Hannibal Lecter’s Whore: Blog Of

The speeches of Jose Ma. Sison and Felixberto Olalia (Kabataang Makabayan Founding Speech and Message on the Fifth Day of the Hunger Strike for the Freedom of all Detained Labor Leaders and other Political Prisoners, respectively) are both reflective of the status quo the time the speeches were delivered.

All throughout the speech of Jose Ma. Sison, he was mentioning the downsides and negative aspects of US imperialism. After establishing the perils of inter-relating with the US, Sison then pointed out explicitly that at that time, the Philippines is in fact under a semicolonial and semifeudal society. Thus with that, he illustrated the very reflection of the country that time – that we are not in the truest sense freed from US domination. As Sison said, the imperialism of America is one new type of colonialism that will control the nation by destroying its industries and swinging it back to plantation economy dominated by US agro-corporations.

In Olalia’s speech, on the other hand, the very title suggests the conflict present that time. The title tells of freeing detained labor leaders and political prisoners, and one major indication how tumultuous and chaotic the situation really was since people were resorting into a hunger strike. Moreover, the speech vividly describes the pains and torments caused by abuse of power by the authorities.

In extracting the status of the democracy that time, everything boils down to the discussion of the Marcos regime, and a few years prior to the dictatorship. Sison’s speech was delivered in November 1964, and that was approximately a year before Marcos was elected president (Marcos assumed office December the next year). And prior to his presidency, the Philippines that time was characterized by US intrusion in the country’s political and economic affairs. This is primarily reflected in Sison’s speech as he was pin-pointing the drawbacks of US imperialism. On the other hand, Olalia’s speech was delivered December 1983 – a time when the Philippines was under Martial Law. Democracy then was an elusive concept, and this was reflected in the way Olalia described the sufferings of the political and labor leaders who have been charged without fair trial. Given the context (Martial Law/Marcos dictatorship) and the speaker himself (Olalia being a known labor activist), one could conclude, through the gravity of his arguments, that the country that time was under massive repression.

Introduction

This analysis covers the following materials: Homage to Luna and Hidalgo by Jose Rizal, Exhortation Before the Battle at Imus by Emilio Aguinaldo, and Women of the Philippines by Clemencia Lopez. This paper will thoroughly examine the rhetorical elements and variables that are evident in the three aforementioned speeches. Examining the rhetorical elements would mean analyzing situations, ideas, and form and structure.

The three speeches also exhibit similarity with regard to their subject matter. Thus, this analysis also aims to extract a theme that, in one way or another, binds them. Though the three speeches were delivered by different speakers in different occasions and contexts, they possess thematic commonality.

At the latter part of this paper will be the evaluation and assessment of the three speeches – whether the three speeches are effective or not. In addition to that, the principles of the art of a good speech will also be applied in evaluating the speeches.

Overview and Discussion

Upon evaluating the three speeches, it can then be observed that the encompassing theme is the Filipino struggle for freedom and independence from the colonizers. In the speeches of Rizal and Aguinaldo, the colonizers then were the Spaniards, while in the case of Lopez’s speech, the tyrants were the Americans. Though Rizal, Aguinaldo, and Lopez respectively have different ways of advocating their perceived most effective line of attack (Rizal preferred diplomatic revolution, Aguinaldo himself led the armed revolution, while Lopez made use of her affiliations with Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association to appeal for the liberation of her country), still it all boils down to one common purpose: to free their country from the domination of foreign forces.

Moreover, a sub-theme is also evident throughout the three speeches. Aside from the emphasis on the clamor for independence, the speakers also cited the plights experienced by majority of the Filipinos as consequences of the war. Rizal incorporated the said sub-theme through his interpretation of the artworks by Hidalgo and Luna. The following citations are reflective of the torment experienced by the Filipinos under the Spanish regime:

…One “hears” coming from the canvas of “El Expolarium” the tumult of the throng, the cry of slaves, the metallic rattle of the armor on the corpses…

…On the other hand, in Hidalgo’s work, there beats an emotion of the purest kind, ideal expression of melancholy, beauty and frailty, victims of brutal force…

On the other hand, the said sub-theme is implied in Aguinaldo’s speech. The entirety of his speech suggested a grave oppression on the part of the Filipinos, and such tyranny pushed them to war against their oppressors.

In Lopez’s speech, such sub-theme is depicted through describing and comparing the status of Filipino women with American women. Furthermore, she elaborated that the plights of Filipinas are consequences of the colonization by the Americans.

…Thousands have been widowed, orphaned, left alone and homeless, exposed and in the greatest misery. It is, then not a surprising fact that the diseases born of hunger are increasing and that today immorality prevails in the Philippines to an extent never before known.

Analysis of the Speeches

1. The Theme

The three speakers made use of different approaches in presenting the theme. Rizal, in his speech, disguised his political motives by applying metaphors as his rhetorical conventions. These metaphors aided in making the speech appear as a toast instead of a political stunt. The following passage illustrates how Rizal effectively made use of metaphors that have deeper meanings and analogies other than being mere praises for the success of Luna and Hidalgo:

I drink then to the health of our artists Luna and Hidalgo, legitimate and pure glories of two peoples! I drink to the health of the persons who have lent them a helping hand on the dolorous path of art! I drink to the health of the Filipino youth, sacred hope of my homeland, that they may imitate such precious examples…and I drink finally for the happiness of those parents who, deprived of the tenderness of their children, follow them from those distant regions with moist eyes and palpitating hearts…

In the case of Aguinaldo, the theme is explicitly said and is reflected by the brevity of the speech. The speaker’s directness also aided in emphasizing the theme. Moreover, as shown below, the speaker employed the intervention of a supernatural being that can then be seen as the deus ex machina:

I do believe that God is with us in this fight against Spain. Although our first attempt was a failure, God spared my life so that I can be with you to continue the fight. God knows that we have only one purpose: to free our country from bondage…

Lopez’s approach, on the other hand, is similar to Rizal’s as both speakers took advantage of the occasion to deliver their intended message. Also, their speeches exhibit duality in their meanings as the speeches themselves suggest underlying connotations that are political in nature. In addition, Lopez slightly twisted her approach so to fit in with the setting and occasion:

…I pray the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association to do what it can to remedy all these misery and misfortune in my unhappy country. You can do much to bring about the cessation of these horrors and cruelties which are today taking place in the Philippines…After all, you ought to understand that we are only contending for the liberty of our country just as you once fought for the same liberty for yours.

2. The Rhetorical Elements

In the speech Homage to Luna and Hidalgo, the social milieu that time greatly influenced the content of the speech. The speech was delivered at a time when the Philippines was colonized by the Spaniards, and the Filipinos themselves are divided as to what is best for the country. The Ilustrados in Spain had a different view of achieving freedom compared to the Katipuneros in the Philippines. They wanted a diplomatic change through education – that is, educating the Filipinos first for the country to stand on its own – over armed struggle for independence. This is primarily reflected in the way Rizal, an Ilustrado, conveyed his message to his fellow Ilustrados.

With regard to form and structure, Rizal applied illustrations and analogies as his rhetorical moves. It is also evident that Rizal’s language use is reflective of the kind of audience he had. The same holds true in Aguinaldo’s speech – originally delivered in Tagalog – since context-wise, it is more appropriate to use the vernacular. He also employed a brief narration and flashbacks to provide backgrounder of the setting. The brevity of the speech also shows urgency in their part since the situation that time calls for an immediate action. Moreover, Aguinaldo used his authority and credibility as their leader to impose the said urgency.

On the other hand, Lopez made use primarily of compare and contrast as a rhetorical move in presenting her message. Since the occasion encompasses different cultures, making use of comparisons and contrasts was more effective for the audience to grasp the discrepancies that the speaker wanted to express. Moreover, Lopez applied logos in presenting her arguments. She cited a passage from a document to further certify the acceptability and validity of her claims.

As regards to the topic variable of the three speeches, it can be observed that the subject matters discussed were very timely. Moreover, all speeches exhibit social responsiveness as they are reactions to the pressing societal issues that time.

Conclusion

Upon evaluating the rhetorical elements and identifying the common theme of the three speeches, it can then be concluded that all have been effective in extending its message and purpose to the audience. The effectiveness of the speeches also relies to the character of the speaker (ethos), the manner the speech was delivered, relevance of the matter discussed, and the soundness of arguments presented. It can also be concluded that setting variables greatly influence the make-up of a speech in terms of its structure and form.

Finally, speech, being a form of rhetorical communication, is a powerful tool in influencing the conviction of the audience. This holds true in the case of the speeches of Rizal, Aguinaldo, and Lopez, since the speeches triggered patriotism and nationalism that in one way or another, aided in achieving their country’s ultimate goal of freeing itself from foreign bondage.

INTRODUCTION

This paper will make use of the second inaugural address of Former President Ferdinand Marcos which was delivered December 30, 1969 at Rizal Park., Manila. The second material is the inaugural speech of Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada delivered also at Rizal Park, Manila last June 30, 1998.

This paper is subdivided into three parts: the analysis of Marcos’ speech, Estrada’s speech, and the comparing and contrasting of the speech contents and rhetorical elements applied. Generating conclusions then follows.

Looking into the second inaugural address of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, he started with a brief backgrounder by looking to a significant event in history that is very much related to the context the speech was delivered. In his opening paragraph, he said:

…On that year and hour when I first assumed the presidency, we found a government at the brink of disaster and collapse, a government that prompted fear before it inspired hope; plagued by indecision, scorned by self-doubt, its economy despoiled, its treasury plundered…

Upon presenting the situationer, the speaker then presented a counter action to such statements, and that was done through presenting the other side of it. Though at first he was mentioning of a country with political and economic plights, he ended up illustrating how the nation “kept faith” which eventually led the country to “pass that terrible cloud”. Emphasizing the role of the countrymen, he further stated that the “task of nation building never ends”, thus compelling a continuing pursuit for national development.

One very striking concept embedded in Marcos’ speech is his emphasis on discipline. It is interesting to note that the speech was delivered in December 1969 and approximately 2 ½ years after that (September 1972), Marcos declared Martial Law. His emphasis on discipline was very much apparent as he was explaining what it takes for a country to progress:

For discipline is the other face of achievement.

…In government I pledge the severest leadership in integrity as well as discipline. Public officials shall set the vision for simplicity within the bounds of civility…[emphasis added]

…We must now pledge, my countrymen, that in homage to the vision of race…a people…practicing self-discipline and self reliance without ostentation…[emphasis added]

In relation to that, the speaker also showed his perception about protests and demonstrations. His point was that protesting and blaming the plights of this nation to other people can do us no good. For the speaker, these “whiners”, as what Marcos called them, are plainly complaining things, not changing them. This is reflected in the following passages:

…Too long have we blamed on one another the ills of this nation. Too long have we wasted our opportunities by finding fault with each other, as if this would cure our ills and rectify our errors. Let us now banish recrimination.

There are too many of us who see things as they are and complain. Let us rather see things as they should be and aspire…

…Let us not just mourn them. Let us change them. [emphasis added]

Martial Law was declared more than two years after this speech with Marcos reasoning out that it was intended “to save the Republic” and “reform society”. The growing violence in the nation had come to certain magnitude that needed martial law. It was believed that the true reason why Marcos declared martial law was to perpetuate his rule over the Philippines, and the 1935 Constitution limited the term of the President to no more than eight consecutive years in office. The Constitution, however did not say how long martial law should last, only that it is left to the President’s own judgment. The following citation from the speech further shows that even in a speech delivered more than two years before the declaration, it is already reflected that Marcos is in accord with the idea of altering constitutional policies:

The next few years will lay the basis for a reformation – a revolutionary reformation of our international and domestic policies – of our political, social, legal and economic systems.

At the latter part of the speech, Marcos made use of optimism as he was emphasizing the role of the countrymen in creating a significant change in the society. He further uses the third person approach (i.e. using we) therefore involving the listeners and acknowledging their function as catalysts of national development.

In the inaugural speech of Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, on the other hand, the speaker’s use of the emotional approach can already be observed in the first part of the speech, and is then maintained as the speech progresses. At the very start of the speech, the speaker also established his image as pro-masa. He said that explicitly in the speech, and is also reflected with his prominent use of the Filipino language – the language of the common people – over the English language:

Sa wakas, mamumuno na sa ating masa ang isang kagaya nila, isang kaibigan at kapatid, isang kapwa – na alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng maging maka-masa.

Moreover, the speaker also established that in his past political career, he has done something very significant, thus making him worthy of the trust delegated to a president by the people. Before being elected as President, Ejercito Estrada served in the Senate. And as reflected in the following citation, he talked of his important contribution in fighting for democracy:

Noong huling tumindig ako dito sa Quirino Grandstand, kasama ko sina Pangulong Cory Aquino at Cardinal Sin, at napakarami ng nanindigan para sa demokrasya. Nakapiling ko rin kayo, at tayong lahat ay napabilang sa mga tunay na kaibigan ng demokrasya. Kaya papaano masasabi na ako raw ay mala-diktador? Noong huli akong tumindig doon sa lumang gusali ng Senado, labindalawa lamang kami. Ngunit labindalawa –

Labindalawa na lumalaban sa mala-higante at makapangyarihang bansa; labindalawa na lumalaban sa pamahalaang patuloy na nagpapaalila sa banyagang kapangyarihan; labindalawa na lumalaban sa public opinion.

Digging deeper into the speaker’s use of emotional approach, one can take notice of his use of victimage In Burkean Dramatism, victimage is one of the ways of purging guilt, and it is said to be applied in a speech when the speaker shows that he/she is the victim, the injured party. The following shows of the speaker showing himself as a victim of public mockery and this is to generate sympathy from the audience:

Tanong ko ngayon: mayroon pa ba kayang sinaktan at nilait nang higit pa sa akin? Mayroon pa ba kayang binastos sa peryodiko o sa radyo o sa telebisyon ng higit? Huwag na lang ako: kahit ang aking ina ay lubhang nasaktan dahil sa mga insultong ipinukol sa kanyang anak.

Ako ay tao lamang, at hindi po madaling magsabi – forgive and forget, kalimutan na lang. Ngunit kailangan kong tapusin ang yugtong ito; at sa akin ay tapos na, nasa likod na natin, at hindi na dapat pag-usapan.

Optimism is also evident in the speech. Ejercito Estrada showed all throughout the speech that there is still hope amidst all the problems the country has been facing for years. He further put emphasis on the role of the people in nation building.

It is also noteworthy that the speaker greatly employed the use of the first person approach. He lengthily used “I”, and in the following passages, he portrays a certain kind of authority and power as the President:

There will be no excuses, and there will be no exceptions. I have sent friends to jail before, and I can send them again. [emphasis added]

…Ginawa ko ang magagawa ko noong ako ang tagapangulo ng PACC. Gagawin ko ngayon ang lahat, ngayong Pangulo na ako. At walang sinumang makapipigil sa akin. [emphasis added]

Nais kong isaayos ang gulo sa ating mga lansangan…

Nais kong bigyan ng bagong lakas an gating ekonomiya…

Nais kong isipin ng bawat Pilipino, mahirap man o mayaman, na ang pinakaligtas na lugar sa buong mundo, ay ang kanyang kupang tinubuan. [emphasis added]

Moreover, the speaker also repeated his name all throughout and it further accentuated his image being a pro-masa. He is thus creating a picture that he is everybody’s friend, and a person whom the citizenry can rely on:

Kaya sa ating mga maliliit at mahihirap, narito ang pangako ni Erap: kayo nag unang makikibahagi sa mga biyaya mula sa ekonomiya, at mula sa pamahalaan…[emphasis added]

Samahan ninyo si Erap, upang bigyan natin ng kakaibang ningning ang kalayaan sa buhay ng masang Pilipino. [emphasis added]

The speech ended with the speaker leaving the audience a challenge – the challenge of national development.

Basing on the above analyses of the two speeches, we can then conclude that optimism is very typical in inaugural addresses. Since the inauguration marks off the start of their office, of course the speakers need to show confidence that they can do their job, of course with the help of the people. This inter-involvement can also be seen a factor why the speakers would generally employ the audience/listeners as part of the change they have been wanting. This thus creates a very moving and optimistic attitude.

The speeches are all reflective of the ethos – the character of the speakers. The speech of Marcos tells of the speaker as a firm and authoritative public official. It also tells of the personality of Marcos. The same holds true in the case of Ejercito Estrada. His speech shows his character and disposition, and the pro-masa image that he wanted to portray.

Though the addresses all fall in the same type of speech, it does not necessarily follow that a certain kind of pattern and structuring should be strictly followed for inaugural speeches. As reflected in the speeches used as materials in this analysis, both speakers applied different approaches. Marcos was more direct, and was generally discussing what it takes to rebuild a nation. Ejercito Estrada, on the other hand, made use of the emotional approach, and was into details rather than being general. While Marcos was into the broad discussion of changing the mindset and frame of thinking of the Filipinos, Ejercito Estrada was into the presentation of issues (eg. corruption, crimes, etc). Ejercito Estrada also reiterated his programs/projects for his term, while Marcos had done away with that. Thus, different approaches could be applied as long as the general features of an inaugural address is still evident – its optimism and enthusiasm.

This is by far the best Filipino movie that I have seen so far.

            I am a victim of circumstance. Had I not been born in this era, I don’t think I would be judged as this. “Insane”. “Crazy”. “Ridiculous”.

            I am a victim of circumstance. 19^th century Philippines – a time when the Spanish friars in the Philippines held considerable power, forming what was called a friarocracy. They conducted many functions of government even on the local level, controlled education at all levels, and were the largest landholders. Being the ruling class, they control the superstructure – the ideologies, the norms, the complex of social, legal, and political institutions that are all reflections of the type of ruling class operating in the society: the friars. Everything has to be in accordance with the Church, and the Spanish government.

            Nineteenth century Philippines – a time when faith and education seem to be two irreconcilable, contradictory notions. Dualism. And the problem with dualism is that one concept gets elevated, another concept is ‘othered’. In this case, faith and religion were seen as standard, appropriate, accepted. On the other hand, education and more importantly, knowledge, were conceived as non-orthodox, nonconformist, heretical.

            Considering the era, my exceptional intelligence was in fact a disadvantage. In a time when only a few were leaning towards the acceptance of knowledge over faith, I was labeled as ‘crazy’. My ideas were rejected by many simply because they were far too advanced for my generation. That is why I wrote my books in such a way that they won’t be deciphered by the kind of society I am in right now. My books were all aimed for the intelligent readers of the future. * I am a man ahead of my time, the same as Galileo and all the other scientists and philosophers across history who were all dubbed as ‘lunatics’ for the sole reason that their thinking was against convention.

For one, Galileo’s findings were not accepted at first. His belief that the Earth is moving was deemed heretical. Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine instructed Galileo that he must no longer hold or defend the concept that the earth moves. And since the full publication of Galileo’s trial documents in the 1870s, entire responsibility for Galileo’s condemnation has been placed on the Roman Catholic Church, linking Galileo’s science with heresy and unorthodoxy.

I am an epitome of a philosopher, and just as many other philosophers, my behavior was seen as deviation from the norms set by the society. We were not accepted by the society for our behaviors were, well, ‘uncustomary’ basing on their standards. For them, no person in the right frame of mind would abandon his riches, and then isolate himself from the society. For them, no person in the right frame of mind would challenge the Church and its teachings through the books that he got himself engrossed with.

Which leads me to the accurate definition of being ‘crazy’. One definition of mental illness is ‘a statistical deviation from behavioral norms’. This is in itself limited and inaccurate. A statistical range defines ‘normality’, and those falling out of that range are identified as ‘abnormal’. In other words, what people usually do is considered ‘normal’ and therefore, ‘healthy’. Thus, people who are called “mentally-ill” are those who break rules of social appropriateness, whatever that is, and do not act in accordance with social conventions.

But first, what is the standard for tolerated deviation? And at what point does the behavior change form ‘normal’ to a ‘deviation’?

I just wonder, why does it seem that there are many people with high academic attainment who have severe mental health problems, while many with low levels of education are somewhat free from ‘psychological problems’? Does being extremely brilliant equate to being abnormal? And in this case, does being extremely brilliant equate to being “crazy”?

If we conceptualize being crazy as a deviation from the dominant cultural standards of the society, then mental health is equated with conformity. And I refuse to accept that. In the first place, there is no reason to believe that all deviances are bad. Not all deviant behavior is, of course, mental illness; the latter is a subset of the former. The line separating the two, however, is vague and permeable.

I am a victim of circumstance. Yes, I was labeled ‘crazy’ because of what they call ‘deviation’, but my being ‘deviant’ stands for my social commentary. I represented all the other Filipinos who were dubbed as ‘insane’ because of our firm antagonism to social hypocrisy and colonial mentality.

            I’ve always been the type of person that doesn’t readily accept things around me. I could say that it is in my nature to question why things are as they are. In my quest to understand my immediate surroundings and even those that are abstract have produced a significant storage of ideas that are the basis for my beliefs and decisions.

            The existence of American bases in our soils and even perhaps in our seas and in the air has not yet struck my curiosity until I attended the forum about it. At first I thought this would be an interesting and provoking topic but at the end of the forum I found out that it was more than that. It was timely and its significance in our society and as a people is rather direct and wholly liberating.

            We as a people have lost our inherent identity a long time ago when we were colonized by three foreign powers that have left their own identities embedded in our own system. The Spaniards have left us their behavior, some of their language, culture and general beliefs. The Americans have left us their way of thinking and system of governance as well as the belief that we are a people of inferior quality. This is most manifested in our imitation of their culture and way of life.

            It is not only that we have allowed the presence of America’s military bases as a form defense since we as young nation cannot fully defend itself from outside aggression when the time comes. For almost a century the bases were present and became a part of the daily grind of Filipino life although less conspicuous in the long run. In 1992 we took the initiative and political will to abolish the presence of the said bases and it was successful. The Americans left leaving us with the hope that our dependence will altogether be gone.

            But it is not a happy ending as the cliché goes. Our decision to end the ill effects of the stay of the military bases in our country has produced another agreement forged to continue the deployment of American military power in the form exercises. At first it seemed a harmless venture of two allies even advantageous to us. But the presence of the American military forces has raised a lot more questions. Questions that no longer deal the conduct of military personnel towards us but more that that. The question now is that of keeping our sovereignty as a state.

            We have always been a state that was not too strong to exist independently, a rather discontenting fact I must admit. Our history would account for this and this is not entirely our fault. Being weak, it is but a natural course for us to seek the aid and intervention of the United States of America in our affairs.

            In the process of our indulgence of the American dream and aid we have partially if not wholly lost our sovereignty. This is of course not admitted by our leaders and they insist that the purpose of the continuous deployment of American armed forces in our country is not detrimental to our sovereign authority.

            I must admit also that in the surface, the exercises have in some way benefitted the areas to which they are deployed since it also contributes to infrastructure development, education and medical help. They have also posed a danger to the insurgents who have been consistently doing activities that are threats to our national security.

            These benefits only magnify the fact that we are indeed a weakling and we cannot handle our own problems. These benefits only show that the American government has pierced that precious thing we call sovereignty. And that they are much more important than getting our rightful place in the world. This also shows that we are merely a pawn in the effort of the USA to combat threats to its being the only superpower remaining in the world.

            While this is not an entirely bleak situation for us it is still a matter of serious consideration. We have been through a lot of revolutions and we have paid dearly for these revolutions. Part of our history is spilled with blood for the kind of freedom that we think we have now. Unfortunately, this freedom is but a propaganda advertised to us when we were still at a young and vulnerable stage as individuals and as state. This belief is forward to us in the education system, the media and our culture in general. This belief is the reason why the Americans continue to spread its tentacles to our internal affairs and at the same time made them an inescapable ally.

            We have been led to believe that we are indeed a free people but the truth of the matter is that we were never really free in the strictest sense of the word. The presence of American armed forces here is but one manifestation of their continued supervision in our governance and worse our way of life.

            How can we be truly free when our decisions have to be approved by the USA? When its wars are also fought by us? When our economy is subjected to the whims of the Americans?

            Disturbing as it may seem, the fact still remains and we are allowing its continued existence. Military power is one of the most important factors that is to be considered in the international arena. The United States of America has incorporated its armed forces in the guise of friendly exercises and humanitarian missions in our society to justify their intervention in our domestic affairs. We have let the Americans meddle in our affairs and we love them for that because of the added benefits that our country gets but at the same time not foreseeing the underlying effects of such treatment. In doing so, we have injected to the American psyche that they are indispensable to us. Maybe we should have become a colony of the USA and never granted independence, at least this way there is no room for the flourishing of a nationalistic identity and the concepts like sovereignty and independence, although this situation is rather damning for us. But we like to be damned anyway.

            It is very sad to know that majority of our people and even our leaders have embraced the Americans with open arms without even thinking twice. As a Filipino, I have never really developed that nationalism as required by me not because I choose to but because I was led to believe that we are an inferior people. Over the years I have understood the meaning of having an identity as a person and as citizen. I have chosen now to become a Filipino and I despise the American dream that has made this country a home of the copycats.

           One of the most important contributions of the development of governments in the world is the concept of the “citizen” as a legitimate entity that influences his society as well as the state. Such concept has evolved into different perspectives that are basis for the ideologies proposed by so many thinkers all throughout the history of the world as we know it. The springboard of which is the confidence that is put to the rationality of the human being.

            Despite this evolution of thought, much of the operation of states has primarily delved on the concept of power: how it is exercised, who shall exercise it, to what extent it is exercised and how people and the society work as a whole in the management of said power. This is where the Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Roseau, and John Locke etc. grounded their philosophies and ideas of the state and the society.

            Although these academic and philosophical endeavors were dominated by the western thought, it cannot also be denied that such ideas were also present in the Asian setting. It is only in the modern are that Asian studies have become an important undertaking in the field of politics, economics and sociology to name a few. And such undertakings have provided essential data on the understanding of Asian civilization as a whole.

            In fact, there is a striking difference between western development and Asian development. This is evident in the lush history of the Chinese, Indian and Japanese civilization. Although these said countries today are being influenced heavily by the western thought and ideals, remnants of the past still holds manifestation until today.

            The Philippines as an Asian country is marked not only of western foreign colonialism but also of the influences embedded in its culture by its Asian counterparts, specifically the Chinese culture. Even before the coming of the Spaniards, the Chinese have been trading with the Philippines for continuously for years. With this relationship the Philippines has also continuously adopted certain characteristics of the Chinese culture which today is still present.

            As a political science student, I was exposed to different perspectives in understanding politics, culture, the state and the society. One of such exposures the practicum training program of the Ateneo de Davao University.

            I went trough the highly technical work of running a law office. And I’ve just finished being exposed to what socio-political scientists as the work of “voluntarism” my work being in an NGO or an IGO which is the Philippine National Red Cross Davao City Chapter.

            Much like the theories I learned in the four walls of the classroom, the outside world, if not totally reflective of the theories and facts that I encountered, bears a huge semblance to the ideas fostered by the philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and historians.    

            Political participation is a major factor considered in the progress of a society or a state for that matter. This concept has been introduced to me by western thought that is largely the foundation of our educational system here in the Philippines but it not solely the west who has the monopoly of this concept. The Chinese have been toying with the concept of civil participation as part of the duty to the state or the dynasty. Having procured large numbers of population in the large provinces of ancient China, the numerous dynasties provided solutions in order for the effective operation of the dynasties themselves. One such solution offered was the establishment of a governmental bureaucracy that involves the participation of the civil society.  Participation of the citizens of the Chinese empire required immense trainings and examinations. The concept of civil service was recognized in China.

            Civil service as part of political participation in the government is very present today. The call of civil service does not only confine itself within the governmental institutions but also in the Non-governmental Organizations (NGO). But there is a difference with the kind of civil service that is being practiced in NGOs.  

            If in the government civil service comes with the promise of compensation that is not only just but also secured. There is also a promise of rising into higher ranks with more compensation and benefits. In NGOs on the other hand civil service is synonymous to voluntarism. There is no secure compensation and sometimes there is even none at all. The only compensation, but is also the best of all, is the altruistic feeling of being able to help other people and the society as a whole for the service in the name of justice and humanity which I think is the pillar of NGOs, IGOs or IHOs for that matter.

            It should not be taken into the negative the ‘volunteer’ side of the Philippine National Red Cross or the Red Cross as a whole. Even though it has left off from the conventional concept of civil service, the spirit still remains. The whole point of voluntarism is service to the people who have less in life which surmounts any other type of service.  The Red Cross being a humanitarian organization has evolved from the time it was established as being a provider of medical relief the wounded in battle. Today, it participates together with the governments of the world in providing service in any type of tragedy, natural or man-made. The Red Cross has given a different meaning to civil service that the Chinese has so openly contributed to our system of governance.

            Our system of governance also has evolved although less progressive as compared to the countries in the western hemisphere. Since our culture play an important role on the way we run things even in the business of governance, it cannot also be denied that its tentacles of influence has reached the foreign organization like the Red Cross.

            Public administration here in the Philippines isn’t a model to be imitated. In fact, as many political critics would say, it is one of the worse in the Asian region. This fact cannot be proven wrong of course if you consider the majority of the people in charge of public administration. Perhaps there are a few exceptions but these are rather rare. Much has been done on the part of the United Nations as well as the political groups within the Philippines to rectify these ugly facts, still the Filipino political culture persists its influence. Even the educational system does not provide considerable effect on the problem of the Philippines that is “Public Administration”.

            Political scientists interested in public administration study government organizations and their relation to other parts of government. Political scientists investigate how these organizations work, and try to devise methods of improving them. For example, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler’s book Reinventing Government (1992) inspired many national, state, and local governments to adopt more-competitive and less bureaucratic ways of delivering services to the public.

            Although in the Philippine context, the above statement doesn’t ring true. Our conception of public administration is plagued with red tape and impediments posed by heavy bureaucracy. Combine these with our political culture; there occurs a very serious problem.

            Our political culture which emphasizes these trademarks namely; a. Patron-clientilism, b. Palakasan system, c. Manana habit, d. Utang na loob system, e. Strong family ties and such others have contributed to the problems of public administration.

            The Red Cross, being a foreign institution but nevertheless run by Filipino employees is not spared of these indicators. In the course of my on the job training, I observed that even the Red Cross even with its highly western way of management still has problems with the culture of manana habit.

            For one thing, the employees do not arrive on time at the office and the work they do is not always done on time. But these are not as a general rule though. There are only a few instances where the habit comes into the picture and this includes us practicumees. There are also remnants of patron-clientilism in the Red Cross as well as the palakasan system but only on certain services such as the Care-giver Program of the Red Cross and the Safety services where those who are in the upper middle class are given importance. Suffice it to say that the Red Cross badly needs sufficient funds on-order for it to continue its humanitarian services. But again, this is rather an exception than a general rule.

            Still the political culture is there and it poses a problem if it is not strictly monitored which by the way is one of the habits of us Filipinos, we tolerate the little bad things and realize in the end that these little things have become a serious problem.

            It is the contention of modern political sociologists that the state is more or less a reflection of the civil society. And that the problems of the state reflect those of the problems within the civil society. This is clearly manifested in the kind of culture that we have as explained in the above paragraphs.

            One of the political sociologists that have contributed much on the understanding of governments as well as institutions in the society is Max Weber. His study on the rationalization of the government and the society are the basis of modern bureaucracy. The efficiency of governments and the institutions of society heavily depend on its bureaucratic operation in the assumption that the people running the bureaucracy are also efficient.

            Bureaucracy, personnel and administrative structure of an organization. Business, labor, religious, educational, and governmental systems depend on a large workforce arranged in a hierarchy to carry out specialized tasks based on internal rules and procedures. The term is used mostly in referring to government administration, especially regarding officials in the federal government and civil service. It is often used derogatorily to suggest waste, inefficiency, and red tape.

In a more important sense, governmental systems depend on bureaucracy, without which no modern government can function. A hindrance to development in some nations has been the lack of large-scale organizational techniques.

Whilst the previous statements are true, the effective operation of a bureaucracy corresponds to an effective rendering of services in the government. The use of bureaucracy also includes institutions that are not connected with the government as popular belief would contend. Almost all the institutions in our society make use of bureaucracy as a tool for efficiency.

The Red Cross, which is the probably one of the biggest international humanitarian organizations today, keeps itself running effectively through its bureaucracy. It is unimaginable for the Red Cross to not be in hierarchy and not be in doing things in specialized tasking. Otherwise it would crumble into pieces and be in disarray. Its bureaucratic system keeps it in order and working smoothly.

However there is a downfall to this system especially in the Philippine context. As explained in the previous paragraphs, the Filipino culture has an influence on the way institutions are being ran.

As a concrete example, I observed someone applying for the safety services training of the Red Cross for a group of students. Since the Red Cross has a bureaucratic system to follow, naturally the person applying for the service has to comply with them. Unfortunately for her, the one in charge for the applications of the said service wasn’t at the office but was instead somewhere else for no apparent reason. The applicant waited for over an hour and the lady in charge came in.

They exchanged information regarding the application and the lady informed the applicant that the service will be available to them in a week or so. It is quite a long time to wait considering that the safety services training doesn’t really need a lot of preparation since the Red Cross is fully equipped with personnel and facilities to provide such training. The only reason for the delay is the bureaucratic requirement. There are lots of employees in the office who are more than capable of processing the application but then bureaucracy says so otherwise. This is one of the reasons why it bureaucracy is not always effective. And again, this only happens in a few instances in the Red Cross.

The prevalent political culture of our country is still not that mature as compared to other developed nations but this should not be taken as reason for not to opt for change but rather an avenue for the continuing enhancement of the capacity of the processes of education to better mold the consciousness of the Filipino people. If it took the United States of America almost 300 years of democracy to do it, then maybe we really don’t need to hurry up.