Discussion Topic: Authoritarianism and the Stateless Society

Your mission if you agree to accept it . . .

The real JoeAm?

JoeAm will be on family vacation for two weeks, returning in early May. He drops off this blog as a voluntary mission for readers, ala "Mission Impossible". 

Here's the framing:

• The Philippines is an authoritarian society. Interpersonal rivalries are intense, a struggle to top or topple the opposition. The government is democratic but tends toward authoritarianism: laying down the law but enforcing it selectively, officious attitude in government offices, army and local government vigilante behavior, issuing dictates left and right with no open justice system for the people. Senators doling out millions in Christmas gifts as if it were THEIR money.

• Richard Javad Heydarian in his recent article "Why the Philippines Failed" makes a very clear point that the Philippines does not keep pace with other developing nations because it does not have a strong concept of "State" governance. This article is the beginning point for the discussion and is required reading for volunteers.

Here's the issue: How can the Philippines be both authoritarian and weak of State? 

Here's the mission:

1. Rationalize the apparent contradicition of authoritarianism and statelessness.
2. Explain in clear terms what has to happen -- tangibly and practically achievable -- to move the Philippines forward to become of equal stature to Japan and South Korea as a core nation in Asia.

Whether and how you proceed is up to you.

This blog will self-destruct in two weeks . . .

Chaos, Hallucinations, Order, Suicide

This study of East/West cross-cultural differences leads me to believe that we all live in an artificial reality that is the construct of our upbringing and our limited capacity to think. We walk a hallucination most days. So if this blog seems a little far out, just sit back and enjoy the ride. We are going nowhere with a sense of purpose. No harm here, for sure.

Life.

We are fed the values and emotional patterns of our family, friends, and mentors, the latter being relatives, pastors, teachers, bosses, community leaders and anyone else we grant authority to.

If our parents beat us, we are likely to turn the whip on our own children.

Unless we learn to internalize new, more powerful motivations that halt the hand in mid-air just before it descends onto Junior's butt.

That is the dialogue that goes on throughout life, isn't it? The patterns we think we are supposed to follow, modified by the lessons we learn. I mean, really LEARN. Take to heart. Not just memorize and allow to float aimlessly in a cloud of cranial inconsequentialities.

If our parents pray, we are more likely to pray. Well, unless it becomes an element of the rebelliousness that is natural in American homes as kids embark on the great separation that occurs around age 18. Which is why so many young American adults part from the church, leaving the pews to the elderly. To escape from the traps they feel their parents lay to restrain them, constrain them, tell them how to live. Many return to the church later on their own terms.

Praying is more likely to persist in the Filipino family where the glue that holds the family together is tougher than Mighty Bond. The composition of the glue might be pride, or its reverse, shame, or even guilt. And most generally a whole lotta love. It is unquestionably strong.

The  American family is magnets of similar pole, pushing outward. The Filipino family is magnets of opposite pole, pulling inward.

I think it is not the facts we learn that are important. I think it is the disciplines, the methods. I have a degree in mathematics and I remember we studied integration of the non-racial kind, calculus and trigonometry, sines and cosines and my favorite, tangents. At least tangents I could visualize. Those cosine lines could twist in funny ways, for sure. When teaching myself how to program, I would use sines and cosines to run do-loops that would draw elipses that would migrate in one direction until they hit a certain random count, then plunge off in a different direction, the angle also random. The computer drew quite elegant designs, order out of random chaos. Now today I can't calculate calculus problems and I can't program in any language, having forgotten the particulars. But I have remembered the disciplines of order thrust among random acts.

That is, after all, life, is it not?

Order thrust among random acts.

How well we order things means a lot. It determines if we will get good grades, good jobs, lots of wealth and the ability to read and sort out our passions without deciding like that poor Manila girl last week, to pull the plug

What were your passions as a youngster? Mine were baseball and basketball and building model airplanes and murdering thousands of big red fire ants. A little older it was basketball and volleyball and tennis and legs. We grow, eh, we grow.

I successfully parted from my family by going to college away from my home town. It seems like I have been shooting relentlessly outward ever since, some kind of big bang pushing me ever onward into new places and lifestyles and richness.

Along the way I've been a religious convert and a marijuana beach bum, a disciplined Army lieutenant and an undisciplined poet, penning imaginings outside of any box known to mankind. Love, hate, sex and more love. Been there done that. Corporate peon, yes.  I've scrubbed grocery store floors in the heart of Watts, the roughest, poorest part of Los Angeles. And stacked oranges in the produce aisles in a junky supermarket off Melrose . I've also lodged my feet on the desk of a 50th floor penthouse office downtown, propping up the President of the corporation with my brain and ability to apply aforesaid mathematical disciplines to the business of making money.

Philippine schools simply DO NOT TEACH enough disciplines. Disciplines is different than discipline. Oh, Philippine schools know discipline. It is the biggest barrier to learning disciplines. Discipline curtails innovation. Disciplines involve learning the organization and problem solving  methods that open up the world to solution. And learning the psychological wholeness that allows troublesome facts or odd behaviors of others not to insult one's face or interfere with one's achievement.

I'm not sure why Filipinos are so easily offended by mistakes. Or bumps in the road. The level of angst that flies from a bad incident here reflects an energy far beyond what the offense warrants. The hunt for perfection that Filipinos seem intent to pursue, yet grossly fail to reach, is of course a hallucination. It is a fact of life, the statistical odds, when you get 95 million people, there will be a girl somewhere who has it rough and decides to commit suicide. You can't stop the math from working.

Life is not ordered. It is order within chaos.

To the extent that we allow our emotions to give life to the chaos, we are not doing ourselves, or the Philippines, much of a favor.

Our goal should be to learn and teach the disciplines of order. Of solving problems that the mathematics of random events throws in front of us. Of integrity, for that is best for the whole of the community, whether it is attached to a faith or simply figured out as the best way to behave.

The Philippines is a huge pile of emotion, detached from disciplines.

It is wasted energy. It is fire burning precious forests rather than fire molding steel ingots.

It wears, sometimes.

I'd advise to train it, trap it as passion, not anger, and use it to build, not tear down.

The Arrogance of the Righteous

Righteous Brothers

My thanks to "J" at The Nutbox for couching the Sabah conflict a while back in terms that make impeccable sense. That discussion inspired this article. Perhaps I will say much the same thing, in far less eloquent words.

My views herein are shaded by the knowledge that the Righteous Brothers, a popular singing duo in the States, oh, a couple of years ago, are neither brothers nor righteous.

The following definition from dictionary.com works fine. We need not consult Humpty Dumpty for a tailored definition.

right·eous  [rahy-chuhs]  adjective

1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of law.
2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4. Slang. absolutely wonderful: righteous playing by a jazz great.

Righteous is variable. One nation's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's. One religion's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's.  One man's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's.

When a circumstance arises that brings the virtues into conflict, we often get murder. Or war. Passions built upon a sense of what is right, what is virtuous, are intense and usually unbendable.

In the United States, we see this within a frozen and inept government as partisan war is waged between the political parties risking the wealth and well-being of the nation for deep and unbending principles of what is virtuous.

It is a uniquely a human condition, the tying of emotions to intellectual concepts of virtue. But it is decidedly animalistic the way we behave when caught up in righteousness, claws and fangs extended, unable to adjust our emotions and thinking to take the heat off the moment.

Indeed, our various communities ensure that we do not bend. The righteous person who bends gets assigned the worst names: betrayer, treasonous, coward. Execution is often the legalistic outcome among even the most advanced of civilized nations when the righteous judge that the offense is severe.

Alas, one man's terrorist is another's patriot.

And ten years later, the terrorist is sometimes a patriot's best friend.

Yet, given this clear sign that righteousness, and even treason, are variable trends, why do we remain so hard-headed about things?

Take the Sabah incident.

Who are the righteous players? The Sultan and his backers, the Malaysian government, the Philippine government, the peoples of both nations including Philippine Muslims and perhaps some players outside the immediate scene who have supported the Sultan.

Within the Philippine population, there are those who back President Aquino and those who hold that he is the reason for the problems, whether through historical acts (who was invited to the Mindanao peace table) or handling the Sultan after he was in Sabah (he insulted the Sultan with an order to leave).

In Sabah, there are multiple interests and senses of virtue: natives, Malaysian transplants, Filipino workers who back the Sultan, and Filipino workers who feel threatened by the Sultan's acts.

Each group of people has its unique morality, its unique virtue.

Each group is "right" in the context of their own circumstances and needs.

No group is wrong, from within the walls of their intellectual fort.

The "righteousness" is so intense that even moderate voices, such as I am trying to be, will be attacked for abridging the moral values of the righteous.

I stopped reading many discussion threads on the incident because it is obvious there is very little discussion going on. There is only the relentless announcing of different variations of the same hard-headed sets of inflexibly righteous stands.

The same thing is happening regarding the suicide of a university student. I particularly found offensive the claim of two university professors that the school's top administrators should resign because they "caused the death". That is righteous gone lunatic.

The peculiar thing is that any argument levied to condemn one party is legitimate if applied in return. The Sultan is just as guilty of taxing Mr. Aquino's "face" and insulting him as Mr. Aquino is in demeaning the Sultan. Both missed something in the translation, the communication.

The two professors are cruel to accuse the university administrators of being cruel in causing a death.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate", said the chain gang captain to Cool Hand Luke before he slugged him.

Righteous is artificial.

But we have not the depth of intellect or the depth of character to get past it.

I suggest we strive to exceed our grasp and reach for a better understanding of what it is like to be in the other guy's shoes.

Then, perhaps then, we will be able to articulate a position that is non-confrontational, and that solves the problem to the best advantage for all.

Yes, someone will have give something up. Perhaps all will have to give on one point or another.

That is what peace and harmony often require to adjust ones own sense of what is "righteous" to fit both parties in a dispute. Thus, righteous is enlarged rather than fixed in a small way.

It is better the giving up be done thoughtfully rather than at the end of a gun, or cannon.

It is better that righteous be enlarged rather than kept small. As in small-minded.

Philippine Media: The Lay of the Land

This blog is a little different, as I search for order rather than meaning. Indeed, many of you may already know these media, but it is a process of discovery for me.

I have read repeatedly about Philippine news reporting being shallow and sensationalist. But it has only lately crystallized in my mind how damaging this can be to the Philippines as the nation seeks to emerge as a productive, modern,  respected nation in the global community of human rights and commerce.

Sensationalist news focused mainly on problems can overwhelm good works. That's the main danger, that news reporting would undermine the trust people have for their government and its leaders, and convey the wrong impression about what is happening.

So I thought I'd explore in more depth what the various media bring to the information table in the Philippines. Indeed, this is a long-dormant passion of mine. It was my chosen field of work laid to waste by an economy gone south in the early 1970's. I had acquired a master's degree in Radio and Television Arts, doing my thesis work at CBS Television in Los Angeles. Job opportunities were thin at the time. The fates determined that I should become a banker, or rather a bank marketing officer, working on the other side of the media business, as an advertiser.

But journalism is an area where I have a decent understanding of good communication principles. What we see in the Philippines is "light news", a kind of "quick and dirty" reporting without a lot of investigative work. Interviews and "hearsay" evidence are taken as facts and this repesents the content of many news articles. So do murders, rapes, tragedies and other titillating stories.  And, indeed, the sensationalist drive for ratings means that news frequently gets laced with emotionally charged words. Headlines are written to strike nerves. Filipinos, emotional at heart, love the stuff.

I won't belabor this further. Let me just say that for now, we will accept the argument that media news disciplines in the Philippines are very slack, in the interest of profit. We might shade this differently as we progress.

As we work through this together, we can identify certain issues for follow-through. For example, how about politics? Does that drive anything? We must put that on our task list for further study.

A second takeaway becomes quickly evident. There is no central resource of broadcast or print media because the Philippines has no media regulator. The industry is "self-regulated". This is very different than in the United States where the Federal Communications Commission regulates media ownership and monitors that media are properly serving the best interest of the public. So no central repository of licensing or cross-ownership of media appears to exist. It takes considerable effort to identify the full scope of media power of the larger organizations. Sorting that out becomes a "to do" item for the future.

Because of the lack of a central regulatory data base, it was difficult putting together this simple starting profile. Some of the information is a couple of years old, and some of the specific players may have changed. But this is just a starting point, so rough edges will be fine for what we need to do.

THE MEDIA DEFINED

It would be good to get a good reading of the landscape before we advance into it. Our focus is on news and information, not entertainment. The national goal is presumably an educated community having access to a variety of kinds and sources of information. Opinion columns or broadcasts represent the interpretive part of the news, so we include that in the realm of study as well.

We can start by breaking news sources into four groups:

• Television networks and stations
• Radio networks and stations
• Newspapers and other print media
• Internet news and commentary

Let's try to characterize each:

Television networks and stations

There are three dominant television networks and a wide range of over 200 local television stations, most affiliated with a network. Dissemination of programs is via airwaves, cable and satellite.

The two top networks, ABS-CBN and GMA-7, battle almost equally for dominance. It is a bitter battle, with interpretation of leadership meaning a lot in terms of advertising revenue. The two networks have engaged in legal and public bickering for about 7 years now, each claiming it is number one. The third network, is ABC-5. Recent Nielson ratings reported percentage viewership as follows:

Network	Share Points
GMA-7	36
ABS-CBN	30
ABC-5	15

ABS-CBN claims it held the prime time lead at 41% to GMA's 32%. The source is a different rating agency.

Beyond the "Big 3", we have the following television networks:

• Both GMA and ABS-CBN own secondary stations that broadcast shows aimed at younger "lifestyle" audiences, QTV-11 and Studio 23, respectively.

• One of the larger radio networks, Radio Philippines Network, owns a television station, RPN-9 (oops, outdated; read on. JA).

• Several other significant networks target regional or specialized audiences:

• UNTV 37, a public service channel owned by the Progressive Broadcasting Corporation in Quezon City.

• NET 25, featuring IT programming and encompassing Asia and Australia.

• IBC 13, the Intercontinental Broadcasting Company managed by the national government. (Update. Now only the People's Television Network is held by the government; see comments below. JA).

• RMN 31, the Radio Mindanao Network, which has 10 stations across the Philippines and one station in New York, USA.

• Cable and satellite subscribers can also sign up for CNN, BBC and other information channels. These typically do not feature the Philippines, and they are controlled outside the Philippines.

Radio Networks and Stations

There are just short of a thousand radio stations in the Philippines. All major cities across the nation have at least one radio outlet. Manila has 51.

The two largest TV networks also own substantial radio properties.

We also once had the Radio Philippines Network, cited above. But it's a changing world and RPN has been consolidated with former government radio stations of the IBC, and recast as ETC, under private ownership (including by San Miguel Corporation). The government got tired of losing money and offering crappy program so cobbled together a new network and kept only the public television station.

The major radio networks in the Philippines include:

• Manila Broadcasting Company (MBC) – 200 owned and affiliated stations nationwide. The news and talk station DZRH is its anchor, and it feeds other network stations such as Radyo Natin , as well as television through companion station RHTV. MBC also owns entertainment stations Love Radio, Aksyon Radio, Easy Rock and Yes FM. 

• ABS-CBN –  DZMM Radyo Patrol national news which feeds cable TV news channel DZMM TeleRadyo.  ABS-CBN also owns  My Only Radio's regional network of 14 FM music and entertainment stations.

• Radyo Mindanao Network (RMN) – AM and FM stations in 34 cities across the Philippines with heavy representation in Midnanao.

• Bombo Radyo – Bombo Radyo talk radio has 22 stations and Star FM operates 21 music stations. Based in Iloilo City.

• Catholic Radio Network – 52 church-run radio stations under a variety of different names nationwide.

• GMA Network – 23 radio stations across the country with main stations DZBB SilverRadyo and the Campus FM chain of music stations.

Newspapers and Other Print Media

There are approximately 75 newspapers published in the Philippines. Of these, 48 are in English with most being local publications from large cities, 20 in Filipino languages, 2 in Spanish, 1 bi-lingual and 4 in Chinese.

The major national newspapers include:

• Philippine Daily Inquirer.  Estimated circulation 260,000 daily with an average daily readership of over 2 million.

• Philippine Star. Circulation of about 270,000. Reaches Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia.

• Manila Bulletin. Circulation of about 280,000.  Owned by Emilio Yap who also owns tabloids Tempo and Balita and magazines such as Liwayway, Bisaya and Philippine Panorama.

• Manila Times.  President Aguinaldo read this publication. 

Other newspapers include

• Other: Business World, Malaya, Manila Standard Today, The Daily Tribune

• Tabloids:  Abante (circulation 420,000), Balita (Tagalog), People's Journal and People's Taliba (English and Tagalog versions), Pilipino Star Ngayon (Star's Tagalog paper), Saksi Ngayon (Tagalog) and Tempo (Manila Bulletin)
  

The Inquirer established a radio station in 2010, Radyo Inquirer.

If you'd like a more detailed history of the Philippine newspaper business, here is a link to an article published by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts on a recent but unknown date.

Internet News and Commentary

The largest television and newspaper enterprises also have robust and informative web versions of their daily news and opinion fare. Videos and live feeds are featured on television sites. Here are the links to the news or main sections of those outlets.

• ABS-CBN
• GMA-7
• ABC-5
• Philippine Inquirer
• Philippine Star
• Manila Bulletin
• Business World  

The most significant internet-only news and opinion site is, of course Rappler. It is a younger, more interactive and less advertising intense news effort.

Information is not readily available as to the impact of the internet on newspaper circulation, or the financials of these undertakings. The web sites are significant efforts, maintained in a much more dynamic, current state than are government agency sites, for example.

We also have attached to the news outlets robust opinion and commentary sections, with top columnists such as Randy David drawing several hundred reader comments in response to an article. Bloggers represent fly-by-night opinion mongers, rather wayward and quite broke orphan cousins.

Conclusions

There are three or four main players in each media category. The internet is the most competitively robust because it has both newspaper and television players, plus Rappler.

In order of dominance based on daily viewership, I'd guess the impactful voices stack up as follows in terms of power:

1. ABS-CBN
2. ABC-5
3. Abante
4. Philippine Inquirer
5. Philippine Star
6. Manila Bulletin
7. Manila Broadcasting Company
8. GMA-7
9. Business World

We now have in this first blog is the general lay of the land. There is much, much more to explore.

For Further Study

• What is the ownership connectivity among the major players. That is not clear from this cursory review.

• Do editorial or news policies reflect a political bias?

• What are the issues emerging from "self regulation" of media? Are television and radio frequencies considered a "public resource"? Or are they the total purview of private interests?

• How does the quality of news reporting vary from outlet to outlet?

• What are trends in internet readership? How is the internet affecting the financial viability of the mainstream media?

The next article in the series will take up trends on the internet, and financial impacts if such information is available.

The Tipping Point to Philippine Prosperity

Source: The Inquirer

I read a strange article in the Inquirer last week. The headline read: "Widespread Philippine indifference towards overseas Filipinos". The point of view was from those who attended the "2nd Global Summit of Filipinos in the Diaspora" in late February in Makati. Neglect was the main mien of the party as President Aquino did not show up for their gathering. He was busy campaigning and dealing with a certain misbehaving Sultan.

The article was strange because it richly praised the benefits of the new Overseas Voting Act ("OVA") that got rid of some onerous provisions of the prior law and made OFW voting available via the internet. It explained how the group commended Senators Pimentel and Legarda for their work to lead the push for the legislation.

Then the article went on to criticize Senatorial Candidate Cynthia Villar for some indiscriminate remarks she made off-the-cuff about nurses (which she apologized for), then went into a castigation of senatorial candidates after this remarkable sentence: "Unpalatable as some of Aquino’s Senate candidates may be, the alternatives offered by the opposition UNA slate are even more dismal."

This is a news report?

Finally it took COMELEC to task for delisting over 200,000 registered overseas voters because they had not voted for three years. COMELEC subsequently recanted the order and kept them on the voter rolls after the flare-up of complaints from overseas. But this group took them to task just for good measure.

The article was written by Rodel Rodis.

I rather think this is a group with a negative mindset, evidencing a high measure of insecurity and need for attention. Or else the author of the piece is that way. It (he?) was hurt by Aquino, hurt by Villar, hurt by COMELEC. And in the hurting they could not get it straight that the OVA is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the headline is claiming.  OVA is attending to the best interests of OFW's. There is no "widespread disinterest."

They couldn't celebrate the achievements for all the hurt.

So it seems to me to be an out-of-step, strained, grousing group, or a strange bit of reporting. Or maybe JoeAm is lost in the wilds about this. And HE is the grouser.

By my eyes and ears, OFW's are roundly cheered in the Philippines for under-writing the Philippine economic boom. I've heard nothing but praise for their support of the Philippines. And I've read a lot of articles dealing with OFW issues and incidents; a HIGH DEGREE of interest. A lot of concern. It also seems to me the Philippines has the best supporting infrastructure on the planet for overseas workers.

The wail and weep headline, and the group's attitude (or the author's attitude), seem to me indicative of a significant problem in the Philippines: the tendency for Filipinos to look at any negative as huge and any positive as not enough.

Negatives, inflated. Positives, under-appreciated.

How do you get inspired when wallowing in self-pity? How do you build unity and excitement and prosperity when every pothole is viewed as a Pinatubo?

My own attitude toward OFW's has shifted this past year, thanks to views offered by the commenters on this blog. I no longer feel sorry for them, being torn from their families. Oh, yes, some warrant such heartfelt compassion. But the majority of OFW's end up stronger, smarter, wiser and richer  -  and not just with money. For many, it is a bold choice, not a suffering requirement.  Indeed, I'd guess that the majority of the commenters on this blog have had overseas experience and can relate better to the American cross-cultural perspective than can homebound Filipinos who have not experienced more modern rule-bound, courtesy-bound, accountability-bound, community-bound societies.

Yes, I know there are many OFW's who work in intimidating or even dangerous situations. I wish it were possible to will them well and healthy. But until the Philippine economic house is in order, lower income, lower skilled people will undoubtedly bear risks for a shot at better opportunity.

So I'd suggest that Filipino citizens ask what THEY can do to help OFW's.

Read on.

Last week I did a blog that said it is important to accept responsibility for decisions. To "own" them.  It is also important to distinguish between what we can control and what we cannot. It is important not to judge OURSELVES based on other people's actions. These are common principles taught by psycho-therapists.

Contributor Cha made a striking observation about this just last week:

• [Group A] I don't know that CBT [Cognitive Behavior Therapy] could work effectively with most Filipinos. I think most of us grew up being taught what to think (by the schools, their parents, priests etc) instead of how to think. Such that when someone comes along and tells us to change the way we think, we somehow lose our bearings and are not able to respond rationally to the challenge. Some, as you may have observed, go on the defensive and attack the proponent of the new idea or way of thinking being put forward. Others will probably just clam up, will not say a word, maybe even smile at you (if he doesn't smirk, that is) and then go about his merry old way. 

Then she pointed out the promise:

• [Group B] And then there are those who will take the time to investigate. They want to know more, find out what they don't know that you seem to know and then some more. Eventually they form their own opinion. It may not necessarily coincide with what has been proposed (it may be better!) but arrived at through a thinking process and not an outright dismissal.

To me, the first group ("Group A") is destined for ignorance and weakness. They will express a lot of blames and excuses, stay pretty much in one place, and offer up simplistic, poor critical analyses . They will make shallow, top-of-head voting choices. And the other ("Group B") will grasp what is happening, take responsibility, behave maturely, learn and adapt, and offer up more complex and better critical analyses. They will vote thoughtfully.

Now here's my perspective on what is happening in the Philippines. And I fear those in group A are missing it completely.

I think President Aquino is a great leader, not necessarily for his mastery of the trees, but for his mastery of the forest. The trees are the individual incidents or cases that go either good or bad: bus massacre, Mindanao agreement, jailing of Arroyo, RH Bill, Cybercrime debate, China, U.S., Sabah, court appointments, and so forth. Lots of trees. Those who don't like the President can find plenty to criticize. And there's plenty to hail, as well. Good tourism campaign, government contracts cleaned up to avoid corruption, RH passed, and so forth.

But the measure of Mr. Aquino's greatness is to be found in the shape of the forest. The seating of modern notions of earnest, honest work  being what government does. Of democratic institutions serving the people and building a stronger, richer, safer Philippines. Of a nation more confident both inside and outside, as reflected in a roaring stock market, booming real estate market, and more foreign investment and tourism. It is profound. It brings the Philippines onto the cusp of a respectable global presence.

Then we see a complex event occur, the Sabah incursion, and all the simplistic Group A arguments come out and a very negative, almost bitter dialogue roars to life. And one can see the Philippines slipping from that respectable position. We hear cries of "weak president" and calls for war (presumably with others at the front than "me"). We see anyone who has an axe to grind speaking out critically against the President: the Catholic Church, the corrupt, politicians looking for personal gain. Anyone with a grudge leaps on the President's case. And the Philippines falls back into the divisions and the contests that have always been here. A kind of rabid dialogue that requires winners, always winners. Never concessions. Never considerations. Never sacrifices for the good of the community of all Filipinos.

Everyone it the debate insists on winning.

And when they do that, the Philippines loses.

But wait. Wait.

There are three forces emerging in the dialogue. These forces represent and empower Group B, or at least have the POTENTIAL to empower Group B if they are not overwhelmed by Group A's divisive negativity:

• A growing core of  people with internationalized values living and working within the Philippines: government officials and businessmen schooled overseas, global travelers, and an infestation of foreigners living in the Philippines. This is a core of globally aware, sophisticated, broadminded people.

• The OFW millions. Many live in modern nations and live an orderly lifestyle of the honest and law-abiding host nation. Not the wild and wooly, law ignoring style of the Philippines. They comprehend how nations can be complex and internally argumentative, yet move in harmony because the purpose of the argument is to look for a better way forward. Not to tear down others. Or win arguments for the sake of esteem. They often demand a better Philippines.

• The internet. Many people in Group A infest the blog dialogue boxes or maintain social network presences that are simplistic and inane. But there are also those who browse widely and read and debate. They inject a richer, deeper perspective into their values and arguments. Their analyses are better and they can solve problems.

A comment has been made in discussions here that those who travel, school or work overseas seem to forget their experience when they return to the Philippines. They once again take up the weak disciplines, favors and self-involvement that characterize so much behavior here.

That is where President Aquino's re-structuring of the values of government can make a huge difference. It can give honor to those who engage in the ordered and productive thinking of the modern world. And, with enough momentum and mass behind the values of honorable, honest progress, the Philippines can tip toward prosperity.

We are at the tipping point now.

The Philippines needs a bigger middle class, not economically, but in values. A bigger Group B. The small upper class of empowered rich people are rooted in power and wealth-building, and are not open to change. And at the other end of the scale, the masses are out of touch with what is happening broadly in the Philippines.

The Philippines needs to get overwhelmed by right-thinking people who can speak and act in a more globally mature way. With intellectual flexibility and the ability to lose an argument now and then without losing face. With the ability to drive and welcome change. With an enduring loyalty to country, through thick and thin, not a fly-by-night pandering to popular heroes, or bailing out if Mr. Aquino decides to do something differently than they would do it.

If the three forces are empowered and congeal and build in size and strength, the Philippines is well on its way to greater sophistication and productivity and prosperity. That will help OFW's more than just about anything.

HOWEVER, if the Group A negativists insist on winning their arguments, the Philippines could tip back to divisive acrimony and precious little modernization.

I would add that the mainstream press is fundamentally a part of Group A, leveraging bad news to gain higher circulation or revenue. That is an ominous readout. The article cited at the beginning of this post is a clear example. Just plain bad journalism.

Those Filipinos having a vision of a modern, productive Philippines - Group B - need to do their best to keep the conversation positive, uplifting and supportive of President Aquino's forest. Whether they like all the trees or not. Whether they like him personally or not. They need to call the negative thinkers to task for weakening the Philippines.

The nation's prosperity is very much in the people's hands. The primary character of the Philippines: Group A or Group B?

It's a choice.

Own it.

The Hierarchy of Loyalties and Ethics III

King Solomon's Decision

By Edgar Lores

The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual’s own reason and critical analysis. - The Dalai Lama

Part 3 - Revelations

The Informal Approach - Three Rules on Interactions

In Part 2, we discussed the Hierarchy of Loyalties as a representation of the world and the prioritization of the constructs according to the ethical-legal structures that rule our interactions and bind us.

The Rule of Conscience is the bridge that links the formal and informal approaches.  In the formal approach, we posited the primacy of the Rule of Conscience, and while we said it may arise from Natural Law we admitted to the possibility that the rule is subjective.   The question arises, how do we objectify the Rule of Conscience?

I have not discovered all the possible rules of the informal approach, but initially I would like to suggest three criteria by which we can objectify the Rule of Conscience.  Again, interpretations might vary but if we apply these criteria honestly we might be closer to arriving at a general consensus.  I call these criteria the Tests of Loyalty, and they are:

• The Rule of Others
• The Rule of Self Sacrifice
• The Rule of the Extended Self

The Rule of Others

To my mind, there are two ways of prioritizing the constructs with respect to modes of behaviour. The first way is a "consideration of self" and the second way is a "consideration of others".  The latter is the Rule of Others.

"Consideration" means taking certain thing(s) into account.  "Others" points to these certain things. "Others" refer not only to the hierarchical constructs but also to the rules and notions that surround them.   

• The "consideration of self" uses as its meter the value of survival or of self-preservation, while the "consideration of others" uses the value of relationships.

• The concern of ethics is the proper conduct of a construct in relationship to other constructs.  Therefore, the mode of "consideration of others" is the proper path of ethics while the alternative mode of the "consideration of self" is the Law of the Jungle.

Perceptive readers will say, "Hey, Ed, there's nothing new in this.  You are just restating Egotism vs. Altruism."  To a certain extent, this is true.  However, I would like to make two distinctions.

• The first distinction is that I would extend and apply these opposing modes of behavior, not just to the Self, but to all the constructs in the Hierarchy, perhaps even to the gods themselves.

• The second distinction is that the path of ethics lies midway between these two opposites, but perhaps closer to a "consideration of others".  What I am saying is that our actions should be governed with a view of "consideration to others" but not in total neglect of the "consideration of self".  A balance must be achieved albeit with a bias to others.

Let me emphasize: the Rule of Others is based on respect, and when applied honestly it may show us the proper solution between conflicting constructs.  The solution may lie in the prioritization of the constructs and their rules, or in the process of interaction between or among constructs, or even just within one construct.  Almost everyone has experienced the wonders that come when, in a conflict between two parties, one party changes its attitude.  Suddenly the conflict is gone without any need for a resolution.  A "consideration of others" often reveals the existence of a higher path that can be taken.

Like all great mysteries of life, we arrive at paradox.  In Part 2, under the discussion of the Rule of Conscience, I said that without the Self, there is no other.  But to other constructs in the Hierarchy, the Self is an-other.  Which means that the Self is the Other.  Which means that when we act for others, we are acting for ourselves.  Without others, we have nothing; without others, we are nobody.

In a roundabout way, we have come to validate the second of the two commandments of which Jesus said "there is none greater than these": "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

The Rule of Self Sacrifice

Briefly stated, the Rule of Self Sacrifice is that the loyalty of the Self to the other constructs may transcend loyalty to its own Self. This is a higher rule than the Rule of Others in terms of selflessness.  For it is not only a "consideration of others" but an active effacement of Self usually in the hope that others may be saved or lifted to a better life.  The effacement may be conscious or unconscious.  All other constructs recognize this rule as the path of the martyr.

• Nations call them heroes.  Religions call them saints.  Children call them parents.

• The use of the term "sacrifice" may be jarring because of its negative connotations.  Seen properly, however, sacrifice is the obverse face of love, and love is the bright face of sacrifice.  Sacrifice is doing without in "consideration of others".  Love is doing for.  A parent does not see sacrifice as loss because love is gain.

This rule is the ultimate extension of the Rule of Others, and it confirms to a great degree the objectivity of a decision of conscience.

The Rule of the Expanded Self

An inherent characteristic of constructs is Identity and an acquired characteristic is Growth.  The conflation of these two characteristics gives us the Rule of the Expanded Self.  It consists in the phenomenon that as the Self establishes its own individual identity as a person, it interacts with other chosen constructs, and not just adopts but internalizes their goals and attributes.  Thus the other constructs become part of his identity and he develops a fierce loyalty to these constructs.  

• Example: I am a Filipino.  I am a Catholic.  And I support UNA.

Seen in the best light, this phenomenon is the basis for cooperative effort, for synergy.  Seen in a dim light, it describes the behavior of the True Believer and the fanatic, and it becomes the basis of the observation that "there are none so blind as those who will not see".  The Self, as it were, puts on blinders and views the world through the narrow prism of an adopted ism.  The gates of perception become clouded.

In matters of belief, once this merging of identities occurs, a person loses all objectivity and will use his mind not to openly examine an issue, but to find reasons to justify his position on that issue. And nothing, but absolutely nothing, not even the gates of hell will prevail and persuade him to change his mind.

• Cyberspace is populated with columnists and bloggers - present company excepted! - who identify themselves with a given construct and spew the same pabulum, day in and day out, ad nauseam.    

In matters of action, this is where most Filipinos go wrong.

• If the Self expands itself to include Family, and the loyalty to Family is greater than the loyalty to God or Country, then, Houston, we have a problem.  
• Further, if the Self expands itself to include a political party, and loyalty to the party exceeds loyalty to the Country, then, Houston, we have a greater problem.

Thus we have graft and corruption in all branches and levels of government, thus we have political dynasties; thus we have that astonishing spectacle of Binay, Enrile and Erap openly supporting a lady governor openly flouting the Law of the Land.  (Perhaps the true astonishment was the lack of astonishment.)

Therefore, depending on the Direction and Intensity that a man attaches to each construct as revealed by his deeds, we are able to decipher the outlines of his expanded self.  This enables us to confirm the objectivity of his conscience or the lack of it.

The Model as Applied Ethics

Finally, let us examine three cases of ethics as seen from the Hierarchy of Loyalty and the Tests of Loyalty.

• King Solomon's Case
• Abortion Case
• Celdran's Case

King Solomon's Case

Generations have marvelled at the wisdom of King Solomon.  The elements of the case are simple enough.  Viewed from the Hierarchy, there are three constructs involved:

• Country, with Solomon as king and with the associated Law of the Land
• Family, with two babies - one living and one dead
• Self, with two mothers - one the mother of the living baby and the other the mother of the dead baby

The issue at hand is a conflict between the two mothers in their claim to be the mother of the living baby.  The Law of the Land says that where there are conflicting claims to possessions and the claims are proved to be true, the possessions must be equally divided between or among the claimants.  In making his judgement, King Solomon calls for a sword and offers to cut the possession in half, giving one half to each mother.  But the possession is a living baby!

In effect, what the King is offering is a Test of Loyalty.

This is the view from the false mother: She is deranged in grief over the death of her baby.  Her expanded self has included the construct of a baby, but her baby is dead and gone.  She is in denial over the death, and her expanded self drives her to substitute the dead child with the living child in the arms of the sleeping true mother in order that she can make a false claim.  She has only consideration for herself and no consideration for the true mother.  In truth, she has no consideration either for the living baby.  That baby is not hers, and she has no loyalty to him.  This absence of loyalty is reflected in her decision to accept the offer of the King.  She says, "Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it".  And so she fails the Test of Loyalty.

This is the view from the true mother.  Her expanded self has also included the construct of her baby.  She is aghast that another would claim her baby.  And she is further aghast that the King would settle the conflicting claim with an offer that would kill her precious son.  Her motherly instincts, her devotion to him overwhelms her, such that "her bowels yearned upon her son".  Rather than accept the death of her son and in consideration of him, she will give up her claim so that her son will live.  She will sacrifice herself and her joys - the joy of his gurgles, his first smile, his first steps, and his first words.  And so she cries, "O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it." In doing so, she reveals she is the true mother.  And so she passes the Test of Loyalty.

I can imagine King Solomon (as portrayed by Yul Brynner) inwardly smiling, pointing alternately to the true mother and the living child, as he intones his verdict to the people, "She is the mother thereof".  The wisdom of Solomon consists in his intuitive grasp of the Hierarchy and his foreknowledge that a Test of Loyalty will resolve the conflict.

Abortion Case

If you can, forget that abortion is a dirty word.  Forget all preconceived ideas and dogmas about the sanctity of life, when life starts, about abortifacients, about rape.  Forget also the law because the law in the Philippines speaks of the "unborn from conception" and the US has swung against abortion, then in favor of it, and now is swinging against it.  Therefore, wipe the slate clean.

First we ask: From the viewpoint of the Hierarchy what are the constructs involved?  There are two possible answers.

• The first answer is that only one construct is involved if we take into account the acquired characteristic of Viability.  That construct is one Self, a mother albeit with a fetus.  By definition, the fetus is a potential construct but not a construct as yet.  It does not have separate existence, it does not have a name, and it may not have biological viability.

• The second answer is that two constructs are involved.  The first construct is a Self, the mother, and the second construct is Family, the fetus.

• Granting the acquired inherent of viability, at what point can the fetus be considered Family?  Medical experience tells us that a fetus can survive outside the womb at 28 weeks in the third trimester of pregnancy.  It is estimated that the lower limit of viability may be at 24 weeks but with a low survival chance.  Given these, the best medical advice is that the option of abortion should be considered and conducted within the first trimester of pregnancy, although abortion can be performed safely at any point.

• Therefore, medical science tells us that the first answer above of one construct is true until the end of the second trimester.  And the second answer is true at the start of the third trimester.

• Abortion may not be considered to be murder until the third trimester.  This is one of the cruxes about the issue of abortion.  One may or may not accept it.  But whether or not one does, one must grant that whether one or two constructs is involved, it is the mother who has consciousness and it is the mother who can make the decision with respect to her "body".

• Going further: within the perimeters of medical knowledge, and all things being equal, the question boils down to a question of competing rights.  The right of a woman to make a decision to abort the fetus growing in her versus the right of the state to protect prenatal life and women's health.  This is the second crux.  Which is the greater right?

• A corollary, if not the prerequisite, of the Rule of Conscience is the notion of free will.    From the perspective of Judeo-Christian tradition, God offered mankind the gift and the burden of free will - and it was a woman who dared seize it.  From that perspective, religion and law cannot now circumscribe that gift and say, "God has given you a cornucopia of grain, flowers and fruits, of apples and lemons, but you cannot have all of it without our say so."

• Therefore, again all things being equal, one should recognize the greater right of a woman to exercise her free will.  If she elects to abort, she may have considered only herself.  Or she may have considered her baby and the impropriety of bringing new life into the world wherein she would not be able to sustain it with proper reverence.  Clearly she has not yet expanded herself to include the baby, and clearly she is unwilling or unable to adopt the role of parental sacrifice.  Whatever the case may be, she has the right to make a decision and to live with the burden of that decision.

But the case does not end there or, rather, it does not begin here.  Why has it come to pass that such a decision has to be made?  Why not prevent conception in the first place?  Why not educate children about sex and reproductive health?  And if you teach sex education, should you not also teach the methods and techniques of obtaining and giving sexual pleasure?  Why spend an inordinate amount of time in unceasing, furtive and sometimes unsatisfying sexual explorations?  Why risk family and divert support of the family for an accomplished mistress?  (Is wonder diminished by an excess of glee?  Or is wonder preserved, according to the Law of Conservation, and able to be redirected to a contemplation of the stars?)

Countries spend billions upon billions for weapons that kill.  Shouldn't we shore up international law so that war and the threat of war becomes less a reality?  So that we can use the money poured into these weapons to come up with solutions to the crises of poverty, sex and drugs that haunt us?

The chain of causality is long and the issues that confront us are staggering.  Yet we fritter our lives by living at the edge of the precipice, quarreling perhaps unnecessarily and not understanding where the Other is coming from.
  
Celdran's Case

I change my mind.  I will leave the reader to re-examine his initial reaction to Celdran's original act of protest in the light of the ideas presented here.  Some of the questions to be asked are:

• What is the issue?
• What are the constructs involved?
• What are the rules and laws involved?  If any, are the laws ethical?
• With what construct does your expanded self most identify with?
• Have you properly prioritized the construct and the rules according to the Hierarchy?
• In fact, do you agree with the Hierarchy?

I leave it with you.

Conclusion

There may be a gnashing of teeth at the ideas presented in this essay. At least I hope so. The Hierarchy is a model.  It gives us a conceptual framework to conduct an honest examination of ourselves, of the constructs in our lives, and of our relationships in the hope that we are able to have a glimpse of our interdependence and arrive at a truer understanding of such abstracts as faith, truth and justice.  It is in the exercise of the better angels of our nature - in reasoned discourse, in our cognition of kinship, and in the faith that we live in a moral and just universe - that we may reach consensus in the cool shade of peace rather than on the "darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night".