National Artist: CCP Jesus Exhibit ain't Art

National Artist F Sionil Jose nailed it. The CCP exhibit was an injustice to true Art. It wasn't art at all.

The CCP Jesus Christ Exhibit: It ain't Art

by: F Sionil Jose

The artist who set up that controversial Jesus Christ exhibit at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) the other week must be grinning and enjoying all that brouhaha that has made him the central object of attention in the last few days. With that single exhibition, he also brought to the fore one of the most interesting discussions about art, religion, public taste and democracy — meaning the constitutional right to freedom of expression. All this is, of course, very healthy and very good for Filipinos.

Now, let me contribute my two pesos worth in this melee. Bear in mind, I am an octogenarian. I have seen almost every major art museum in the world. I operated one of the earliest art galleries in Manila, Solidaridad, from 1967 to 1977, with the intention of giving our art a Filipino and an Asian face. I am also a novelist, and, as we all know, literature is the noblest of the arts. I am enumerating these not just to establish my bonafides but to show that I know whereof I speak.

The exhibit should not have been shown at the CCP. If submitted to my old gallery, I would have rejected it. It is not — I repeat — it is not art! It is an immature and juvenile attempt at caricature. I have not seen the exhibit itself but I have seen pictures of it and they are enough to convince me of the validity of my conclusion.

First, what is art? I go by this simple definition: Being an artist myself although I work with words not with the brush — if I can do it, it is not art. If I were to do the Jesus Christ commentary in oil, I would have used imagination, craftsmanship, and most important — originality. None of these basic qualities are in the CCP exhibit.

Our problem as art patrons and viewers is that we have somehow lost the capacity to discern, to criticize, and also to remember. We go back to the yesteryears, the masters we studied in school, the sculptors of ancient Greece and Rome, the classical writers as well, Homer, Cervantes all of them. Even without the superior implements and materials today, the many varieties of oils for the painters, and the modern cutting instruments powered by electricity, the artists of the ancient world were able to produce those sculptures and paintings that continue to delight us with their fine detail and their exquisite form.

Now, we say that there is a new way of looking at things and I agree, but the old verities remain: that artists are craftsmen, they are a special people, for not everyone can draw, or write.

As a writer myself, I work very hard at my novels. I know grammar although I am not a grammarian. On order, I can write in a few minutes a sonnet — it may not be good, but it will be a sonnet. I can close my eyes and describe imaginary scenes, dialogues, etc. And I write and rewrite and rewrite. In other words, a work of art is not created at the spur of a moment. It is cerebrated and worked out through time, with great effort, imagination and most important, craftsmanship.

When I was running Solidaridad Galleries and some young punk came to me with a sheaf of his abstract drawings, I would give him a pencil and ask him to draw my fist to find out if he could draw. Some of them didn’t come back. The late Hernando Ocampo whom I knew very well was a great craftsman with an acute understanding of color and he did paint so many pictures of dazzling brilliance and originality. If he could only draw, he could have gone very, very far.

I just saw the ongoing exhibit of Fred Aguilar Alcuaz in Cubao and much earlier that of Fred Liongoren. Both did abstracts, both can draw very well, just as many of the Impressionists of the 19th century were master craftsmen, too. My very good friend, Fr. Gaston Petit, who is a renowned painter and designer, has made an international reputation as an abstract painter, but he, too, can draw.

I bring to mind two women artists I admire very much: Gilda Cordero Fernando —she is a writer and, with a writer’s superior imagination, she has created beautiful pictures with exquisite craftsmanship. Julie Lluch, the sculptor, has also created in terracotta unusual figures that have no equivalent in reality — they are very imaginative and interesting. But she also sculpted busts, statues of people which exude character and are, therefore, memorable works of art.

There is so much anarchy in the world of art today and much of it is due to this dictum that there is “a new way of seeing things.” If I covered the Batasan building — all of it with black cloth — that is not only searing commentary, an achievement — it is also something new. But is it art?

If I put my excrement in a tin can, sealed it like a tin of sardines, that, too is interesting; but again, is it art? If I cut two huge pipes, fused them, is it art? Yet, these have happened and it is for us who know to point out that such happenings, such constructions — as they term it — are not art at all unless we give a new and ridiculous definition of art.

How I wish our artists would stop claiming freedom of expression all the time that they are criticized. To me freedom of expression is not involved with the CCP exhibit. Artistic sensibility and rigid critical values are the norm and they should prevail if our culture is to develop.

We have done it when we were young, put beards and blackened teeth on pictures of people. If I were to criticize religious faith visually, I would do it much better, more creatively than what this artist had done. The cross alone — I can do so much with it with allegory and symbolism. And this is what is precisely wrong with so many of our visual artists: for all their superb craftsmanship, they lack imagination and they don’t think hard enough. Then even sweet Jesus would understand; after all, in this earth His people who didn’t know what they were doing, beat Him up, crowned Him with thorns then crucified Him.

RH MADNESS STILL ON

The RH Battle is still here despite of the fact that its existence is unnecessary and unreasonable. Mr. President, you don't need to be Catholic in order to see the filth in the proposed measure. All you need to be is become realistic and reasonable. RH Bill is garbage and its proper place is the trashcan (for non-reusable and non-recyclable). 

 

RH bill among Aquino priorities, spokesman says

By Christine O. Avendaño
Philippine Daily Inquirer 

MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang announced Tuesday that President Benigno Aquino III will include the reproductive health bill among the 13 priory measures he will ask Congress to pass.

The President’s spokesman, Edwin Lacierda sent reporters a text message saying that the bill was included on the agenda of the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council meeting set for 10 a.m. Tuesday at the Palace.

The consolidated reproductive health bill pending in the House is one of many measures that the President discussed with the Cabinet last week for possible inclusion in his priority list of bills for Congress approval.

 

Blasphemous art exhibit closed down

I find this report interesting that the President is criticizing the show. I recalled that two days ago, the CCP Head, in a live interview on TV, said that that Malacanan is behind them in allowing this show of garbage. Well, good thing that they finally closed down this "stupid" exhibit.

By GENALYN D. KABILING and HANNAH L. TORREGOZA

August 9, 2011, 2:17pm

BATANGAS CITY, Philippines – President Aquino has reprimanded the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) board for the controversial art exhibit that offended Catholic beliefs and directed them to be more circumspect and prevent a repeat of such display.

He said he was pleased by the closure of the allegedly blasphemous art exhibit at the CCP after calling the attention of the board members last Monday.

At the Upper Chamber, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ordered a full-blown investigation into the management of the CCP following Senate President Pro Tempore Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada privilege speech wherein he called for the resignation of the CCP board members who allowed the exhibit called “Kulo.”

Estrada, in his speech, lambasted CCP administrators for their “negligence” and called for their resignation.

“What does it serve a viewers’ mind and soul to see the images of Christianity’s bedrock, Jesus Christ, his mother the Virgin Mary, and of the Cross that symbolizes the supreme sacrifice offered by Christ to redeem mankind, treated so insultingly and with such shocking disrespect by a group of people who believe they have the absolute artistic license to do so?” Estrada stressed in his speech.

“I ask that, because of the failure of the Board of Directors of the CCP to thoroughly scrutinize artists who want to put up an exhibit with them, they should all resign from their positions starting Wednesday,” Estrada said.

Enrile agreed and said he supports the move since the CCP board members allowed the exhibit to be showcased publicly sans observing moral ethics and considering the country’s reputation as a Christian nation.

The CCP administrators, he said, “failed in their mission to guard the culture of the Filipinos” and “they should be fired from their jobs.”

“That kind of exhibit was never envisioned by those who originally created the CCP,” Enrile said.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III supported the move and even called on the Senate Finance Committee to take up the budget of the CCP during the ongoing budget hearings at the Chamber.

Sotto pointed out to other lawmakers that the CCP is supported by public money, thus part of the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Aquino, who found the art exhibit a violation of other people’s rights, said he was “not after censorship” in arts but emphasized that freedom of expression is not absolute.

“I was in contact with several board members Tuesday and I told them I am Christian and the country is at least 85 percent Christian then there is this depiction of Christ that offends people, that’s wrong,” he said in a press conference during a visit in a Malampaya onshore gas facility here.

Aquino emphasized that the CCP is funded by public money and should be in the service of the people. “So when you insult the beliefs of most of the people, where is that service,” he said.

Aquino stressed his position “very clear” to the CCP board that one’s freedom ends when it tramples another.

“There is no freedom that is absolute. There are limits that our laws set that as to what you are allowed to do,” he said. “I am not after censorship when it is supposed to be ennobling and when you stroke conflict that is not an ennobling activity,” he added.

The President decided to step into the controversy involving the art exhibit in CCP and resolved the conflict amid mounting protests from Catholic bishops, lawmakers, and lay organizations.

The exhibit, mounted by university students, reportedly desecrated images of Jesus Christ and other Catholic symbols.

Despite the closure of the “sacrilegious and blasphemous” art exhibit at the CCP it won’t stop Catholic lay and other Christian denominations from filing a criminal case against the agency and the artist.

Lawyer Jo Imbong, lead counsel of the St. Thomas Moore Society, said they are still pushing with the charges, saying “the Christian nation has been offended.”

Imbong earlier said that the CCP and artist Mideo Cruz are liable for violating Revised Penal Code’s (RPC) Article 201 on immoral doctrines, obscene publications, and indecent shows.

Eric Manalang, Pro-Life Philippines president, agreed with Imbong, saying the temporary closure of the exhibit will not deter them from pushing through with their protest action Wednesday outside the CCP.

The decision to temporarily close the CCP’s visual art section came a day after Ilocos Rep. Imelda Marcos visited the CCP and slammed its officials for allowing such exhibit.

Marcos is the wife of former President Ferdinand Marcos and founder of the CCP 40 years ago.

But Virgie Lamoso of the CCP’s Museum and Visual Arts said management has decided to close the main gallery for security reasons after Cruz’s installation was vandalized last week.

Meanwhile, the University of Santo Tomas (UST) finally broke its silence on the controversial exhibit.

“This is to officially state that the art exhibit Kulo at CCP is not a project of the University of Sto. Tomas nor the University is endorsing or supporting the same. The University as an academic community and as a Catholic institution would also like to express that it is denouncing the sacrilegious or religious offensive art works included in the exhibit and all other artwork of similar nature,” said Pablo Tiong, vice-rector of UST, over Church-run Radyo Veritas Tuesday.

“Moreover the said sacrilege or religiously offensive artworks are nothing but a kind of artworks expected and or produced by unprofessional artist,” he added.

UST, however, may not be able to sanction Cruz for he is an undergraduate.

Artists’ reactions

While the exhibit has been closed to the public, it continues to draw criticisms.

Edward Llanes, a graphic artist supervisor and a devout Catholic, dismissed the artwork as “stupid.” “That is stupid because the artist lost respect to the religion and its beliefs. The Philippines consists of mostly Catholics and we deplore phallic symbols in religious images. We must respect the culture of each religion,” he said.

He, however, admitted that as an artist, each artwork is the artist’s freedom of expression. “If you have an artwork and it is for your own keeping, it’s okay because it’s your freedom of expression but if you put it on exhibit for the public to see, then it’s not right,” he said.

Another artist, Bonn Erasmo who belongs to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, also raised a question. “Bakit niya ginagawa yan?” He said that though they do not believe in icons and images, he disagreed with the artwork. “People now have become more liberated and express themselves freely, but expressing oneself should not be offensive to others,” he said.

He stressed the importance of respect for one’s religion. “Even if you don’t have the same belief as others, you must respect their beliefs. Hindi tama na gawan mo ng kabastusan ung religion ng iba. Hindi ito makatao,” he said.

He also said that people must act the way Jesus acted during His time. “Jesus knew that there are people who have different beliefs as His, but He never insulted them,” he said.

But Eugene Cubillio, a visual artist and full-time painter for 10 years, he said comments raised by the public and that of the artist, are both correct. “Tama ang pinaglalaban ng bawat kampo – for the artist, it’s his freedom of expression because he did not do it for the Church to see and to insult the public, while for the public, it’s a disgrace to the Church. However, it now lies on the artist to instill values in his artwork and be responsible for it,” he said.

Cubillo, who had an encounter with Cruz in one of their artists’ talk, said he respects Cruz’s freedom of expression and provides his own interpretation of his artwork. “He used the (phallic symbol) to depict power. But there are other ways to depict it so as not to offend other people. Sana nag-isip pa siya ng ibang symbol,” he said.

He cited an example of throwing stones at other people. “You have the freedom to throw a stone, but you have to put in mind, what will happen to the one you hit it with.” he asked. (With reports from Leslie Ann G. Aquino and Sarah Hilomen Velasco)

ART, FREEDOM, TRUTH AND TRASH

We are currently beset by the controversy behind “Poleteismo,” an exhibit of religious images which included a picture of Jesus Christ with a penis glued on his face, a figurine of Christ the King with rabbit ears among others.

The creators of these objects call them “art” and, surprisingly, they are scandalized by people’s objections against their creations. And, they claim that demands to dismantle the exhibit are uncalled for as these would violate their constitutional right to “freedom of expression.”  

This scenario leads us to ask: What is art? What is the purpose of art? What is freedom? Is freedom absolute?

I see art as an attempt of man, a creature, to become the Creator himself. He expresses himself – his emotion, ideals, aspirations and thoughts – in the works of his hands. If art is an expression of the being of its human author, then it follows that it should have a resemblance or it should reflect the nature of man himself, that is, good, beautiful and true. Therefore, anything to the contrary is not human and any product which will emanate from it cannot be properly called “art”.

From here, we can now see the purpose of art: to express the goodness, beauty and truth of humanity and the entire creation. This is achieved by attaching the proper attributes to the subject of the art so that said subject can shine and express meaning by simply being itself. Hence, the act of putting attributes not proper or not part of the nature of a given subject violates truth, expresses ugliness and distorts goodness.

Indeed, man is free but his freedom is NOT absolute. Freedom has its limits. It is limited by goodness and truth.

This reality is expressed in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. On the one hand, we Filipinos are guaranteed of our right to “freedom of expression.” However, on the other hand, false expressions can be charged with libel or slander. This means that we cannot just say and do whatever we want. Our freedom is only made perfect within the context of goodness and truth, which, when undermined, allows freedom to destroy and transform itself into violence.

Now, let us turn our gaze on the “Poleteismo” exhibit. Obviously, Jesus did not put penis on his nose nor had ears of a rabbit. No one of us would be happy to be portrayed this way for the simple reason that we cannot walk in the streets with an attached penis on our noses and we do not have the ears of a rabbit. We will object simply because such portrayal is not true to our nature. This violation of truth consequently destroys goodness and expresses ugliness. Ultimately, such portrayal ceases to be art.  

Furthermore, we cannot defend the “Poleteismo” exhibit by appealing to our right to “freedom of expression.” Note that expressions are free only in so far as it expresses truth and goodness. Beyond these, we shall abuse this basic human right. Obviously, the creators of “Poleteismo” are guilty of abusing their right to freedom of expression.

Clearly, “Poleteismo” is NOT an art; it is a trash. Hence, I wondered why the Philippine institution responsible for promotion of true art – the Cultural Center of the Philippines – is hosting this unreasonable and arrogant display of garbage.

MOONLIGHT

April 28, 2011. Last Holy Week, I recovered in my files an old unfinished and untitled poem which I wrote sometime in 2002. I started to write it while camping in Mt. Pangasugan, tried to finish it when I returned to the dorm and suddenly missed it somewhere. With some additions and editing, while retaining my then pen name, it’s done. And, I thought the appropriate title should be “Moonlight”.

Moonlight

by: Ethan

One summer night on a mountain peak,

While at the abyss of my bleak solitude,

My eyes on the starry dark skies I fixed,

As I lied down on the ground for a sort of interlude.

Listening to the sound of the cricket,

Watching how the fireflies fly,

Mystified was I by your beauty,

Oh Moon so full, so bright.

Filled with awe of the beautiful sight,

I closed my eyes in contemplation,

Before the goddess made I a daring thought:

I will reach you and make you my own.

As I opened my eyes I came to a realization,

The space between you and my word is beyond my comprehension.

How fleeting is the moment of beholding you, Oh full Moon!

And only in the darkness of the night is our communion.

Yes, from the sun you borrow your light,

So soft, so sweet, so lovely, so kind,

Your radiance, though faint, caused to ignite,

In the heart of a lonely soul, a blazing fire of love!

At a designated time I come with delight,

To see and be drawn to you, Oh Moonlight,

I watch you dance before me,

Your caressing radiance is my ecstasy.

We celebrate with joy each of your full revolution,

While leaves weather we keep on with stronger affection,

As you pass, the waters buoy me to higher elevation,

So we savor our closeness with great satisfaction.

After twelve moons came the thirteenth one,

You chose to hide in the shadow of my world,

I begged the earth to jump just once,

To reveal your lovely face for just a second.

My sincere plea was left unanswered,

For unknown reason you simply disappeared,

Amazing is this apparent abandonment,

‘Cos you painfully put me in torment.

Finally, another full moon has expectedly come,

With somewhat hardened heart I feel numb,

In my loneliness I wander in the night,

I now refuse to be drawn to you, Oh Moonlight.

JOSE RIZAL, THEIR "NATIONAL HERO"

This was my thought on the occasion of 150th Birthday of Dr. Jose Rizal. Quite inappropriate timing, but, I thought it was also a good opportunity to talk about some truths about the man we call "National Hero." 

I would like to be clear at the outset that if there is anyone in Philippine History who, in my opinion, deserves the title “National Hero,” it is Andres Bonifacio and NOT Dr. Jose Rizal.

Why Bonifacio? Simple. He was ACTUALLY the one who REALLY fought for our freedom, which he ultimately shed with his own blood.

A hero is a person "of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero). The Wikipedia, which does not enjoy my 100% confidence in terms of its credibility, nicely puts it this way: “hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero).

Perhaps, there is truth to the claim that Rizal actually did some heroic acts. But, it should be noted that EVERYONE actually does some heroic acts in his/her lifetime. If simply doing “some heroic acts” would be the qualification to become “National Hero,” then everybody is a “National Hero.” However, we know for a fact that the term “National Hero” does not refer to a person who just did “some heroic acts.” A National Hero is somebody who did a GREAT heroic act.

Certainly, between Bonifacio and Rizal, the former did a greater heroic act than the latter. To the end, Bonifacio fought for our freedom. His poverty did not prevent him from studying, from learning; finding no one to teach him, he taught himself. He was an “unknown Filipino” but he rose as the leader of the revolution which inspired many Filipinos, both rich and poor. He was a man of “noble qualities,” a man with “courage and [the] will for self sacrifice” for the Filipino. He was not just a hero, Bonifacio was in fact THE National Hero.

What do we know about Rizal? Undeniably, Rizal belonged to a de buena familia. This explains why he was able study in a premier educational institution and was able to go to Europe to take up Medicine. He was known to be brilliant; Zaide fashions him almost like a demi-god. It was said that he was good looking and was involved with a number of women (Note: I am not in the position to make a moral assessment of his private life). He was a reformist and not a revolutionary. He wrote at least two (2) books – the Noli me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo, which inspired the Katipuneros and these books are at present being studied in college, others in high school. He was imprisoned at Fort Santiago and executed in Luneta.

In broad strokes, we have just painted Dr. Jose Rizal. Now, let us consider the details.

Rizal, the Reformer. History books can attest that Rizal was never a Revolutionary. In fact, he did not support and resisted any association with the KKK which was organized by Bonifacio. He was a reformer – he advocated for reform in the government only, not a revolution of the Filipino People. He was not enthusiastic with the idea of a Philippine Government run by Filipinos; he was fine with Spanish run Philippine Government which does not maltreat Filipinos and views the latter as equals to the Spaniards.

At one point, Bonifacio approached Rizal and asked him to join the KKK. Bonifacio told him that the Katipuneros were inspired by his writings, especially the Noli me Tangere, and they would be glad to see him in their revolutionary work. Expectedly, Rizal, the reformer, declined the invitation. He was for reform and not for revolution. Rizal and Bonifacio parted ways with the former continuing with writing while the latter carrying on fighting.

Rizal, the Inconsistent. Later, Rizal wrote the El Filibusterismo or simply, the Fili, which told of a story of bombing a gathering of high ranking government officials and other members of the alta sociedad. This story in the Fili made Bonifacio and the rest of the Katipuneros think that Rizal has already “changed his mind;” that he was already for the revolution, that he may have already abandoned his reformist position. Hence, Bonifacio went to meet Rizal and expressed his and his fellow Katipunero’s gladness that he finally “changed his mind;” that he was now for the revolution. Bonifacio once again, but now with a certain degree of assured hope that he will get an affirmative response, extended the invitation to Rizal for him to join the Katipunan. To his dismay, Bonifacio left with his reject invitation. Rizal remained a reformist. Rizal was not going to “walk” his “talk” in the El Filibusterismo.

Rizal, the Traitor. To add insult to injury, in 1896, in his attempt to dissociate himself with the Katipunan and to show his reformist conviction, Rizal joined the Spanish fleet to Cuba to serve there as a VOLUNTEER DOCTOR to the Spaniards who were at war with the Americans. He abandoned his fellow Filipinos, who badly needed his help, to support the Spaniards in Cuba who were obviously fighting not for the Filipino.  Clearly, without any argument, this was an Act of Treason – Rizal was a Traitor.  

Rizal was already aboard a Spanish ship sailing for Cuba when he was fetched to be returned to Manila; thanks to the Archbishop of Manila who caused his unnecessary repatriation. The good Archbishop was late to receive a copy of the Fili and he also thought, after reading it, that Rizal has already abandoned his reformist stance and was now a revolutionary; therefore, a dangerous man – an enemy of the State. If the good Archbishop were only aware of his “real” position on the issue, Rizal could not have been repatriated, imprisoned, executed and ultimately declared a “National Hero.”

Yesterday, we celebrated the 150th Birthday of the Dr. Jose Rizal, THIER “National Hero.”

THE TALE OF MATURITY AND NUDITY

This was a thought that crossed my mind some four [4] years ago. Now, we are confronted with the issue of nudity in the billboards along EDSA. Good thing that after four years we somehow grew, a bit.


For about three decades now since the story of "Bakekang" was first told, the Filipino mentality remained in its infancy.  We still cling to the superficial measure of success, that is, if you become a showbiz personality, appear on TV with all the pomp and glamour and become known and idol to many. If you appear rich and beautiful will all its external hypocrisy, you are successful.
 
As a manifestation of this mental immaturity, we find the Starstruck, Star Circle Quest and other similar star search very popular. Everybody, male and female, young and old, is aspiring to appear on TV and have a taste of how is it to be a showbiz personality – no worries, party here and there, idolized by many, with “lots” of money, handsome, beautiful. Everybody wants to be popular and they shall achieve this at all cost. Why? Because popularity is the measure of success! In fact, it has been proven as the ticket to becoming the President of the Philippines! Popularity means everything. No wonder, everybody is just so obsessed to become popular.
 
This is one of the most pitiful realizations of mine being Filipino and upon realizing this, I became more ashamed of myself, of my being Filipino although I take pride of my very rich cultural heritage. And there is an added insult to injury. Our mentality has not grown mature as patently portrayed in Bakekang, a soap opera aired on TV these days, presenting current realities despite the fact that its story had been written some three decades ago! It seems that nothing has changed. There is the ambitious desire for popularity and the abominable yet unresolved crab mentality. In about thirty years, the Filipino mind remained… immature.
 
Speaking of maturity, young stars today claim that in order to appear mature, you have to take off your clothes and allow malicious eyes to feast on your flesh up to its smallest details. The measurement of maturity has turned out to be nudity!
 
Is this really maturity or a symptom of its opposite?
 
If we may recall, we are born nude and it is just fine. After all, we were just little infants then. We were not yet aware of the norms of society. We have not yet realized the sense of respect of ourselves… our body.
 
Yet, as we grow up, we realize that these childish things should be left to the children. We dress up out of respect to ourselves and to make us appear attractive. We cover our flesh with clothes because we think mature.
 
Now, here come these revisionist westerners who distort our concept of maturity. They teach us the exact opposite of what we hold to be proper and true. They teach us that to be mature is to be nude. Nudity has become the expression of maturity.
 
And we Filipinos, whose identity and consciousness as Filipino have been buried six feet under the ground by the Americans during their long years of occupation in this country, readily accept without question and doubt anything that is western. When these westerners proclaimed the gospel of nudity as proof of maturity, we enthusiastically acclaim: Amen!
 
The intrusion of this alien concept has aggravated the collapse of our already embattled concept of good and beautiful. It has reversed our growth from going up to a higher level down to the shame of our lost selves.
 
How confused are we as a people! If they were alive, our ancestors, for sure, will be ashamed of us and condemn us like dogs without anybody taking care of.
 
Then I thought….
 
When will we grow? When will we wake up from our fancy dreams? When will we mature?

“THEOLLACY,” WHAT?

This piece was written in October last year. Now that this issue is once again alive, I am posting it here.

I would like to take part in this debate on Reproductive Health. I am no defender of the Church or of the State; I work for both. I am a simple volunteer defender of truth.

Let me share my take on condom. I don't see the point of making it a social (or health) policy; we can make it available everywhere and anytime, anyway. Why?

1. They say that it is for the prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS. The truth is, condom does not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS; it aggravates it. Studies have shown (and UN is aware of this; but, chose to pretend they don't know anything about this) that in areas where condom use is a social policy, in areas where there is massive distribution of condoms, there is an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS transmission. Decline in HIV/AIDS cases was only noted in areas which shifted its focus from C (Condoms) to AB (Abstinence and Be faithful) strategies.

2. They say it is for population control. Control population, why? "To eradicate poverty," they will simply answer. Truth is, there is no direct correlation between population and poverty. Population is not the cause of poverty. There are countries with few people but poor; others are rich. The same is true with countries with many people.

The notion that population is the cause of poverty is based on Malthusian Theory - a theory that had long been proven dead! In the 1960s, this theory was already buried six feet under the ground; and, now, we, Filipinos, are resurrecting it. I wonder why we, Filipinos, who pride ourselves as brilliant people, adhere to this belief, yes a belief since it is already a refuted theory and, therefore, is no longer sound science. While, the theory of Malthus remains dead, no amount of argument can convince a logical person to control population to reduce or stamp out poverty.

If poverty is not caused by population, what then is its cause? Studies have shown that anti-poor economic policies have direct correlation with poverty. Aha! The problem is not with the growing number of people but with governance. Governments are not doing enough to combat poverty; if they ever do, they have wrong priorities. Governments have unjust economic policies; policies that help the rich instead of the poor. No wonder, then, that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. At this point, for sure, government will come defensive. And, to save its face, it will employ some dirty tricks.

Ineffective and inefficient governments use population as their scapegoat for their incompetence. These governments use this simplistic "Population-Poverty Theollacy (Theory-fallacy)" to tell uncritical people, which apparently is the majority of our population, that their growing number is the root cause of the poverty problem despite evidence that proves otherwise. Government employs this tactic to shield itself from public criticism for being inutile. This is not to mention the fact that the government, along with NGOs who make use the issues of  HIV/AIDS, Gender Equality, Empowerment of Women etc. as milking cow, will make money out of the passage of this Reproductive Health Bill. It is not unknown to us that International Aid Agencies are ready to "reward" us if we finally give a green light to RH Bill. 

Now, back to Condom. I say with confidence that condom has only one purpose: FOR PLEASURE. No more, no less. To propose that it is for the prevention of HIV/AIDS or the control of population is just too much.

My appeal, therefore, to all opinion leaders: Be Truthful. Let us expose all the facts so our people, especially our policy makers, can make informed decisions. We should make decision that are based on facts, not based on ideologies or, worse, "theollacy".

TRAVELING WITH A BROKEN HEART

I love traveling. I enjoy seeing new places, tasting exotic food, learning different cultures and languages, seeing the beauty of nature etc. I get all these privileges in traveling for work or simply for leisure. Of course, there is more fun in traveling to have purely R&R. And speaking of R&R, we usually book a flight in advance to avail of the “promos”.  At the end of the day, we enjoy our R&R at low cost. Efficient!

Airfare promo prices are normally offered one month before travel. There is 50% or 75% cut in regular airfare. At times, airline companies offer one peso airfare anywhere in the country! Anyone who gets this one peso airfare has certainly won a jackpot. Because of these promo offers, travelers swarm the internet to get the best airfare deal. And, we fail to remember that airline companies are doing business as they offer these best deals.

Surely, no airline company would make profit and sustain its operation if it keeps on offering low airfare. There should be some ways by which they can achieve their target income despite the promos. The losses in the promos should be compensated. Hence, the question is: How?

The answer is this: Increase the selling price of tickets purchased on the day or a few days before the travel to the highest limit and call it the “Regular Airfare.” But actually, had there been no low airfare promos, the Regular Airfare could have been lower than what we normally know as “Regular Airfare.” This would be so as the cost of travel of one airplane would be equally distributed to all of its passengers.

If the promo airfare were availed by travelers for R&R, then who buys the very costly “Regular Fare”?

They are those who need to travel because a family member is sick, dying or, worse, already dead. They are the people who have meager resources which have to be used in order to address a very important concern, normally a matter of life and death. They are the people who do not travel for R&R. They are the people who badly need help.

Yet, what help do they get from airline companies and from us travelers? Nothing. They are forced to accept the unjust “Regular Fare.”

With this realization, my heart was broken when I had the chance of traveling by plane and seated beside a man who had to go to Manila to assist her mother who should undergo heart operation. He purchased his plane ticket on the same day of travel and his ticket was five times higher than mine! This sad man, whose mother was almost dying, actually paid the greater part of my airfare. Unconsciously, I snatched him and his mother some amount which they could have used to pay the hospital or buy medicines. My R&R added pain and burden to them.

Indeed, that was my travel with a broken heart.