“Someone take these dreams away,
that point me to another day;
A duel of personalities,
That stretch all true reality—
They keep calling me…
They keep calling me…”
I can’t help but be reminded of that song by Joy Division (entitled “Dead Souls”, for anyone who’s wondering) when I read an open letter by someone named Bong Austero. The guy is a human resources expert who is president of the Board of Trustees of the Remedios AIDS Foundation. The letter, in its entirety, can be read at his blog.
Today (this entry was composed at around 2.36 pm Philippine Standard Time), I write in response to Mr. Austero’s letter and to the reply that he sent to INQUIRER columnist Rina Jimenez-David about the furor that the open letter caused on this side of cyberspace.
Coming from a different perspective, I did find a few salient points about Mr. Austero’s two letters. The whole premise behind those two letters is that people who share the same opinion that he does, in light of all the tumult happening in Philippine politics, are being dismissed, in Mr. Austero’s words, “matter-of-factly”. I would most certainly like to point out that such is also true with the other side of the fence Mr. Austero is in. People who think differently from the satraps of the incumbent Head of State are looked at as destabilizers, hardliners, people who mean the country ill. Back on his side, Mr. Austero thinks that people like him are considered by anti-Gloria denizens as “paid hacks” by the government. It’s a question of semantics, really. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on, people will look at you as either visionary or apostate, as a revolutionary or a bandit (or, if you prefer a word much in vogue nowadays, terrorist).
The man says he is angry because people opposed to the current administration and all that it has come to stand for dismiss people like him as “immoral” and for “conniving with a thief”. He is angry because his emotions are being subjected to ridicule. He thinks that all this talk of who should run this country is moot—he just wants to move on because he is sick and tired. He says he does not need people to, and I quote, “…tell me why I am angry, or why I am so wrong to be angry…immoral, unpatriotic, naïve, and stupid simply because I happen to have a different perspective”. In a lot of respects, the same is true on the other side of the fence—that side where he decidedly is at right now. As I’ve pointed out in the preceding paragraph, it’s really a question of semantics. That and the question of which side of the fence you happen to be on.
Mr. Austero, for all the intellectual fatigue he is experiencing, not to mention the indefatigable manner in which he defends his stand, is forgetting the premise in which people like him are being derided. I will not say that he is “conniving with a thief”, although that is essentially what people like him are thought of as doing. I would say, however, that by virtue of his desire to “just move on”, he is compromising the quality of his life. Fact of the matter is, the point of view he is embracing is the split personality of the Filipino’s resilient nature. We are wont to attribute our resiliency to standing steadfast in the face of adversity, although sometimes we get by our daily problems by essentially stopping to care about everything else that is happening around us. We trap ourselves in an intellectual vacuum, blissfully ignorant of the chaos that happens outside. And when a radical idea comes, we see it as a danger, not to the establishment we find ourselves to be complacent with, but to the personal vacuum we have built for ourselves. Like it or not, admit it or otherwise, this is how the phrase “moving on” is being lived up at a day-to-day basis. This is the very premise that journalists like Conrado de Quiros and Randy David are warning us of.
True, the people who are categorically against the current tenant of Malacanang are not exactly saints. True, some of those people are abominable, then as now. That does not mean, however, that the cause they embrace with others is sullied by their mere presence. In ultimate terms, those who champion right must stand vigilant against anyone who dares intrude on the ideals our forebears have fought hard for, regardless of what side of the fence they are on. Then again, when you talk about ultimate terms, you come across as someone who lives his life in rhetoric. Keeping it real, if you love your freedom, your liberties, you will fight tooth and nail for them. You will give it all your effort, throwing everything but the kitchen sink. You will not be content with just moving along and minding people who brand you as some crackpot for thinking differently from them.
Whether Mr. Austero likes it or not, people like him have become the incumbent administration’s poster boys. While people like him find local politics to leave a bad taste in their mouths and would rather leave the whole topic untouched altogether, the incumbent government continues to play the games of patronage politics and trample on civil liberties under the pretense of “clear and present” dangers, both real and imagined.
(To be concluded)