THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

HURRICANE IRENE PREPARATION AND MEDIA COVERAGE: Overhyped or Strategic?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

We can’t wait to know how bad it is before we get ready. We have to go fast. We have to base it upon the potential impacts. That's why we look at these forecasts we get from the Hurricane Center and we make the decisions based upon what the potential impacts could be. If you wait till you know how bad it is, it becomes harder to change the outcome.” -FEMA Director Craig Fugate

 

It was an all-systems go for the government, volunteers and the media in preparation for Hurricane Irene. The storm has claimed more than 44 lives, and caused billions of dollars in damages, and some areas remain flooded to this date. But Irene, thankfully, did not ravage the region, especially New York City, as bad  as the government and the media warned it could. Do you agree with critics who said  the government and the media overhyped this storm, or was it sensible strategic planning to prepare for the worst in order to save lives?

 

Just a few days after a 5.8 magnitude earthquake rocked the east coast, another calamity ravaged through the region. Responding to storm forecast of meteorologists in the National Weather Service on Hurricane Irene, it was an “all systems go”  from the federal, to the local government, to the Red Cross, other institutions and volunteers.

 

The media gave a 24/7 blow by blow account of the storm, warning people of the worst case scenario -- a scary picture of Armageddon, especially for densely-populated New York City. Heavy rains, gusty winds, massive flooding, tornadoes and even the possibility of swelling waters could inundate Lower Manhattan and Staten Island.

 

President Obama declared a state of emergency on the upper East Coast. Mandatory evacuations were ordered by local government units to bring residents to safety in shelters. Even patients from five big hospitals in New York City had to be evacuated because of possible widespread power outages. Flights were canceled, trains and subways ceased to operate, businesses were closed. 

 

The media played a big role in helping the government and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Non-stop updates and special news coverages kept the public informed about the Irene's path and the possible scenario that can happen. 

 

Local government units, the Red Cross, other institutions and volunteer organizations were given the platform to disseminate information on precautions, evacuation orders and shelters,  what to bring, what to prepare, etc. 

 

Hurricane Irene left widespread destruction on its path, claiming the lives of more than 44 people, across eight states. According to FEMA, the estimated damage could be over $7-billion. The most extensive damages reportedly occurred in upstate New York and in the picturesque New England state of Vermont, which suffered from disastrous flash floods.

 

To date, many areas are still flooded. Many homes, businesses and infrastructure were devastated, others are still without power supply. Those who were directly hit need food, water, clothing and medicine. They're still wondering how they can rebuild what was lost when the floodwaters finally recede. Home insurance claims will definitely be a problem as many homes are not covered by flood insurance, the area not being prone to flooding in the past decades.

 

From a Category 3 in the Bahamas, Irene was downgraded to a slow-moving Category 1 storm. It was a tropical storm when it made a landfall in New York City, and then strengthened to be a Category 1 again as it moved up north to upstate new York, new Jersey and the New England states.

 

New York City was the most fortunate, considering that it has a huge population of more than eight million residents, plus the tourists visiting the area had been spared. Yet, New Yorkers were also, reportedly, the first ones to complain about how the government and the media overhyped Hurricane Irene. 

 

Media viewers from other areas of the nation (and even from the Philippines) expressed “disappointment” over the “unremarkable” TV viewing it had been, considering the supposed “hype” the government and the media “generated.” 

 

What were they hoping to see? People being swept by floods and hanging on for dear life?  More casualties and lives lost? More neighborhoods submerged in water? A Katrina-type scenario to make their viewing worthwhile? 

 

Commentaries like these, in my opinion, undermine all the hardwork and sacrifice put in by the federal and local government, the Red Cross and volunteers and the media, who in the process of covering the storm, possibly endangered their lives as well.

 

 

After all, natural calamities (like  hurricanes) are beyond man’s control in terms of their intensity, scope and direction. All we can do is make preparations the best way we can and that was exactly what all sectors of society did. These are lessons learned from Katrina, and we are putting them in practice.

 

FEMA Director Craig Fugate said, “We can’t wait to know how bad it is before we get ready. We have to go fast. We have to base it upon the potential impacts. That's why we look at these forecasts we get from the Hurricane Center and we make the decisions based upon what the potential impacts could be. If you wait till you know how bad it is, it becomes harder to change the outcome.”

 

For the city that never sleeps, it was such a huge inconvenience and perhaps, a shock to its system, putting all daily and nightly grind to a halt, in order to give way to evacuations and safety preparations. 

 

But if circumstances had been different and New York City was directly hit by a Category 3 hurricane, ill preparations from the government and the media would have devastated the city and its residents in epic proportions. These complaining New Yorkers should learn to count their blessings instead.

 

And for television viewers who were ‘disappointed” by the lack of drama and action (including some of our kababayans), maybe we should ask ourselves if we have been desensitized by all the disaster movies that we have seen.  Have we lost the ability to differentiate real life from fiction? Do we perceive the news to be one epic reality show? 

 

Can we not just be grateful that the institutions worked so well together as a team, with foresight, strategic planning and systematic execution?  Wouldn't this be a good model for the Philippines to follow, in terms of disaster planning and management? 

 

What is your take on the issue? Do you agree with critics who said the the government and media overhyped this storm, or was it sensible strategic planning -- one which saved lives and minimized damage to properties?

 (Asian Journal, August 31, September 1, 2, 2011 )

 

PNoy’s Achilles Heel: Command Responsibility

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

 

"Command responsibility doctrine in international law allows military commanders and civilian leaders to be held responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates. The buck stops with you, Mr. President."

 

President Aquino remains firm in his position not to apologize to the families of the Hong Kong tourists killed  in the August 23 hostage tragedy, arguing that the harm was done by one man, Rolando Mendoza--Why should the state apologize? The findings of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee  revealed that government officials were partly to blame for the bungled rescue operation. Has PNoy forgotten about the doctrine of "command responsibility" and is now washing his hands of the culpability of his government?

 

A year has passed since that tragic day. On August 23, 2010, former police officer Rolando Mendoza took hostages in a tourist bus and shot and killed eight Hong Kong tourists in Manila’s Rizal Park. Mendoza himself was killed by the SWAT team, after the botched twelve-hour hostage drama.

 

Twelve months ago, the socio-political institutions of the nation were shaken -- investigations and talks were conducted to determine what went wrong. It became a ‘soul searching” exercise for government officials, the media, and the public. 

 

Twelve months after that fateful day, there's still no closure nor justice for a tragedy that was witnessed by the entire world. Except for one police officer who was sacked from his job, nobody has been made accountable for the lives that were lost. It's still business as usual for the national and local government, the media, and the viewing public hungry for the latest sensational scoop..

 

The lives of the eight Hong Kong tourists, who trusted the Philippines enough to go and visit our country, could never be brought back. And yet adding insult to the pain and anguish of the bereaved families of these victims was the fact that to this day, no high-ranking official from the Philippine government has issued a formal apology.

 

                      Praying for the victims on the first anniversary of August 23                                                                                                           hostage tragedy in Manila (Photo credit: PhilStar)

On August 23, 2011, Bayan-muna Party List Representative Teodoro Casino appealed to President Benigno Aquino III to "come down from his ivory tower and understand the simple and reasonable request of the victims of last year's Rizal Park hostage taking incident for an apology."

 

Having spoken to a survivor as well as relatives of the hostage victims, Casino said in an ABS-CBN report, "Wala silang konsuwelo. Kahit bulong, kahit sulat man lang wala silang natatanggap. That is why they are still hurting and angry after all this time”.

 

Different sectors of society have called for President Aquino to issue a formal public apology. But Aquino remained firm in his position not to apologize, arguing that the harm was done by one man, Rolando Mendoza. Why should the state apologize?

 

“We deeply regret what has transpired. Yung apology connotes that the state did them grievous harm. I don’t think that is correct. This was the act of one man, the same token that some of our citizens have been affected elsewhere in the world, we do not blame the entire population. We know that there are criminal elements, there are mentally deranged individuals that pose a threat to anybody regardless of race or country of origin,” Aquino said.

 

But the findings of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (the  body that Aquino himself created to  get to the bottom of the hostage taking crisis) revealed that government officials were partly to blame for the bungled rescue operation. 

 

Yes, it was a systemic problem --other institutions like the media aggravated the crisis. Yes, it was Mendoza who pulled the trigger and killed the victims, but it was Aquino’s men who failed to save them. It was the inefficiency of the system and lack of leadership that failed to control the media and all other elements at play which ultimately bungled the rescue mission.

 

Maybe President Aquino should be reminded about the doctrine of “command responsibility”  in international criminal law. Command responsibility doctrine allows military commanders and civilian leaders to be held responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates. And the buck stops with you, Mr. President.

 

Maybe President Aquino deems that apologizing shows a sign of weakness. And so he is washing his hands of the culpability of his government on this hostage  tragedy and is putting all the blame on the gunman. This is his Achilles’ heel.

 

For as long as Aquino does not own up to the failure of his own government, his system and the people under him, he will not be able to solve the problems of this country. The same attitude may permeate in all other battles he promised to fight: from corruption, to poverty, to justice. 

 

Mr. President, acknowledging and rectifying the mistakes of your government is not a sign of weakness, but of your strength as a leader. This will be  the key to the fulfillment of your promise of leading the Filipinos toward ‘daang matuwid.” 

 (Asian Journal Column Article)

 

Pinay Nurses Vindicated in Legal Battle: Is It Now OK to Speak in Filipino in the Workplace?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

 

 

Are Pinoys being rude if they speak in Filipino among themselves at work, especially after the Pinay nurses in Maryland won their case vs the hospital that fired them for speaking in Tagalog? Does this run against Filipinos' ability to assimilate effectively in American society? Read what our kababayans have to say...

 

 

"Exercising your basic right to speak your native tongue-- that is inherently legal and ethical...but this legal victory of our nurses does not mean we forget our values of decency and social sensitivity when we speak our own native language in  front of others. We Filipinos know this. Other nationalities should do the same." Atty. Arnedo Valera,  Our Filipina Nurses' Legal Counsel

Last week, I wrote about the historic victory of  our Filipina nurses who won the landmark discrimination case they filed agains the giant Bon Secours Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, which fired them for speaking in Filipino in the workplace. 

 

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that the “English-only” policy of the hospital was in violation of the nurses’ civil rights, as the short pleasantries in Tagalog exchanged by our nurses in the workplace did not put the lives of their patients in danger nor did they affect the way our nurses perform their duties and responsibilities in the hospital. 

 

The US-EEOC further said the hospital subjected our Filipina RNs to unequal terms and conditions of employment, a hostile work environment, disciplinary action and discharge because of their national origins (Filipino). In the decision penned by Commission Director Gerald Kiel, the EEOC said, “the evidence demonstrates that the aforementioned policies were applied unequally because of national origin. It appears that other employees spoke Spanish and other languages contrary to the policies and were not disciplined. In addition, it appears more serious infractions of work rules were not comparably punished.”

 

Our kababayan nurses’ legal counsel and Co-Executive Director of the Migrant Heritage Commission Atty. Arnedo Valera noted that these nurses are very fluent in English as they fulfill their duties and responsibilities in the hospital. Such short pleasantries in Tagalog just come out once in a while as Filipinos communicate with one another even here in America. He added that English, after all, is not our first language. This point was likewise noted by  Commissioner Kiel in his decision. 

 

Atty. Valera said the case is "a great victory for immigrants and for cultural diversity," and that the  EEOC ruling follows the principle of equality guaranteed by the US Constitution. "All languages are equal and everyone must respect that different languages exist and live by it. Everyone has an inherent right to communicate in your own native language. That is part of one's cultural right and nationhood. Again, bilingualism/multilingualism should be encouraged even in workplaces because it save lives and is good for the business, and in the long term to all facets of the US economy."

 

Addressing concerns about how the ruling may be used as an excuse for some immigrants to be rude to others, Atty. Valera clarifies that this legal victory of our nurses does not mean we forget our the values of decency and social sensitivity when we speak our own native language in front of others. Other nationalities should do the same. 

 

Atty. Valera emphasized, "We should always be polite and sensitive to others around us. You can always say as a courtesy "would you mind if I or we speak in Tagalog, French, Italian, Spanish, English Russian etc .as the case maybe. Filipinos and other nationalities love to share in their own language with their countrymen-- stories, jokes, greetings etc.”

 

“But as a matter of exercising your basic right to speak your native tongue, that is inherently legal and ethical. 21st century and globalization recognize that. That is why all peoples of the world are part of the community of nations sharing their common thread of humanity despite differences in languages. Respect for one's cultural identity including your own language IS a fundamental right. This has been our human history since Adam and eve and even in the times of iPod and laptops...” Atty. Valera added.

 

Here are some of the comments of our readers and our kababayans from all over the world:

 

"... NOW WE GOTTA WORRY ABOUT FILIPINOS WHO REFUSE TO BE TRULY AMERICAN... practice your language on personal time. I would have fired you also after a warning and a write-up. Only one language should be spoken by employees at the workplace and not on break. How can you manage a group of employees without understanding and it causes lack of trust between employees? - “US Citizen marrying a Filipina”

 

"The real issue here is discrimination. There were dozens of other employees in that hospital who spoke Spanish and other languages on a regular basis and were never penalized. I agree with you on some level that one language should be spoken at the workplace, but the issue is fairness and equality. why only penalize one group and not the others?" - Bruno

 

"If the nurses spoke French, they would be praised [for having] such eloquence while [the]Filipino [language] is [being] discriminated [upon]. If the nurses spoke [Spanish], they'd be indifferent. The hospital simply targeted their Filipino staff and that indeed, is discrimination and bigotry in motion. Justice served well." - Manilahotstuff

"I'm glad that they won the case; it is part of our free speech here in the US. However, sometimes it is not appropriate to speak in Tagalog or any Philippine dialect at your workplace, especially if you are around people who don't understand what you're saying. It will sound disrespectful to them." - Virgil Villaroman

 

"There are guidelines on that policy, seems like they followed it and won their case. This is the beauty [of] America -- rule of law...and you'll get the enforcement of the decision, hindi salita lang.. Congratulations!" - Teddy L. Bentulan

 

There's nothing wrong if we Filipino speak English, to think we work and earn here, why the heck you dis agree? Don't forget we are here to work and we have to obey the law too, com'on don't be so proud try to look back where you came from, don't act like Mexican we are ahead from them and beside we are professional... -- Ruby Perez

 

"Bravo and congrats to them! It is never polite to speak in your vernacular when you're in company with others who can't understand it, unless you intend to alienate or 'put them in their place.' However, if those who don't understand you are within hearing distance, but are not included in the conversation, it is perfectly alright to speak in your native tongue, as this goes to the issue of privacy and personal space." - Dr. Che Lejano

 

I just want to share a funny story that happened in the US Embassy in the Philippines....there was a Filipina who was applying for a tourist US visa and had to request for an interpreter because she could hardly speak English. During the interview, one of the questions of the US Consul was, "why are you going to the US if you can't speak and understand English?." The woman replied in Tagalog and said, "why are you in the Philippines when you can't also speak and understand Tagalog?".....hahaha! that was funny and a very smart answer!...Go Pinoys! - Baby

 

"[The] USA is a country built [by] migrants. People who live there are from all over the world, that's why I can't understand why there are so many stupid racists in that country." - Leo Bee

 

"I do find it rude when we speak our own language in front of those who can't understand it. And our Pinoy pride sometimes goes overboard. But firing these hardworking Filipinas is a bit too harsh, and it didn't seem that they were getting a fair treatment relative to other nationalities. Also, America has once again shown that it is not just a country full of evil and immoral people, as what others would like to portray. There are great and honorable people in America who believe and fight for justice. I hope these kinds of people prevail and not the ones who are dragging this great country into ruin." - Iring Ug Iro

Related blog:Backgrounder on the Case of Pinay Nurses vs Bon Secours Hospital 

Fired for Speaking in Filipino: Filipina Nurses in Maryland Win Case vs Hospital!

By Gel Santos Relos

 

Dahil sa pagsasalita sa wikang Filipino sa ospital, tinanggal sa trabaho ang mga Pinay nurses. Ipinaglaban nila ang kanilang karapatan, at nanalo ang ating mga kababayan sa kasong diskriminasyon laban sa higanteng Bon Secours Health System! Alamin ang paliwanag sa desisyon ng Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

 

 

Last year I wrote about the legal  battle of Filipino nurses, who filed a case of discrimination against their employer: Bon Secours Health System in Baltimore, Maryland. The hospital fired them for speaking Tagalog in the workplace. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has finally made a ruling and our kababayans won the case.

 

Pinoy registered nurses Corina Yap, Anna Rosales, Hazel Granada, and Hachelle Natano alleged that they were subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment in the hospital’s enforcement of the English-only rule. They said they were discharged  without warning whatsoever, because they are Filipino. 

 

On August 16, 2011, US EEOC Director Gerald Kiel  said he found reasonable cause that the Bon Secours Health System subjected Yap and her colleagues to unequal terms and conditions of employment, a hostile work environment, disciplinary action and discharge because of their national origins (Filipino). This, he wrote, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. The EEOC also  ruled that these  violations constitute an unlawful pattern of practice of discrimination because of national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

 

 

In April 2010, the Bon Secours Health System fired our four kababayans for allegedly speaking in Tagalog while in the premises of the Emergency Department. Since November 2009, the English-only policy was being enforced at the Emergency Department as well as in other departments, to all employees, while conducting their duties. The hospital said this policy was meant to protect its patients.

 

Our kababayans admitted to speaking in Filipino with each other, but said in their affidavits that they were just exchanging pleasantries in Tagalog, which included saying “Salamat” and other words of appreciation for another person who brought food to their work station. 

 

After evaluating all the evidences presented, the EEOC determined that the disciplinary action and discharge done by the respondent(Bon Secours Health System) were unlawful, and that the hospital failed to support its allegations  that the conversations were job-related and necessary for business. 

 

In his statement of  determination, Director Gerald Kiel further wrote:

 

“ The policy specific to the Emergency Department (ED) bars all non-English communications while on duty for any purposes and in any context while physically in the ED. The other policy bars use of non-English languages (referred to as foreign language[s]) “during the performance of job responsibilities.” Such policies have in this matter, a significant disparate impact on persons of non-U.S. national origins whose first languages are not English.”

 

One of our kababayans charged and fired by the hospital was not even working in the Emergency Department, but was doing administrative/office work. Kiel further ruled: 

 

“..the other policy barring use of non-English languages by any hospital employee in any department or location (not just the ED) holding any job title while performing any job responsibility in any context also cannot be justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity. This policy also constitutes unlawful discrimination because national origin..”

 

The discrimination case against the hospital was further proven by the way Filipinos had been singled out in the implementation of the English-only policy. According to EEOC Director Kiel:

 

“...the evidence demonstrates that the aforementioned policies were applied unequally because of national origin. It appears that other employees spoke Spanish and other languages contrary to the policies and were not disciplined. In addition, it appears more serious infractions of work rules were not comparably punished.”

 

 

 

Our kababayan nurses were elated at the decision and said they felt vindicated as they were hardworking and dedicated to their profession. RN  Corina Yap expressed gratitude to the Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC),  the nonprofit organization that helped them in this legal battle.

 

 

 

In my interview with Legal Counsel and MHC  Co-Executive Director  Arnedo Valera on “Balitang America,”  Atty. Valera said the recent victory is a landmark case for labor and anti-discriminatory laws in the US because it benefits all other ethnic groups. Valera said the case is "a great victory for immigrants and for cultural diversity."

“The English-only rule in workplaces, which has nothing to do with one's performance of duties, is discriminatory, based on national origin. Everyone has the right to speak their own native language whenever they want or need to so long as they do not compromise and put their patients in danger. In fact, hospitals and other facilities benefit from bilingualism. Many lives have been saved in emergency rooms because hospital personnel could understand the persons brought to them,” explained Atty. Valera.

 

In an official statement, MHC Co-Executive Director Jesse Gatchalian commended the nurses for their courage in their quest for justice, as they fought against the “giant” Bon Secours Health System.

 

MHC Co-Executive Director Grace Valera-Jaramillo meanwhile, said that "as a nation of immigrants, we value the contributions of immigrants, including the sharing of their culture and language. Our community is actually enriched by diversity.” 

 

 

Art or Blasphemy?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

  “I wanted to provoke people into thinking. I titled my work ‘Politeismo’ which loosely translates into ‘many beliefs’ or ‘many deities.’ Throughout history, humanity has grown to create new gods and these are not always religious figures but concepts and objects. Some have taken to worshiping money; some see politicians as godsend. People create idols and these idols whether or not they’re deserving of idolatry or worship affect our lives and how we function and see the world.”  -- Mideo Cruz 

 

 

 Picture this: an "image" of Jesus Christ with an attached wooden replica of male genitalia, draped with a rosary and protruding directly over the face of Jesus.

 

This is  "Politeismo" by Mideo Cruz. It is one of the art works that was on exhibit at the the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) Main Gallery, which opened last June 17, 2011.  Entitled “Kulo”, this piece is part of a compilation of work by 32 artists, celebrating the 150th anniversary of Jose Rizal. 

 

When the exhibit was featured by one television network, the “Christ with a penis” created such a public uproar. Filipinos from different economic, educational and social backgrounds were appalled by the exhibit, calling Cruz's masterpiece "blasphemous, malicious and sacrilegious."

 

Criticisms escalated to violent threats to security.  A couple had reportedly vandalized the artwork and attempted to set fire to the exhibit, but was unsuccessful. The CCP Board and the artists received increasing number of hate mails and threats following this incident.

 

In her research for the rationale behind Cruz's work, Raissa Robles wrote, "The artist Mideo Cruz said he pasted the phallus on Christ’s face to symbolize Christ’s power and authority. Robles also cited a previous interview made by Ina Silverio with artist Mideo Cruz. This was before the outrage happened. 

 

The art work is Mideo Cruz' visual commentary of how religion is viewed and practiced in the Philippines.

 

“I wanted to provoke people into thinking. I titled my work ‘Politeismo’ which loosely translates into ‘many beliefs’ or ‘many deities.’ Throughout history, humanity has grown to create new gods and these are not always religious figures but concepts and objects. Some have taken to worshiping money; some see politicians as godsend. People create idols and these idols whether or not they’re deserving of idolatry or worship affect our lives and how we function and see the world,” Mideo Cruz explained. 

 

Based on the public reaction to the art work, Raissa made the conclusion, "Mideo Cruz was  right about his observation on how Filipinos view religion."

 

Retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz has condemned the exhibit of artist Mideo Cruz, calling it a “consummate sacrilege.” He described the exhibit as “sick and sickening” and “radically insensitive to natural decency, offensive to ethical standards, and hideous to moral norms.” 

 

Through his blog, the bishop criticized the CCP for “displaying the radical vulgarity instead at nurturing and promoting Filipino positive cultural values as defined by its Mission Statement.”

 

Echoing the sentiments of other Catholic Church leaders,  Bishop Cruz further wrote that the CCP Board is supposed to be “art connoisseurs but [they] cannot even see the difference between art and plain vandalism... [they] allow themselves to be taken for a ride by a sick man posing as an artist.”

 

Former First Lady and now Ilocos Congresswoman Imelda Marcos said,” After seeing the exhibit I was really shocked because it was not only ugly, it was not true, it was not at all beautiful because there were statues and pictures of saints and Christ with horns and with his penis up and it was really a desecration of a spiritual symbol for Catholics.”

 

President Noynoy Aquino himself communicated to the CCP Board his disapproval about the exhibit. The CCP is under the Office of the President. 

 

In an interview, Aquino pointed out that 85 percent of Filipinos were Christians and that the CCP is being funded by taxpayers.Thus, it should be “of service” to the people. “I think I made myself clear to them. You have rights but when you already trample on the rights of others, there’s already something wrong,” the President said.

 

Citing violent security threats, the CCP closed down the exhibit last August 9. Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) Visual Arts division head Karen Flores, resigned from her post as well the day after. But the uproar against the CCP officials and artist Mideo Cruz has not ended.

 

Some Senators expressed the need to conduct a Senate inquiry on the matter. At least three of them: Sotto, Enrile, and Estrada, called for the resignation of all CCP officials. Sotto even threatened to withhold funding for the CCP. 

 

The University of Santo Tomas has denounced and rejected Mideo Cruz as an alumnus. Devout Catholics staged their protest in front of the CCP. A lay Catholic group, St. Thomas More Society, filed criminal and administrative charges against the artist and the CCP Board before the Office of the Ombudsman  “because the Christian nation has been offended”.

 

Artists, free thinkers and progressive Filipinos, on the other hand, protested against the closing down of the exhibit and said this is an infringement of the freedom of expression, as guaranteed by the Constitution. 

 

The artwork, supporters say, has been exhibited since 2002 in other venues: Ateneo de Manila, UP Vargas Museum and Kulay Diwa Galleries -- why the uproar now? CCP Visual Arts Division Head Flores lamented on how the media, and two news organizations in particular, had "sensationalized" the issue, particularly "Politeismo.”

 

The curator of the controversial exhibit  J. Pacena II said: "The latest pronouncement of the CCP Board sets a bad precedent. Our right to freely express ourselves were curtailed. I am shocked and appalled by how our civil liberties were exploited to satiate the sensibilities of a raucous mob. In effect, majority of the participants’ ideas and artistic expressions were neglected and compromised by this decision."

 

Artists called for unity to fight against censorship at the press conference dubbed "Palayain ang Sining." They pointed out that the threats and actual filing legal charges made against the Cultural Center of the Philippines (citing  Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code) is unconstitutional. 

 

Article 201 penalizes “those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals... those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which… offend any race or religion; …are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts."

 

On the other hand, Article 3 Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution states that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

 

"Kaya maaasahan natin sa mga susunod na okasyon na magkakaroon ng paggamit ng sining upang ipakita ang pagsalungat ng mga artista o ng isang artista sa umiiral na kalagayan sa lipunan, maaasahan natin na ang mga obispo, ang mga pinuno ng mga reaksyonaryong artista, mga tagapagmasid sa lipunan,  ay pauulit-ulit na maghaharap ng pagtutol tungkol sa ginagawa para sa sining...”, National Artist for Literature Bienvenido Lumbera  articulated.

 

           So what do you think? Is Mideo Cruz’  controversial  exhibit “blasphemous?”     Or is it “art” -- a legitimate visual commentary on how Filipinos  view and practice religion -- that should be  protected by freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

Photo credit ( Warning: Graphic Content--For mature viewers only):  "Politeismo" by Mideo Cruz via Raissa Robles

  

 

Will the Partisan Dogfights in Washington Finally End?

 By Gel Santos Relos

 

Bagsak ang stock market sa US at sa buong mundo makaraang ibaba ang         credit rating ng US sa unang pagkakataon--dahil sa bangayan ng mga politiko! Maraming nalugi sa kanilang retirement savings, 401K & investments. Pinangangambahan ang pagkakaroon ng panibagong recession na magtataas ng bayarin sa bahay,credit card,student loan, car loan & halaga ng bilihin. Matauhan na kaya ang mga politiko para maisalba ang America?

 

At the opening of the week, the stock market made another nosedive in America and in other markets in the world, following Standard and Poor's (S&P) downgrade of the United States' credit rating: from prime Triple A status to an AA+ late Friday. 

 

Despite an error in calculation by $2-trillion dollars, that has been pointed out by the Obama Administration, S & P defended its decision -- not because of the fundamentals of the US economy, but because of the crazy gridlock and endless bickering in US politics. 

 

Unfortunately, this perceived dysfunctional state of the way our government works gives the impression that America might be a risky borrower because time and time again, its leaders voraciously engage in partisan dogfights -- a fact which could compromise the nation’s ability to pay its debts in the future. 

 

Perception is reality. And the American people are caught in this  “terroristic” way of engaging and abusing the freedom of democracy. The plummeting of the stock market, after all, does not only affect CEOs and big corporations. It affects every single American who has retirement accounts, 401K, life savings, and investments. I feel sorry for our retiring baby boomers who do not have the luxury of time to wait for the stock market to rebound -- because they need their retirement money now!

 

Uncertainties fueled the heavy sell off in the market following the US credit rating downgrade, aggravated by the dismal state of the European economy. How would this turn of events affect the amount we pay for our home mortgages, student loans, credit card bills, car loans and the prices of basic commodities? How would this affect our businesses and the ability of companies to hire more people? How would this affect consumer confidence and spending, which drives 67% of our economy? Are we in for a double dipped US recession and a global recession?

 

This downgrade of the US credit rating is a first in America’s history. The Obama administration called this move by S & P “way off” and shows an error in judgment. In his speech last Monday, President Obama reassured people about the credit worthiness of America despite S & P's downgrade, quoting billionaire Warren Buffet who said the United States deserves a AAAA rating despite its challenges. After all, the US has already passed the debt bill and Moody’s, another credit rating agency, has cautiously upheld the nation’s AAA rating.

 

We have heard speech after speech from prospective presidential candidates and politicians in Washington (even from Donald Trump!),  capitalizing on this unfortunate national circumstance and bashing President Obama for this mishap. They have been putting all the blame on Obama’s leadership and acting more like “Pontius Pilate”  -- washing their hands from any culpability. The blame game has likewise taken a full swing around between the Democrats and the Republicans!

 

But the truth of the matter is, Americans and the whole world following American politics know better than that! In recent polls, only 14 out of every 100 Americans say that US Congress, and the disapproval rating has risen to 82%--the highest in decades! After the debt bill was passed, 86% of Americans felt that the driving force behind the debates on the debt bill in Congress were based on partisan politics, and not on what would be in the best interest of the ordinary American people.

 

S & P also echoed the sentiment of a majority of Americans, who believe that despite the people's animosity to pay more dues, having the richest Americans and corporations pay higher taxes should have been mandated by the bill, in addition to spending cuts and fixing tax loopholes. This would add more revenues and lower the ballooning budget deficit of the nation. S & P argued the same thing as one of the reasons for the downgrade in credit rating. 

 

Despite the redundant rhetoric of these politicians (who are trying to create the impression that they are fighting for jobs for the American people, those who have lost their jobs and could hardly find one; or those who do have a job but wouldn’t get paid because of Congress’ inaction -- like the FAA employees) Americans know too well that these are just words for cheap show. 

 

Adding insult to injury is seeing members of Congress go on vacation for weeks without doing what they were being paid by the taxpayers to do. I hear this all the time from ordinary Americans, especially among our kababayan Fil-Ams, who say if Congress (whether it be on the state or federal level) fails to come up with a bill or budget which would affect the ability of ordinary citizens to receive their much-needed and hard-earned paychecks on time, then these “honorable" members of Congress should not be paid their salaries! Makes sense, right? Ordinary folks are the ones who suffer because of all these inane gridlock!

 

President Obama said the good news is that America has plans lined up to solve the problem, what is lacking is the political will and the political vote to make sure this plans are approved, passed, and implemented. What we need to have are leaders who will put what is best for the country ahead of self-interest or ideology.

 

Would this unfortunate event change the tone in Washington? Would this serve as a wake up call to the politicians in Capitol Hill? Will they finally prioritize what's best for the American people over partisan dogfights, especially with the 2012 elections in sight?

 

 

 

Stress, Illness and Accountability: The Melodrama Behind Our Quest for Justice

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Uso na yata ang biglang lumalala ang sakit ng mga opisyal na nasasangkot sa mga kasong katiwalian sa Pilipinas. Totoo man, kathang isip lamang o psychosomatic ang mga karamdaman, magiging hadlang ba ito sa paglaban ng mga Pilipino para sa tunay na hustisya? O mananaig na lamang ba ang pusong mamon at "move on' mentality?

 

 

We have witnessed this familiar and melodramatic scenario so many times: people who are implicated or accused of a crime in court lose consciousness, have an unusually rapid heart rate or an elevated blood pressure. Many succeed in delaying court proceedings, with some fortunate enough to excuse themselves from attending hearings, per their physician's advice.

 

 

Just like the case of former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, who is now being called by the Senate to explain his alleged involvement in the questionable and anomalous purchase by the Philippine National Police (PNP) of two used helicopters, bought as brand new, using taxpayers' money. According to Lion Air President Archibald Po, Mike Arroyo owned the 2 second-hand helicopters.

 

It turned out that Mike Arroyo has already left the country, confined in a hospital in Hong Kong due to a recent aortic surgery, according to his lawyers. Arroyo has indicated his willingness to attend the Senate hearing, but maintained that it will depend on his doctor's advice. 

 

"Only 5% survive my life-threatening operation and of the 5% who survive, 50% will die within the next 5 years. I certainly don’t want to be dead,” he told ABS-CBN News via text message.

 

His doctors say  Mr. Arroyo's treatment has long been overdue and had to be postponed because of his wife, former president and now Pampanga rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's (GMA) emergency spine surgery. Mr. Arroyo had to remain with his wife, until she was stable and out of the Intensive Care Unit.

 

GMA was taken to St. Luke’s Medical Center in Taguig City to undergo cervical spine surgery, on the same day President Noynoy Aquino delivered his second State of the Nation Address. 

 

GMA skipped the SONA for the second time and instead, chose to spend  a couple of hours with her constituents in Porac, Pampanga after attending the opening session of the 15th Congress. 

 

 President Aquino said that the government was determined to prosecute wrongdoing, regardless of a respondent’s condition. GMA's supporters asked for a ceasefire from all the attacks, given her medical condition. 

 

"It’s our right to sue her. But for the time being, I hope she could have a break from this,” Candaba Mayor Jerry Pelayo said in Filipino, in an ABS-CBN report. “After she gets better, again, it is our right. I myself want to know the truth.”

 

Stress, especially due to impending legal cases, aggravate medical conditions. For some healthy individuals, anxiety and emotional turmoil manifest themselves in the form of physical or medical disorders, as in the case of psychosomatic diseases.

 

But these conditions--whether real, imagined or psychosomatic-- should not get in the way of uncovering the truth and delivering justice. They should also not be used to manipulate the "pusong mamon" of the ever-forgiving Filipinos. 

 

We have an appropriate legal forum, where the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But fair and impartial investigations and trials should be conducted in order to acquit and clear the name of the innocent; or convict and make the guilty pay for the crimes committed. The complete submission of citizens to the rule of law, especially of those in the position of power, is essential in the delivery of justice.

 

Mike Arroyo's statement, on wanting to attend the Senate hearing but leaving it up to his doctor's decision, reveals a conditional commitment to the legal process.

 

So if Mike or Gloria Arroyo or any other public official’s  medical condition is pronounced by his/her doctors to be "iffy" for an undetermined length of time, does that mean there will be no hearing in sight in the immediate future? Is this allowed by law? Will this be good in the delivery of justice for both the accused and the aggrieved people? Won't this set a precedent for others, who are also accused, to follow in avoiding a hearing?

 

We confront this issue at the same time  that Egypt's disgraced  leader Hosni Mubarak is facing trial  for allegedly killing protesters during the uprising which ousted him, and  for acts of graft and corruption committed during his 30-year regime. 

 

Mubarak had cancer in the past and has been in the hospital for much of the time. It has been speculated for a while that the trial might be postponed because of his frail health condition. But as of late Tuesday, officials said the trial would proceed. And it did. He was shown  lying on a hospital gurney inside a steel cage installed (for his protection) in a makeshift courtroom and he gave his testimony.

 

This was the bold move of Egypt-- a country that has been crying for justice for so long. They would not allow Mubarak's health condition to be an impediment to make sure Mubarak faces all the charges of transgressions against his own people in his three decades of autocratic rule--- no, not this time. A conviction could carry the death penalty for Mubarak.

 

Filipinos have been lamenting and  fighting against the abuse of power in the Philippines for a long time, way past the ouster of Marcos. We have been complaining about the sad fact that in our country, no big fish has ever been made to pay the price of their crime against the country. 

 

 

President Estrada was an exception, but he was pardoned by President Arroyo after being imprisoned for years. He was able to run for president a second time and was next in line to PNoy in terms of number of votes. 

 

The same old stories of cheating and corruption in all levels of government continue to surface, yet many remained unresolved. Is the adage, "crime does not pay" a mere myth? Have we not learned lessons from history? Isn't it about time that we wrote our own?  Will Filipinos be as bold and determined as the Egyptians to finally get the justice that we deserve? Or will we always look at demanding accountability as retrogressive and vindictive action? How will we write our history?

 (Asian Journal, August 6 issue) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Debt Bill: A Birthday Present or a Pandora's Box for Obama?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

The feared economic catastrophe that has been hovering for a long time: higher interest rates for all of our loans -- be it mortgage, auto, student or credit card loans; the devaluation of the dollar; higher gas prices; inflation; higher unemployment rate; a deeper housing crisis; a double dip recession -- has finally, and hopefully been averted.

 

On the 11th hour and after a long, bitter debate from all sides, the bill, which raises the debt ceiling, has been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. It has prevented the United States from defaulting on its loans and/or downgrading its triple-A rating for the first time in history.

 

 The raising of the debt ceiling was President Obama’s wish for his 50th birthday (which is on August 4). He pushed hard for a balanced approach to solving the debt crisis -- a shared sacrifice from among all sectors of society. It advocated for the richest to give more in taxes, to minimize the impact of deep-spending cuts on the basic services to support middle-class Americans who are hurt by the recession and to invest in the future of a stronger America. He asked the men and women of Congress to compromise and help save the United States from falling off the cliff.

 

Obama got his wish alright, but he quite did not get all that he wanted. What he got more of, however, were enemies from all sides: Republicans, Democrats, Independent, Conservative, Liberal and Moderates. The bill that has passed left many people with something to hate about the bill, as not one sector got everything and most of what they wanted. 

 

The Debt Bill

The debt ceiling will now be increased by a total of $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion, starting off with  $400 billion, then by another $500 billion after September. After deep-spending cuts are enacted by the end of the year, it will be increased by another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. These increases should cover the Treasury's borrowing needs until 2013 -- beyond the 2012 Presidential election.

 

That second round of deficit reduction will be proposed by a special bipartisan joint committee of Congress, composed of six Democrats and six Republicans. The committee has until Thanksgiving to come up with its proposals and these proposals will be guaranteed by an up-or-down vote, without amendment, by Dec. 23. This means Congress just has to approve or reject the proposals, without any room for modifications.

 

If Congress approves between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion on cuts proposed by the committee, the debt ceiling will be increased, dollar for dollar. On the other hand, if the committee deadlocks or comes up with less than $1.2 trillion in cuts, or if Congress rejects the committee's proposals,  as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense (Republicans’ concession) and non-defense /discretionary  expenses (Democrats’ shared sacrifice). These discretionary expenses mostly pay for services including education, health care, housing, justice, etc .

 

Democrats say exempt from this round of cuts, however, would be programs that help low-income Americans.These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income. While Medicare would not be exempt, cuts to it would be restricted to no more than 2% of the program's cost.The White House fact sheet assures the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits, nor would they increase seniors' costs.

 

After signing the bill into law, Obama, in a speech, said the law is the first step in rebuilding the world's largest economy-- put focus back on jobs for middle class Americans. He adds that lawmakers still need to work on balancing the budget and reducing the national deficit, which include making adjustments to Medicare and reforming the tax code, so wealthier Americans will pay more.

 

What People From The Left and the Right Say

Those who voted against the bill were mostly Tea Party-backed lawmakers who oppose raising the debt ceiling. They argued that this crisis is a plain cheap, fear-mongering stagecraft by Obama for political purposes and that the US has enough money to pay for its bills. Hardline Republicans believe the cuts are not deep enough.

 

Liberals and Democrats, on the other hand, felt disappointed and betrayed. They said Obama compromised too much and caved in too easily to the demands of the Tea Party and Republican hardliners. They accused him of being a “closet Republican” and said that he should have fought for his constituents more fiercely, by demanding for more taxes for the rich in order to protect the services and support for middle-class Americans.  Others believe that he should have just invoked the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling -- with no strings attached!

 

While polls show a big majority of Americans supporting Obama’s “balanced approach” to solving the debt crisis in America, and while he was perceived to be the "grown up" in the debate--his approval ratings dipped, along with Congress from both parties who were perceived to be bickering spoiled kids. Pundits say Obama may have lost many voters from his own party and from independent voters -- a downside which may harm his chances for re-election in 2012.

 

Obama got his birthday wish alright -- but would the debt ceiling be his Pandora’s box? One that would reveal irreversible evils to his Presidency? Or would this turn of events prove that nobody else can lead America forward for another four years except him? 

 

What unfolds in the next fifteen months will reveal the answer. Happy birthday, Mr. President!