggling democracies around the world infuse new life into democratic institutions, it is debt relief. The policy will release billions of dollars into the necessary work of easing poverty, stimulating the economy, raising living standards, and investing in education. Instead of essentially working for the creditors, many of whom have already profited from the debt, developing countries around the world can finally work for their own benefit. Like democracy's rising tide, that of economic growth can lift all boats too.

But for many creditors, the real issue behind debt relief is the often-forgotten conflict between capitalism's requirements and democracy's needs. When billions of dollars are at stake, whose side will Wolfowitz be on?

There ought to be a law

There ought to be a law


Posted 00:20am (Mla time) Mar 19, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 19, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



THE FRUSTRATED escape attempt of Abu Sayyaf leaders put a damper on the handover of command in the Philippine National Police. Reactions to recent policy recommendations made by Gen. Efren Abu have also resulted in the deferment of his confirmation as chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines by the Commission on Appointments. However, both recent appointments -- of Abu as AFP chief of staff and of Arturo Lomibao as director general of the PNP -- again highlight a lingering, institutional problem crying out for congressional resolution.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been following a revolving-door policy on appointments to top police and military posts. To satisfy the craving of officers to end their careers at the top, appointments are made on a fleeting basis, which then requires them (in the eyes of the administration) to be seconded to civilian positions of authority afterwards. The result is, generals are made commanders of their services or their organizations for very brief periods and then placed in freshly minted positions in the Cabinet, with a corresponding requirement to keep moving retired officers up the civilian chain of authority.

It is reassuring that there is a lingering sense of professionalism and institutional vision among high-ranking officers. At least, to the extent that individuals such as Abu have made it clear that they would continue reforms begun during their predecessors' tour of duty. The elimination of the graft-ridden Logistics Command is one such overdue example.

This, however, cannot hide the reality that keeping the continuation of such policies within the realm of discretion serves to keep organizations such as the military susceptible to a personalistic, instead of a professional, frame of mind.

There have been calls to fix the terms of top officers tasked with crucial responsibilities in the AFP. Originally, such calls were principally concerned with the need to give the superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy enough time to institute rational changes, and see them through. The revolving-door policy, which makes political payback easy and real reforms difficult, should finally be stopped.

Fixed terms will provide officers the opportunity not only to make changes but also to oversee them until they start to show results. It would also force the executive department to more seriously consider the repercussions of such appointments. More importantly, setting fixed terms for the top AFP and PNP officials would insulate these organizations from the most obvious forms of political deal-making and patronage, not to mention undue interference by the powers-that-be.

Incendiary

THE ARMED Forces of the Philippines has no business giving its opinion on religious matters, including whether or not victims of shootouts deserve to go to heaven.

"They are not true Muslims. They are not true believers," Lt. Col. Buenaventura Pascual, military spokesperson, has said, referring to the 24 prison inmates killed earlier this week in the Camp Bagong Diwa uprising. "That's why Allah sent them to hell." Other military officials have expressed alarm that ordinary Muslims regard the dead men as martyrs. "This is the distorted interpretation [of the Koran that is taught] by the Tabligh," a group of male preachers in the Middle East who are suspected of teaching radical Islam, added Pascual.

But nothing qualifies Pascual or his commanders to comment on such things. Questions of faith are best left to the competent authorities of a faith. Secular military authorities, most of them Christians, should be the last to pontificate on matters they aren't competent to address. There is a pressing need for non-Muslims to attempt to understand the complexities and nuances of the Islamic religion, and an equally urgent need for Muslims to enlighten non-Muslims as to the proper understanding of the tenets of their faith.

Gratuitous comments such as the ones made by Pascual are incendiary and irresponsible, coming at a time when tempers are again on the rise. Such statements only serve to stoke further the resentment of Muslim Filipinos.

A question of martyrs

A question of martyrs


Posted 11:56pm (Mla time) Mar 17, 2005
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 18, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



A FOREIGNER once held hostage by the Abu Sayyaf probably expressed what many Filipinos feel. Callie Strydom in South Africa said of Ghalib Andang, alias "Commander Robot": "He probably got the death he was seeking. I suppose in the end he got what was coming to him." Any pity for the fate of the Abu Sayyaf leaders killed in last Tuesday's storming of Camp Bagong Diwa is tempered by a recollection of their dark deeds.

This is a distinction, however, that ignores other realities that serve to overshadow the event. Those killed at Camp Bagong Diwa were buried yesterday in a manner that was intended to proclaim them as "martyrs" for Islam. Instead of being washed, the bodies of the 22 slain were left bathed in their own blood, anointed in the sanguinary proof of their martyrdom. For every "Commander Robot" or "Commander Kosovo" killed, there are cases such as that of Hadji Ahmad Opao, at 75 the oldest fatality and, by all accounts, a man overdue for release on humanitarian grounds. He was said to be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and was bedridden, and he died because, perhaps in an instinctive reversion to the warrior traditions of his youth, he got to his feet when the shooting started.

For many Muslim Filipinos, it is not the supposed poetic justice of a "Commander Kosovo's" death that will seize their imagination, it is the far more common and far sadder realities of the fate that befalls people like Hadji Ahmad Opao. The workaday experience of many Muslims is filled with false accusations, brutal imprisonment, rough and ready persecution masquerading as the justice of the Republic. Filipino Christians can surely understand why experiences and examples such as Opao's can turn even the deaths of notorious kidnappers and bandits (such as the Abu Sayyaf) into martyrdom.

Governor Parouk Hussein of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao has tried to explain as much by pointing out that not everyone killed in Tuesday's assault were members of the Abu Sayyaf. There were those who got killed in the attack because they happened to be in jail on account of false charges made by their Muslim or Christian enemies or because of the slow and inefficient workings of our justice system. It is these cases that will resound, those deaths that will be mourned, those examples that will overshadow the deaths of known members of the Abu Sayyaf.

Of greatest concern now is the increasing criticism of Muslims by their Christian brethren for not speaking out more against the Abu Sayyaf, and for giving those killed the benefit of Islamic burial rites and of being mourned by the Muslim community. No one begrudges a Christian the burial rites of his religion, whatever his crime, and no one should criticize Muslims for burying their dead according to the rites of their faith. As for calling upon Muslims to provide a united front in criticizing the Abu Sayyaf, this ignores the larger and smaller dynamics of Muslim society in our country. Larger, because the Abu Sayyaf, for all its bloodthirsty abuses, is a manifestation of Christian policies of repression, neglect and exploitation in Mindanao, and smaller, because the ties of blood and family can eclipse all other considerations.

For now, the Abu Sayyaf continues to look like a winner: it now claims martyrs, and has planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of at least some who suspect a government rubout. Its members went out in a manner of their own choosing; they have been buried in a manner that inspires romance and admiration among their followers. The government is now faced with the Herculean task of trying to change public opinion not among Christians, whose biases at least make them somewhat impervious to romanticizing the Abu Sayyaf, but among Muslims, who are torn between admiring their obviously reckless courage, and the realization that in the face of Christian guns, there is no distinction between the bad Abu Sayyaf and elderly prisoners like Opao.

The only way to seize momentum is the hardest: to slowly, but surely, eliminate all doubts that those in jail deserve to be there, and aren't imprisoned because of bad luck, poverty, the enmity of others or, worst of all, their religion.