MY PROTEST VOTE AND AN APOLOGY: A REJOINDER TO MY OPEN LETTER

My open letter to Congressman-elect Atty. Leni Robredo and Aga Muhlach has gained several reactions from the netizens. While there were many who agreed with me on my personal thoughts, there were also those who were irate with some lines I used on that letter.

Thus, I write this rejoinder and I wish to be more direct with the thoughts I have. Hermeneutics is indeed a difficult field as it is where the different horizons of interpretations come to play and where the mens auctoris might not be essential to be retrieved. Nevertheless, the German Philosopher Gadamer  (following Heidegger, of course) said that in interpretation, we lay open ourselves to the unfolding of the text that in the end, the interpreter is the one that is interpreted.

The term “apology” has two meanings.  In the Oxford Dictionary of English, this word is defined as:

“a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure: we owe you an apology | my apologies for the delay.

• (apologies) a formal expression of regret at being unable to attend a meeting or social function: Robert can't come and sends his apologies.”

An interesting etymology is also worth highlighting, hence:

“ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (denoting a formal defence against an accusation): from French apologie, or via late Latin from Greek apologia ‘a speech in one's own defence’, from apo ‘away’+ -logia (see -logy) .”

It is on these two senses that I shall use the term.

I sincerely apologize to those whose feelings were offended by the letter that I wrote. Perhaps, I was not clear enough with the message that I wanted to get across and thus some critical comments were thrown against it. I also apologize for the premature jubilations I had in favor of Aga Muhlach. My sincerest apologies.

If I were to put into simple terms the reasons why my family voted for these two, it will be because of protest vote. Let me explain it in the following.

As I said on that letter, Nely Villafuerte has a sterling record to back her credentials and this makes her very much qualified for the position. On this premise, I conjectured that she could even be more qualified than Robredo. Is there essentialy wrong with that?

Along this line, I received a text message that says, “I forgot about the character as an important factor in assessing one’s qualifications.” But again, why did we choose Robredo? The letter was clear: because we chose to believe in her platform for change. Is this not a concrete display of giving Robredo a chance to prove such character?

Meanwhile, that I am no fan of Robredos seemed to be received with unpleasant taste, too. The letter was not meant to answer why I am not a fan although I have given some reasons why. However, going back to the issue at hand, I do not think that by not being a fan, our vote is of lesser meaning. In fact, I think it is noteworthy that we voted for her because we wanted to give the idealism of change a chance. That idealism is the reason; that idealism is the challenge to Robredo politics.

Next is regarding my premature celebration over Aga’s winning, which as of this writing is/may no longer (be) true.  Now my question is: supposing Aga really lost the election (as no one is being officially declared yet as of this time), were my reasons for choosing him become invalid?

I am afraid no. I still would say I voted for Aga because, and I quote directly from the letter:

“we are willing to take a chance with you. We no longer want the 100 years of Fuentebella dynasty to be perpetuated for another century. This is not to discredit in any way any good thing that the Fuentebellas have done to our district. We believe however that we need a breather. A century of leadership should have given the Fuentebellas enough as much as we have enough of them already. And this how we see you. Dear Aga: Give us something new!”

Aga lost—let us assume this is already official. But the hopes I had in voting for him remains true although this may no longer be given a chance to be fulfilled in the coming three years.

So how do I qualify protest vote? We voted to protest against the on-going dynasty in our province. Again, Villafuertes and Fuentebellas have also done a lot for our province, however, we believed others also can do something good, if not better, to us. The protest is a clamor for change and that change begins in a very concrete step: change the names of our leaders. The resounding victory of Atty. Leni and Aga winning in most towns in Partido could also be because of this protest vote.

In rallying with Muhlach and Robredo, we gambled for change. I am using again the term “gamble” although some have expressed distaste for that term as they are so sure of their bets. Sure, be certain therefore. However, skepticism plays an important role in politics, specifically in democracy. Skepticism makes us always attentive against that which is presented as certain and indubitable. It is that disposition wherein we become cautious of what we take as truth and in this sense, Muhlach and Robredo are no exceptions. In beginning with skepticism, we give more rooms for that which presents as truth to prove itself. It is the reason why criticisms are so essential in an open society and that silencing the critics makes us in danger of totalitarianism. Thus, although we voted for these two, it is in taking chance—and in this sense, a gambling—that we trust them. The protest vote is so powerful that it is the same measure that could be used against any winning politician comes 2016.

New is something that is difficult, even painful in many instances. Perhaps, Partido electorate is not yet ready for it. Or the case may also be true: perhaps, Aga Muhlach is not the change that the electors deemed to be worthy. Perhaps, theirs is a protest vote and a skepticism too against Muhlach’s capability and being a true son of Partido. Nevertheless, that Muhlach almost did it to winning is a resounding message to the Fuentebellas: give us something new! The becoming-ripe for change is on its way, and hopefully, we find the fittest to embody this ideal of change soonest.

God bless Camarines Sur!

AN OPEN LETTER TO AGA MUHLACH AND LENI ROBREDO

Dear Mr. Aga and Atty. Leni,

Congratulations!

It has not been an easy feat but you can relax for now and marvel at how the people you will soon be representing have supported you.

I write for two reasons:

1. I am a voter of the 4th District of Camarines Sur while my parents are registered electors of the 3rd.

2. I am no fan of the two of you as politicians. Let me qualify this second reason. Sure, Aga, I am your fan when it comes to your showbiz career. I have grown up watching your movies and my favorite is the one you starred with Vilma Santos. Is that “Nagiisang Bituin”? Sorry if I forgot the title as of this writing. To Atty. Leni, I am not your fan maybe because I really did not grow up in Naga so I have few memories of the late Sec. Jesse. The first time I saw you in person (“napersonal,” as we say) was in Starbucks-Naga. You were having a meeting then. You are a simple and beautiful woman.  I should salute you for how you handled the death of Sec. Jesse. But, overall, I’m no fan of Sec. Jesse too. I know his good works but I’m no fan. My apologies.

I may not be a fan but my sister and I voted for you, Aga, and my parents voted for you, Atty. Leni.  Our family voted for the two of you for the simple reason: We want change.

Cong. Aga, I voted for you not because you are a famous actor, a matinee idol of our time. Surely Wimpy is as good looking as you are. In fact, I doubt if you have the abilities to do the job whereas Wimpy has the experience of doing it well. However, we are willing to take a chance with you. We no longer want the 100 years of Fuentebella dynasty to be perpetuated for another century. This is not to discredit in any way any good thing that the Fuentebellas have done to our district. We believe however that we need a breather. A century of leadership should have given the Fuentebellas enough as much as we have enough of them already. And this how we see you. Dear Aga: Give us something new!

My vote for you was more of giving a chance for change. Wimpy is a good man. He is intelligent, experienced and generous. But I still wanted to wage on something new for our district. You greeted us always, “Maray na Aga,” and didn’t you realize how big that greeting is? It means two things for me: That you are good and that our mornings will also be good. Prove it to us, Aga.  Prove that you can do your best in representing our district.

To Cong. Leni, my family transferred to Naga five years ago. We grew up with Partido politics that is why we don’t have enough memory of the Robredos. In fact, my first real encounter of Robredo politics was during those “difficult years with the Ateneo,” as you described them in your commencement address. Given that, however, I have lots of memories of the Villafuerte politics. We also grew up with them as much as we grew up with the Fuentebellas. Again, Luis Villafuerte is a seasoned politician in his own right and Nely Villafuerte is highly qualified for the post. In fact, I sometimes think she is more qualified than you given her credentials.

Yet, my parents’ votes for you  were no fan votes. We just wanted someone new in our provincial politics in general. Thus, we voted for you. And that was what you promised us: New politics.

And to this platform, we want to gamble.

Dear Cong. Aga and Cong. Leni: We want change. Change is a lifetime project, for sure, but at least we want to start with changing the names of our leaders. We have given them so many chances already; we are giving it to you for now.

Three years to go. Three years of palpable change—this is what our votes mean.

Aga, you have won a difficult fight with a formidable political family. I hope you can stand your ground in the coming difficult years. Atty. Leni, many people say you are just there because of fortuitous event, a mere luck, which is something I also want to believe, but I really pray you will deliver what you promise.

To Aga and Atty. Leni: Prove us wrong and right. Wrong in doubting you and right in gambling with you. This is the hope that goes with our votes.

As for myself, I will do whatever I can to help in initiating that change. I gambled this much with you, then I’ll do my work in fulfilling that hope.

Thank you for your time and pardon the presumptuousness of this letter.

God bless the two of you always! God bless the people, your bosses!

Sincerely,

Adrian

The Critical Eye: Why The Government Must Promote Philosophy?

Enrollment for college/university level of education starts in just few weeks. High school graduates must have been having this anxiety already thinking about which course best suits them in the next level of the never-ending pursuit for wisdom.

Today, the Philippine education is undergoing overhaul. The implementation of K12 education envisions students, among others, to be skilled and employable in the Senior High School level thus the name Career Academy. This program is just one of the many “tuning up” mechanisms of the present government to ensure that what employers call “job mismatch” will be lessened or even better, to be eradicated. Thus, after the Senior High School years, graduates become employable and can start earning for their family or for their own needs or, hopefully, to finance themselves to the University life.

I personally like this program. Being a college instructor for 9 years now, I have come to know that some students could really excel in the “college” life at least the way I understand it to be. For me, University or Higher Education life must be more of professional trainings: theories, concept developing, advanced learning, etc. Thus, graduates of this level must be able to carry out researches, push their disciplines further, offer new ways of understanding concepts and the likes. Some students, on the other, could have excelled in technical courses. They have all the skills, the energy and the patience to go through the details of their interest and reading books and advance theories in the University may just bore them.

And do not get me wrong: I am not judging which is better in the technical or the professional courses. For me, we must be able to assess very well the students’ aptitude so that they can better plan their careers.

Meanwhile, what bothers me is that our government only envisions students to be workers and only in a very little degree to be critical thinkers. The recent curricula give more premiums in training the students to be skilled workers in the soonest possible time. Logically, if the goal is to make them employable, then they are on the right track. Soon, we will have a good number of highly skilled workers that will soon dominate both the national and global market. And that is something worth anticipating for!

However, there is something essentially lacking in this planning for our future. We cannot just produce workers without making them thinking workers. Surely, they are intelligent too in their own fields, but equipping them with the necessary critical eye that makes them aware of their dignity as human and that of others is an overly important matter for our education system.

In the current design of the K12 education, Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao occupies a central theme. The basic education years are truly the crucial years in building and shaping one’s ethos or character. However, Philosophy as a discipline in itself still hardly echoes in the whole design; it only has a 3-unit weight in the Senior High School years; and another 3-unit weight in the Higher Education under the title Ethics.

Are the six units enough? If I ask some college students, I would probably have the usual answer, “yes” or even “more than enough.” Usually, they will ask me about the direct relevance of this course to their “major subject” and they would opt to focus more of their time on the latter. Given this mentality, Philosophy subjects are taken as that which just delay their professional growth.

More so, a student who takes AB Philosophy is confronted with at least two reactions whenever they say what in the world are they doing. First, people ask them, “what will you get from that? What jobs await you?” Surely, these are real questions. One cannot just master Plato or Aquinas or Marx without thinking what food to eat and feed their family when they get home. Second, “What is that?” This surely is more painful to our ears. Given the Filipino context that to be a “pilosopo” is to be the street-wise person who indulges in the plaza debates, to take philosophy is really weird. “You don’t have to be in the University to be a philosopher; just argue and that’s it.” Of course, with these negative comments they receive, Philosophy majors are disheartened and would always ask whether they are really doing a good path in planning their future. So, why Philosophy therefore?

More than anything, our country needs critical thinkers who are immersed in the ideals of humanity, justice and truth. Big words, for sure, and everyone can have a say on it. But as I have already said, we cannot just have workers; we need thinking workers. I am not saying that Philosophy has the monopoly of thinking; I am saying Philosophy prepares the way. Philosophy is that which still reminds us of our inviolable humanity; that we are more than the machines that govern our everyday factory life. Philosophy is still the fire that burns our minds so that the ideals of a just society will be the bar that we have to meet. Philosophy is still the waters that make us look for truth and even to thirst more for it.

The present political quagmire that has been besetting us only proves all the more that we need Philosophy as a central thrust of our education reforms. The collapse of moral ascendancy of our leaders, the whirlwind of corruptions scandals that we faced, and weaker social systems that are supposed to protect us, these all point us towards something which the technicalities might not give us: spiritual discernment. By spiritual discernment, I do not mean to be religious about it; I mean that today is the most proper time for us to think about what comprises us an individual and as a society and what do we aspire for from there. This discernment goes beyond our tally sheets, computer programs, legal norms, and the likes. This is the role of Philosophy in our lives.

The problem of our government is that it only reduces poverty as an economic term. Poverty includes moral, spiritual, intellectual and existential entropy. We might have a wave of skilled workers in the near future, but without teaching them the ideals that Philosophy may give, still our leaders will continue corrupting us. If this government truly aspires for social emancipation, then let it promote Philosophy.