HUMMING IN MY UNIVERSE By Jim Paredes Updated March 29, 2009 12:00 AM

.

The recent surfacing of explosive affidavits pertaining to the Dacer-Corbito murders years ago has once again riveted us. Are people telling the truth? What about the so-called existing counter-affidavits? Can justice really be served? Really, now.

As a people, we are hungry for justice. Why? Because historically, we have been unsuccessful in seeing justice played out. Thus, we continue to distrust our justice system. One result of this is, as a society, we have failed in defining categorically who our villains are. Aguinaldo, Marcos, the Filipino collaborators during the Japanese occupation, just to name a few, have gotten off largely scot-free for the crimes they committed against their countrymen. Sometimes, I wonder why we continue to ask people to be heroes when we cannot even call the villains as they are.

Today, I would like to open an unsavory can of worms and list down cases of “unsolved” crimes and what to me are cases of undelivered justice that have plagued us and continue to warp our sense of identity, history and what we really profess to believe in as a people. We can’t get past what we cannot acknowledge. It may require a truth commission similar to what South Africa had to do to confront their apartheid past for us to move on as a people.

If I had a magic wand and could compel historical figures, both dead and alive, to tell the truth, I would certainly do so to finally put to rest certain questions that have bogged us down as a people. Here are just some people I would like to get the truth out of:

1) Emilio Aguinaldo — Historians tell us that he ordered the killing of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio and his brother, but he never categorically admitted to it. I remember a story told by one of my older sisters. Her history class was on an excursion in the house of Aguinaldo in Cavite in the ‘50s. The general was already old but still quite sprightly. He was walking the students around his house showing them mementos and other historical stuff when one of the students asked out loud and in all innocence if it was true that he had Bonifacio killed. The host was clearly caught off-guard. Emilio Aguinaldo became quiet for a few seconds before he replied, quite evasively, “History will tell the truth.”

2) World War II collaborators — I am not talking here of the small-town traitors who snitched on the guerrillas since they probably got their comeuppance from their own neighbors. I am talking here of the big ones that society still whispers about — from President Jose B. Laurel to Ninoy Aquino’s father and many other politicians, including possibly some of my own relatives. I would like to ask them whether, in their heart of hearts, they actually believed they were serving the Filipino people by sleeping with the enemy, so to speak. I ask this seriously, and not just for historical but also for moral, spiritual clarity.

In other countries, like France, Italy and others, people — big and small — who did what they did were summarily shot or hanged and condemned forever in history books. There was no ambiguity about how to treat such people, and this probably redounded to something good in terms of how these countries look at themselves and their history.

3) The Marcoses — To this day, the Marcoses admit to no theft, abuse, torture, unlawful deaths or murders, or any violation of any law. They also offer no remorse or apology. The courts have not delivered any justice. We have a deep national debt to pay, wounds that refuse to heal and justice not served thanks largely to our courts and our penchant as a people for forgetting, and administering cheap forgiveness. While the Marcoses may have staged a comeback into our national life, and though some quarters give them some respect, they are still considered low-lives by a large sector of our population.

If we had moved quickly right after EDSA and delivered swift justice, things would have turned out differently. I think we would have had a better chance at honest governance in the administrations that followed.

4) Joseph “Erap” Estrada — He was the only president ever convicted of plunder. His trial ran for six years and he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, even before the verdict was handed down, many people in government — and to my big disappointment Mar Roxas himself — were already preparing resolutions to pardon him. It’s as if we are uncomfortable when someone from the political elite, the upper class, is found guilty.

5) Plaza Miranda — Marcos claimed it was the communists who did it. Ninoy claimed it was Marcos who ordered it. Curiously, some former Communist Party members claim it was CPP chairman Joma Sison himself who ordered the attack that almost decimated the Liberal Party in 1971. The case has never been resolved but it is important to know who the real perpetrators are so that we can know our own history.

6) Who killed Ninoy Aquino? — We may have brought to justice all 12 soldiers involved in escorting Ninoy to his death, but we have not found the mastermind. Some really prominent people have been mentioned in connection with this heinous crime but again, no direct proof has been presented and none will probably emerge. We still do not know whether or not they are innocent. It seems that, most of the time, accusations against prominent people fail to prosper in this country. Neither will the accusations ever be truthfully erased because our justice system, for the most part, seems incapable of doing anything that will be perceived to be aboveboard.

7) President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo — This woman alone elicits questions that could fill volumes. Throw in her family and our courts and historians will have their hands full. I leave that to them. But a simple question I want answered is what compelled her to say “sorry” for talking to a notorious Comelec operative while the counting of votes was going on after the presidential elections of 2004, even if she claims it was not her voice on the “Hello Garci” CD. What was that all about?

Because we are unable to find answers to the big questions, we have become obsessed with answering the trivial, unimportant ones. Is this why we love gossip shows? We live in a society where very little of what actually transpires can be truthfully verified. Everything is lost in a maze of denials, legalities, outright lies and obfuscations.

The poetess Adrienne Rich could have been describing the Philippines when she wrote, “False history gets made all day, any day; the truth of the new is never on the news.”

Thus, our moral compass is defective. We elect people in spite of our knowledge or suspicion that many of them are plunderers, coup plotters, murderers, genuine low-lives. A history of failed justice has crippled our judgment.

In contrast, just last week, a well-known and respected national figure in Australia by the name of Judge Einfeld was found out to have lied about a traffic ticket that would have cost him 75 Australian dollars and some demerit points. Because of his perjury, he was sentenced to serve two years in jail and stripped of his license and perks for the rest of his life. His proud family was reduced to pleading before a TV audience that the justice be spared for all the good things that he has done for society. I sat watching all this in disbelief.

In our society where no one admits to any wrongdoing, much less apologizes, it’s a long, hard road we must still travel to get to where we want to go.

Idealism is the new realism
HUMMING IN MY UNIVERSE By Jim Paredes Updated March 15, 2009 12:00 AM

Illustration by Rey Rivera
As a young man many moons ago, I looked at the world in a way many older people would call “idealistic.” Understandably, I had an innocence, which was not surprising, since all of us were born with it. Generally, I saw people as good and trustworthy.

The world to me was a mysteriously wonderful, vibrant arena where new, exciting adventures occurred, even as a lot of older people saw it as dangerous. I saw love as something that could defy everything, including time, because it could last forever and perhaps even save the world.

I believed that people who stumbled, fell and were down in the dumps could always rise and be redeemed. And I believed that good would always triumph over evil. That was how the world appeared to me then. And you know what? I may surprise you but, at my age, I still generally hold on to these views.

For many, the abandoning of innocence, or getting booted out of the Eden of idealism, generally means adopting a paradigm that is more on the cynical, apathetic, fearful, suspicious and opportunity-limited side of life. And summing up this whole paradigm is a word that is considered a virtue in the adult world — “practical.” As a grownup, one is expected to abandon one’s idealism and embrace the practical.

To those who have left their youth and ideals, “practical” is how the real world runs. Being practical will keep you grounded, and real. It will save you from disappointments and heartaches. It is the antidote to being a wide-eyed, pie-in-the-sky Pollyanna.

Perhaps.

In truth, as much as I see the value of being practical, I am often suspicious of it. Because in many of my personal experiences, during the major turning points of life, I have chosen not to be practical.

When I was deciding what I should do http://www.achaten-suisse.com/ after college, I went against the practical wisdom of many well-meaning advisers and elders who told me to get a 9 to 5 job. It was easy for me to ignore this one since, the truth was, I was deathly afraid of the corporate world which I found to be too staid, formal and, well… corporate!

But I was also afraid that, as an aspiring artist, I would, in all likelihood, face starvation and poverty. Yet I knew that between these two fears, I was more inclined to take a risk on being a songwriter and performer. Sure, it scared me that while my classmates who had entered the business or corporate life were enjoying regular salaries, medical benefits and perks, I also knew the real fear of meaninglessness and boredom, of not being able to fit into the big corporate setup. Between the rock of boredom and the hard place of possible poverty, I chose the latter, risking material deprivation over the possible death of my spirit.

In my musical career, I, together with APO, chose to write original songs in Filipino and sing them instead of just doing covers of popular songs by foreign artists which, at that time, was everyone’s formula for success. Thank God, our choice not only led to the blossoming of our collective spirits but the filling of our pockets.

During the Marcos era where the practical thing to do in the entertainment world was to go along with the dictator and enjoy the largesse Imelda Marcos loved to shower on artists and showbiz people, the APO often chose the impractical and idealistic path of dissent. We committed our efforts to some crazy unsure dream of overthrowing the all-powerful Marcoses, restoring democracy and helping establish a new regime. We went for all these even when it entailed a lot of personal and career setbacks along the way. Again, it was a choice between the call of the practical versus the ideal.

This has always been the struggle for me. Every time I have felt most that people were going a certain way that seemed to be the “sure” thing, I have purposely looked at why the other path was not attractive, and would often find compelling reasons to follow it.

I’ve often asked myself why I am like this. Is it because I am my parents’ son? Does having gone to Ateneo have something to do with it? Or am I just being a product of my time? Perhaps it’s all of the above.

When I was doing a lot of TV work years ago, I would constantly butt heads with the executives, writers, etc., about what we were being asked to dish out on the air. I felt a lot of the shows we were doing hardly espoused any redeeming values. They were silly, stupid and often even toxic to young watchers. I was never comfortable about “dumb-downing” our TV audience.

Of course, the big bosses always won the argument. Commercial considerations, especially the crassest of them, almost always won over more “artistic” and redemptive ideas. But despite that, I never learned to be “practical,” even if I saw with my own eyes that so much of what I considered trashy would actually pull up ratings. If I were to run a big media conglomerate, I would run it differently, and yes, with more redeeming programming.

A few days ago, I heard a presidential candidate say that unless you have a billion pesos, you should forget about running for the highest office. I was especially piqued by this. While many people might hear that and immediately see the truth and practicality in the statement, I saw it and sneered at the arrogance of people who forget that David beat Goliath.

Time’s Man of the Year feature on Barack Obama pointed out that a little over a year before the US elections, there were only four people on Obama’s team when he told them he was going to run for President. It was definitely a long shot; the rest, as they say, is history.

These days, in the Philippines, there seems to be apathy and cynicism about change (or even the possibility of it) that runs deep. Most people seem to be intimidated by the apparently endless resources of those who are adept at operating in the “practical” and corrupt world of politics and power. The good and honest but poor candidate will not have a chance, many believe — so why even hope for change?

I continue to remind myself that often, being practical means that one must surrender his or her abilities to dream big and instead meander within the limited breadth of one’s own tiny vision. Sometimes, especially when so much of the future depends on it, one needs to be “impractical” and shoot for the moon. The challenge of idealism is to attempt to do it. Every sperm that got to fertilize an egg, every lotto winner, every wild and winning or groundbreaking idea went against the grain. And succeeded.

With so much hanging in the balance on the issue of global warming, the imploding economic situation, massive poverty and the unprecedented feeling of hopelessness all around, there’s a lot for the Don Quixotes of the world to get fired up about. Think about it: the unique insight here is that today, we have very little choice but to be bold and idealistic. To be safe and practical means eventual doom.

As Tony Blair put it at a discussion of world problems in Davos, “Idealism is the new realism.”

I couldn’t agree more.

HUMMING IN MY UNIVERSE By Jim Paredes

When my daughter Erica was about eight years old, she came home and told Lydia and me about an encounter she had with a poor person. She was inside our van which was parked outside our neighborhood supermarket. They were about to leave after shopping with her yaya when a young waif knocked on her window and begged for food. As she told us the story, Erica cried, “She did not have shoes. She was wearing broken slippers and torn clothes.” Tears were running down my daughter’s cheeks. And she told us that she gave all the money she had to the kid.

I felt good hearing her tell the story. It warmed my heart knowing how kids, who at a certain age can be so self-absorbed, can also have moments when they get out of themselves and recognize the suffering of others.

I thought of the young Shakayamuni, or the Buddha who was raised by his king father protected by gates and supplied with good food and all sorts of pleasures so that he may never know suffering. And yet, on his first-ever sojourn outside the palace as a young man, when he saw suffering for the first time in the form of four lepers, his entire world turned around. Not too long after, he left the palatial luxury of his father’s home and went to find the answer to the question of why there is suffering. In the process, he found and gifted mankind with enlightenment.

For sure, there is suffering everywhere. This has been so since time immemorial. In our materialist orientation, we often equate suffering with lack of money or material resources. Hunger, poverty, physical pain and sickness are obvious states of suffering and it is easy to be moved by the sight of people who are living under such conditions.

Yet, even in the richest countries there is suffering. There is alienation, meaninglessness, the death of the spirit, extreme materialism and perversions of different kinds that plague many. We have heard of people who do not eat even when food is abundant, so much so that they are obscenely thin. We have also heard of those who, even when they have more than enough, choose to harm or even kill themselves, or worse, kill others, due to depression.

It is not surprising that from the point of view of many have-nots, the sufferings of the rich are self-imposed. “What reason do they have to suffer when they have everything?” the poor ask, unable to comprehend. And yet the rich do suffer, just like everyone else. Whatever one’s station in life, suffering is part and parcel of the human experience.

A great many people refuse to accept suffering in any form. Society has largely made up its mind that suffering is bad and should be avoided. Our most “comfortable” position on suffering is that some of it must be tolerated. Even in strictly puritanical religious societies, suffering is recognized as undesirable and is used mostly as a punishment for those who commit acts that are anathema to its values.

But whatever we say about suffering being part of being alive, our impulse is to end it when it is there. So perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is, how does one end suffering?

Mankind has tried many ways to alleviate suffering and it has had its successes and failures. We have heard of food programs, medical missions, home-building, education programs, etc., and all that is good.

On an individual level, how does one deal with suffering to get through it in the best way possible?

M. Scott Peck, the writer of the ‘80s best-seller The Road Less Traveled, says that acceptance of suffering is key. He says that the moment we accept it, it stops being suffering. We deprive it of its sting when we welcome it in our lives. It may take a while, but in the end, when we accommodate it as part of our existence, we can live with it better until it doesn’t feel like suffering anymore.

A Zen koan I find very intriguing asks, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” It sounds strange when one hears it for the first time and the immediate impulse is to say “None.” That would be the “correct” answer on the purely literal level. But koans are not meant to be answered on that level; its very construction defies the logical mind and forces one to dive deeply into one’s experiences to retrieve a decent answer. The answer is not unique, exclusive or definitive but something that is within the territory of the large truth that the koan describes.

In a colorless world, could we possibly have any concept whatsoever of what color is? In a warm setting that is constant all year round, could we ever imagine any other condition, say, like “cold” or “freezing”? How about if every wish we ever had was always granted? Would the granted wishes continue to be special?

The mere fact that an opposite of something exists gives meaning to it, otherwise it would not stand out by itself. As much as we wish to deny it, on this level, bad will always arise amidst good. Black needs white. Virtue needs vice.

We have to develop a mindset that is more accommodating of all experiences instead of just going for only what is pleasurable and completely avoiding pain. No dividing or separating, no rejecting but accepting that even the unpleasant, the horrible, the repulsive has something to teach us all the time.

Life is demanding. I am not saying that because we must accept suffering, we mustn’t do anything about it. We still want to make life easier and that’s okay. But, if it is to be profoundly lived, life must be embraced with all of its unsavory aspects.

If one’s life is to create a meaningful statement, its left palm must meet its opposing right to create a complete sound.

Last week’s article was an expression of concern about the coming 2010 elections and the sweeping changes we need in our country. Although I was not surprised at the tremendous reader reactions via letters, e-mail, calls from people everywhere, I must say that the response has been quite inspiring. There is a constituency for change out there and it is pretty sizeable.

A lot of the reactions came from overseas, from disgruntled Filipinos who have given up completely on the Philippines and left the country in disgust, and from those who, while they live abroad, continue to pine for their homeland and want to do their share in taking it out of the rut it is in.

To both groups, this column is for you.

There are around 12 million overseas Filipino workers spread out all over the world. Their blood, sweat and tears are what keep this country financially afloat. The money they send home keeps many kids in school, feeds families and generates a lot of the economic activity that keeps the entire Philippines humming. In many ways, it is only fitting that OFWs should be encouraged to play a role and have a say in creating a vision of what the Philippines can be.

Aside from their economic contribution, OFWs have made many personal sacrifices to hold up the sky for their loved ones. They have missed out on birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, graduations, Christmases and other milestones in the lives of those they cherish. Ironically, they know quite well that it is precisely their absence that makes the observance of such major events possible.

But more important than all that is the untapped capability of OFWs to bring about meaningful change in the country. OFWs have had the opportunity to live and work in many functional societies around the world, and have thrived in them. To my mind, their experiences abroad can be very valuable in helping create a functional vision of our country’s future.

Our OFWs can be the storytellers, narrators and witnesses of how the lives of ordinary Filipinos can move ahead if the system only allows them to. Their very lives are testimonies to this. Where for years, their dream of becoming something had not been possible in their homeland because of the social inequity and lack of opportunities, now they are proud, productive and prosperous people.

One of the joys of traveling is in meeting our kababayans who, though they still exhibit traits of their humble beginnings (noticeable only to a fellow Pinoy), now carry themselves with dignity that says they are equal to everyone else in the new country they live in. It tells me that we, as a people, have what it takes to get ahead and achieve excellence when the cards are dealt fairly.

Contrast this to life here at home where the average guy must dream smaller, live with more indignities and less breaks because “mahirap ang panahon at ganyan talaga ang buhay.” There is in the culture here at home an inertia that kills dreams. The sense of what is possible here is so limited and cramped that many are tempted to relocate and pursue their future abroad.

Imagine, then, a scenario where Filipinos abroad speak in support of change, telling their families back home about real places where societies function much better than what we have here. Imagine them writing to their kababayans back home and telling them there is no reason — except for our collective apathy — why we cannot have the same in the Philippines.

Imagine these OFWs throwing their influence behind a progressive candidate who has the right ideas on how to modernize the country and make government not only more functional, but also more prosperous. Imagine 12 million voices for change influencing their families and friends in the Philippines on what to ask for in a candidate and who to vote for! This could electrify the electoral process. Now, that would be something to contend with.

If this OFW block were to get organized and speak as one, they could be as influential as the Catholic Church, and much more progressive.

Much has been said about OFWs being “heroes” of our society because of the personal sacrifices they continue to endure for their families. I do not contest that. But I would like to add another dimension to the heroism that we have bestowed on them.

In writer Joseph Campbell’s view, every life is a hero’s journey and goes through stages as it unfolds. In his view, the hero’s journey starts when a hero leaves a familiar place (psychological or literal, or both) and is thrown into the unknown. In short, life and circumstances have conspired to throw him out of Eden and he/she is off to the adventure of a lifetime. This is the common thread found in big and small hero stories, whether fiction or non-fiction. Look at Rizal, Ninoy, Shakyamuni, Jesus, Frodo, Ulysses. This, of course, will take the hero to places where he will be deeply challenged in all aspects. In “herospeak,” he goes “through the fire.”

Now there are two things that can happen. He either burns out completely and the journey ends, or he survives. If he survives, the next stage is for the hero to return to his hometown and testify about the lessons and truths he/she has learned.

From this angle, our OFWs may have a new role waiting for them. After going through the fire in their previously unfamiliar locations which have become home, and with their newly-earned status of personal success and financial capability, it is time for them to play the bigger role of not just turning the lives of their families from poverty to prosperity, but to be the voices of wisdom, modernity and progress and the examples of personal change that many of them have become.

It’s time to not just inspire our kababayans, since they are already doing that. It’s now time for OFWs to influence us to do the right thing, to dream and act to “make the word flesh” and bring about the necessary changes the Philippines needs.

This may yet be the OFWs’ biggest contribution to our country.