Ho y Cruz

What does it profit a university to confer an honorary degree on a gambling mogul, supposedly one of the world’s richest men, who figured in the previous disgraced administration’s aborted move to raise the gambling culture and addiction of this country notches higher? Pray tell, what message does this convey to the young graduates?

To the board of trustees of the Angeles University Foundation (AUF), may I say this in Filipino—dinuraan ninyo ang mga graduates ninyo, binastos ninyo sila. You spat on them, you dishonored them. You will go down in history as the educational institution that gifted its graduates with this ultimate insult. Doctor of humanities, anyone?

Cara y cruz? One does not know which way this gambling country goes. Heads I win, tails you lose--seems to be the dictating rule in the losing battle against gambling lords and their academic fans. Ah, but every once in a while a voice rises above the din to cry, ``Wrong.’’ That is the voice of Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Pangasinan.

A few days to Holy Week and a gambling mogul (lord, king, baron, czar) from Hong Kong and an anti-gambling archbishop and canon lawyer, figure in front-page news. This was over the conferment of a university honorary degree on the gambling lord and the archbishop’s protest and return of his own honorific title.

A few days ago, AUF in Angeles City, Pampanga laid out the red carpet for the 80-ish Stanley Ho to give him a honorary doctorate degree. He came aboard his private jet that landed at the Clark Special Economic Zone. He was met by supposed presidential adviser on foreign investments Dan Roleda who supposedly came aboard a government helicopter. Inquirer Northern Luzon Bureau’s Tonette Orejas took the photo of that airport meeting. Never heard of Roleda, Malacanang quickly reacted, suggesting that the man in the photo might not be Roleda.

But Roleda or no Roleda, the fact is, this Ho is now the toast of a Pampanga academic community.

Three years ago, Ho floated in with his phantasmagoric casino-restaurant into Manila Bay and into the Estrada administration. The casino never got to operate, thanks to the protests, but it remained docked near the Cultural Center complex for a long time (I think it’s still there) perhaps waiting for the right wind to blow.

The suggestion that Ho might have added to the campaign chests of politicians is certainly an issue but that has yet to be proven. But what AUF did say was that Ho was ``involved in other philanthropic, civic and service-oriented undertakings.’’

Jesus H. Christ, this country is teeming with unsung and unrecognized individuals who selflessly work for this woebegone country, and AUF had to look to other shores for a casino king for an honoree?

What indeed are those ``philanthropic, civic and service-oriented undertakings’’ of Ho that earned him the unanimous approval of the AUF board? Note unanimous. Note too that the current chair of the AUF board is Pampanga Archbishop Paciano Aniceto. One of the trustees is Diosdado Macapagal Jr., the President’s brother.

Arhcbishop Cruz, Aniceto’s predecessor and himself an AUF honorary degree recipient, sent back his citation in protest. He was not questioning AUF’s honoring Ho, he said, he just did not want to belong to the same league. Cruz, former head of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines now heads the bishops’ anti-gambling campaign.

If I were Cruz, so as not to be labeled pharisaical, I would have said it the other way around. Like, ``I can’t do anything about the fact that AUF put me and Ho in the same company, but I do protest that AUF would honor him in front of thousands of young graduates.’’

I don’t think Cruz is being pharisaical. You know that parable about the pharisee and the publican where the pharisee deems himself clean and sinless before God and looks down on the sinners. Now be careful about turning around that parable to coddle evil doers and to mock those who uphold what is right. Jesus dined with sinners, yes, but he did not tell them, yeah, you’re cool. He had a scathing mouthful for the incorrigible, like ``brood of vipers’’ and ``whitened sepulchers’’.

I note with frustration how people who do immense good sometimes don’t want to be recognized or talk about what they’ve accomplished. Is that false humility or what? Afraid they might be called mayabang? And so the corrupt strut about smelling like roses, shout on the house tops and advertise what they have accomplished through their illegally-earned money. Foundations here, foundations there.

Last January when I interviewed former Pres. Cory Aquino for a feature piece, she brought up the need for more stories about the good people who are doing their part out there to serve their fellow Filipinos. I couldn’t agree more. As a journalist, I would admit that I have a nose for the rotten, and that’s fine, but I also do have an eye for little shining spots and the hidden glow of heroism.

Right now I know of three book projects that aim to provide more inspiring real-life stories for the young and the not so young, stories about the great deeds of Filipinos and other Asians. Yes, I am doing my bit for those projects, and yes, this eats into my weekends.

A theology professor was shocked to find out how her students (mostly religious) knew so little about the events of two, three decades ago and the heroism of some of the best and the brightest who fell in the night or risked their lives so that others may live. ``Many of them have no clue,’’ she gasped.

Don’t serve them Ho. Ho who?

More rice with SRI

One unforgettable one-liner that I heard a long time ago from farmers and which made me laugh was: ``Hindi na kami magsasaka, magsasako na.’’ (We’re no longer rice farmers, we’re now rice sack dealers.) That’s one pun that gets totally lost in translation because the punch rests on one vowel of a Filipino word. Forget it if you don’t understand Filipino.

The letter O of magsasako might as well be a fat zero, meaning empty. Empty sacks. Where have all the palay gone?

There are a myriad reasons for troubled rice yields, rice shortages and vanishing rice varieties. One could blame wanton land conversion, chemical poisoning of the soil, wrong government agricultural priorities, overpopulation, environmental destruction and multinationals who play god. Name it.

But there’s hope for the palay. There is hope in SRI or system of rice intensification. Its Filipino practitioners have coined a Filipino name for it—Sipag-Palay or ``ang sistema ng pagpapalago ng palay.’’

Well-known SRI proponent Norman T. Uphoff, director of Cornell International Institute for Food Agriculture and Development, was here last week to speak and listen to SRI farmers. Uphoff, who had been here several times before, was the speaker at the Third National SRI Conference organized by the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, the Philippine Greens, Pabinhi, Broad Initiatives for Negros Development and SRI-Pilipinas.

SRI, I learned, had its beginnings in Madagascar in the 1980s. Jesuit Father Henri de Laulanie who lived among farmers there for three decades helped develop a way to increase rice yield from 50 cavans per hectare to 144 cavans per hectare. In some cases, the yield even reached as high as 200 to 300 cavans. This was possible even in soil that was not fertile and without using modern rice varieties and chemical fertilizers, and even with very little water.



Straight out of a biblical parable? No, it’s straight out of Madagascar and now several countries in Africa and Asia including the Philippines.

SRI practices were first tested outside Madagascar in 1999 at Nanjing University in China and later by the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development in Indonesia.

Let me share some info on SRI that I’ve read and learned.

SRI is a system, not a technology, because it is not set or fixed. It has to be tested and adapted to particular conditions. If practiced skillfully, it is possible to increase rice produce by 50 to 100 percent, and in cases where initial production level is low, the increase could go as high as 200 to 300 percent.

The objective of SRI is not to maximize rice yield but rather to achieve ``higher productivity’’ from the factors of production, namely, land, labor, capital and water. Increased productivity should benefit farmers and consumers, the poorer ones especially, while practices remain environmentally friendly and sustainable. Yields vary depending on skill and the soil biota and other conditions.

The principles underlying SRI, it is to be stressed, are more important than the practices themselves. The practices that follow from these principles differ dramatically from age-old practices.

The principles: Rice is not an aquatic plant. (It does not really thrive best in a watery setting.) Rice seedlings lose much of their growth if transplanted more than 15 days after they have emerged from the nursery. During transplanting, avoid trauma especially to the roots. Wider spacing will result in greater root growth. Soil aeration and organic matter create beneficial conditions for root growth.

The practices: Transplant seedlings when they are eight to 12 days old, when the plants have only two small leaves and the seed sacs are still attached to the roots. Transplant quickly and carefully, allowing only 15 to 30 minutes between uprooting from the nursery to planting in the field. Plant wide apart, with one seedling per hill, or two plants per hill in poor soil. Plant in a square pattern to facilitate weeding. Keep the soil well drained. Do early and frequent weeding. Add nutrients to the soil, preferably organic from compost or mulch.

One thing I learned from listening to all that, which I could apply to my own garden: Do not feed the plants, feed the soil that feeds the plants.

Known local SRI guru and practitioner Rene Jaranilla of Pabinhi shared his SRI experience in Guimaras. Practitioners of conventional agriculture dismiss SRI as too good to be true, he said. To prove his point, he gave a video presentation of the results of SRI practices. One of his examples was the sturdy rice variety that grew as high as six feet.

The first years of SRI are not easy. Transplanting very young seedlings could be tedious. Jaranilla showed ways how this could be made easier, like making seedlings grow in old wash basins that are easy to carry to the field. It is more labor intensive at first, but as farmers develop the skills, the third or fourth year could be a breeze.

For the late Fr. De Laulanie, SRI was a strategy not just for increasing rice production, but also for human resource development. Farmers who have experienced the benefits of SRI are urged to be more involved in their own development. They are encouraged to continue experimenting with spacing, water applications, weeding, etc. and discover what works best for them.

If you want to know more about SRI or Sipag-Palay, try contacting Vic Tagupa (0916-5104462) of Xavier University College of Agriculture or Noe Ysulat (0919-4068084) of Da-ati Kabacan who has produced more than 200 cavans per hectare. Or access http://www.cifad.cornell.edu/sri or contact ciifad@cornell.edu.

`Thief and dictator’

So sue me. I’ve been using the words dictator and tyrant for as long as I can remember.

``Mrs. Marcos wants the Department of Justice (DOJ) to rule that Ferdinand Marcos is not a dictator. She wants the (DOJ) to rule that Ferdinand Marcos is not a thief. Since Mrs. Marcos cannot change history, she wants the (DOJ) to do it for her.’’

This is want Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) commissioner Ruben Carranza, through his lawyers from Arroyo Chua Caedo Law Office, said in his scathing counter-affidavit after Imelda Marcos filed a libel suit against him and several journalists from a newspaper that published his statements.

Well, the DOJ did precisely that, Carranza’s lawyer William Chua said, when the DOJ through the Makati prosecutor’s office, charged Carranza et al with libel. An arrest order is to be expected, Chua added.

Last Sunday we came out with a news story on how calling deposed former president Ferdinand Marcos ``a thief and a dictator’’ could get you in trouble. The present government could charge you in court and have you arrested.

Party list representative Crispin Beltran promptly sent his reaction saying: ``Who’s afraid of libel and the Marcoses? Marcos was a thief, a dictator and a traitor to the Filipino people.’’

Beltran is saying, ``Try me.’’ So he goes: ``Thief, dictator, butcher of civilians, traitor to the Filipino people. If I had a wider and bigger vocabulary, I would be able to describe the late dictator Fedinand E. Marcos in more ways.



Beltran, a former political prisoner and labor leader, said the courts cannot go against Philippine history and deny the reasons why Marcos continues to be denounced as ``a plunderer and a dictator.’’ Eighteen years after his overthrow, Marcos victims are still waiting for justice, Beltran’s statement said. During commemorations for victims, the crimes of Marcos, his cronies, henchmen and heirs are constantly recalled and denounced, he added.

``We didn’t fear Marcos when he was still alive, we risked life and limb, why on earth should we be afraid of being sued for libel?

``Marcos cronies and his heirs including the incorrigible and shameless Imelda have yet to get their comeuppance. It’s appalling and outrageous that Imelda remains free to peddle her lies and illusions about her husband when together they plundered this country (and) all but destroyed the civil and human rights of the Filipino.

``Marcos was a thief, a butcher and a dictator, and no court in the land has the right to sanction or punish anyone who believes this and declares it publicly.’’

Makati Assistant City Prosecutor Carlos M. Flores, with the approval of city prosecutors Imelda Saulog and Feliciano Aspi, has filed libel charges against Carranza, Today editors Lourdes Molina-Fernandez and Dionisio Pelayo and reporter Estrella Torres.

Today publisher Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. who was originally included in the complaint filed by Marcos widow Imelda R. Marcos was not included in the resolution. Locsin is a Makati congressman. It’s the small fry who will fry, as far as the prosecutor is concerned. Recommended bail for each respondent is P10,000.

In an Aug. 26, 2003 article ``Marcoses hire Swiss lawyer to delay transfer of funds’’, Torres quoted Carranza as saying: ``You have a thief and a dictator, and here comes a lawyer (Foetish) saying they (referring to the Marcoses) have nothing to do with the Swiss money.’’

Wrote Torres: ``Swiss federal authorities have confirmed the existence of more substantial accounts of the estate of the late dictator Marcos besides the recovered US$683-million Swiss escrow funds now at the Philippine National Bank.’’

Said the imeldific in her complaint: ``The statements are very damaging to my husband’s memory… (it has) generated unjust contempt for my husband and my family, and has clearly blackened the memory of my late husband.’’

Prosecutor Flores upheld Mrs. Marcos’ complaint when he said ``Complainant, however, has correctly pointed out that the said respondent failed to present any evidence that Marcos was ever convicted as a thief and his innocence of the said charge stands until proven guilty in a court of law. Without such conviction, any reference to the late president as a thief may be considered malicious and therefore libelous.’’

Flores added that ``malice on the part of the journalists respondents is likewise presumed when they published the false statement of respondent Carranza.’’

But Carranza argued: ``The existence of the Marcos dictatorship is a matter of fact.’’ Therefore, references to Marcos as a thief and a dictator is not libelous.

Carranza added fuel by saying: ``The thievery that accompanied the imposition of martial is a matter of history. In fact, the enormity of the plunder landed Ferdinand Marcos in the pages of the Guinness Book of World Records as history’s greatest thief. Former senate president Jovito Salonga estimates the Marcos loot at around US$5 billion to US$10 billion. The PCGG itself has recovered some P25.534 billion from the sale of sequestered real property and shares…The government is still awaiting the privatization of another P30 billion or so of looted wealth.’’

Carranza stressed that the government that succeeded the Marcos regime was installed on the premise that Marcos ``stole the ballots intended for Corazon C. Aquino. Marcos not only looted the national treasury, he also stole the elections. That makes him a thief twice over….Various government bodies…acted on the postulate that the regime that Marcos imposed on the Philippines had been dictatorial and dishonest.’’

‘Kinse anyos’

Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos? Have you tasted a 15-year-old?

Whoever crafted, produced and approved that ad for Distilleria Limtuaco’s Tanduay Rum cannot come clean and feign ignorance of the question’s double entendre. What’s in a question? Plenty.

The huge, unsightly and offensive Tanduay billboards asking that question have been taken down, or so we think, but the bad taste remains. Now the rum manufacturer is questioning the Ad Board’s authority to call for the bad ad’s removal from the face of the earth. But that is another story.

The bad story is: why that ad, for whom that ad? It was meant to titillate, to arouse the yearning for the 15-year-old liquid. And while at it, might as well intensify the thirst for two-legged 15-year-olds. Or it could be the other way around. Think of 15-year-old waifs, think Tanduay.

So the question suggests: if you have not tasted a kinse anyos, go taste one. Or if you have, and liked it, go and have more. The ad shows a bottle, which is easy to get from a convenience store. But where would one get the one which is not shown, the one which is not in a bottle?

The recent outcry over the gigantic billboards that now dominate the Philippine landscape has not been addressed. Or has it? Have you seen iron structures that hold billboards being dismantled? In fact there are more of them now waiting to be draped. It seems anyone who has a patch of earth or a rooftop can now offer his property to the billboard industry for extra income.

The issue was about unsightliness and defacing the horizon. Add danger because these iron structures get toppled during typhoon season. Now comes bad taste bordering on arousal of lust for children.

Before this outcry against Tanduay there was this huge billboard near the foot of the Nagtahan Bridge that was just as offensive, if not even more offensive. I saw it every time I came from the Inquirer in Makati and headed for home via the Nagtahan route toward Espana. It showed a young girl, about 15 or 16 perhaps, in a reclining position and with her legs sufficiently spread out. She had these big, pleading eyes looking up, and she had the fly of her jeans unzipped and wide open to show her skimpy panty and most of her pubic area. Lee™, it said. They sell jeans this way?

It was there for many months until Christmas and I kept wondering whether Manila mayor and Pro-lifer Lito Atienza ever saw it or whether the President did, every time she came from Malacanang and was headed north. It was so huge you couldn’t miss it if you were driving.

Billboards used to be made of galvanized iron sheets that were hand painted. Now billboards are made of plastic canvas that come out of giant printer machines. I once saw a team of workers preparing to hoist up a billboard ad. The canvas practically covered a whole street.

This reminded me of the artist (I think his name is spelled Kristo) who covered entire buildings and structures with canvas and then had them photographed. He certainly altered and mummified entire landscapes even if only for the duration of his outdoor exhibition. During the process he was making a statement while whole cities watched in awe and puzzlement.

Our advertising and billboard industries leave nothing for the imagination.

Speaking of kinse anyos, years ago I had to do a magazine story on a study done by psychiatrists on six- to 14-year-old street children who had been sexually used and abused. What were the children’s perceptions of their experiences?

I dug up the old article and found it still applicable in today’s context where lusting for children is part of the macho torture culture as evidenced by dead little girls found rotting in sacks or with bashed skulls and mutilated genitalia. Drugs often have something to do with these heinous crimes. And most likely, rum too. And bad advertising..

The so-called children of the streets (where, may I stress, all these deadly billboard ads could be seen) have a language all their own. Their vocabulary and conversations are not quite like what one heard if one grew up chasing dragonflies with well-scrubbed kids who smelled of soap in the morning.

``Malaki kasi laging nilalaro, (They’re big because they were always being fondled)’’ said a little girl of her friend, a fellow ten-year-old, whose breasts were bigger than what pre-teeners had. The declaration sounded almost too casual. These were little girls exchanging notes on adult things.

``Malaki kasi…’’ was not foul language, it was one mean declaration that one knew ``what it’s all about.’’ Like being forced to drink urine or being beaten up during sexual play, or learning new words describing what it’s all about. Like dyug-dyug.

In the study, the psychiatrists classified the children’s reaction to the sexual abuse. Some children were able to make an integration of the event, meaning they have overcome the anxiety, they neither avoided nor encouraged discussion but were able to talk about the experience fairly objectively.

Others avoided the topic, sealing off their anxiety either consciously or unconsciously. They denied the happening and avoided discussion. There was depression and self-destruction. Some children suffered continuous repetitions of these symptoms. Still others identified with their exploiters by impersonating them, a way for them to deal with their anxiety.

It is all very complex. Go to a shelter for sexually abused children and you’d get some idea where the culture of lust and abuse is coming from.

Consumers should scrutinize their brands. By their ads you shall know them.

Passenger 51

I shudder as I imagine Passenger 51 moments before the ill-fated SuperFerry 14 caught fire last week off the coast of Bataan. Did he or didn’t he?

With unconcealed delight, Abu Sayyaf chief Khadaffy Janjalani announced a few days ago that his terror group, with the special participation of Passenger 51, had caused the tragedy that killed and injured more than a hundred people and left countless traumatized and bereaved. The ship, carrying 879 passengers and crew, had just left Manila on the night of Feb. 26 and was cruising Manila Bay when tragedy struck. Among the 134 still mysteriously missing are scores of high school students who had just attended a national conference in Laguna and were returning to Mindanao. The ship, though keeled to the side, did not go down. Yet only one dead body has so far been found.

Passenger 51, bearer of ticket number 24633972, was to be credited for this latest sea mishap, Janjalani crowed, and he could prove it. Passenger 51 was their own, and he had fulfilled his duty. Government investigators were quick to pooh-pooh this owning up, insisting that there was no proof of an explosion. The disaster was an accident or it could have been human error that brought that about. Any prankster could claim authorship and ride on the tragedy as a ticket to infamy.

But Janjalani waved the smoking gun. Passenger 51, the suicide bomber, Janjalani said, was Arnulfo Alvarado whose real name was Abu Muadz, a native of Pata Island in Sulu. The Abu Sayyaf chief continued to give details of those moments before Passenger 51 sealed the fate of scores of innocents including his own. Oh, but might he still be alive?

At first only Abu Sayyaf spokesman Abu Soliman made the announcement. Was he for real? ``We did it!’’ the Inquirer quoted him as saying. Sure, the claim could have come from the terrorists, Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo said, but only as an afterthought.



Then Janjalani emerged to bolster the claim by confirming the participation of Passenger 51 himself. Yes, he said, they plotted it, knew the details of it. And now they are reveling in it even as hundreds of families weep for the missing and the dead.

The ship owners had confirmed last year that they had received threats from the Abu Sayyaf. Janjalani said their warning letters had something to do with ``the use of our seas, taxes.’’

And so it was that Passenger 51 had to take on the task of making the threat good, for whatever purpose it may serve now. Janjalani even described the physical set up inside SuperFerry 14--from the escalator, to the deck, to the Blue Room where Passenger 51 was supposed to have placed the explosive. The two spoke to each other by cell phone. ``I’m embracing it,’’ Passenger 51 said to him, probably referring to the bomb. He was ready to go, he added. To go to heaven as a martyr.

Passenger 51, Janjalani boasted, had gone through a rigorous ``spiritual course’’ called the Amaliya Istishhadiya meant for a few volunteers seeking martyrdom.

The Abu Sayyaf claim about Passenger 51 may be true or it may all be a boast. But claiming something that has brought anguish and trauma to hundreds of innocent individuals and families, even if it was not actually the claimants’ handiwork, is almost tantamount to having done it themselves. The gleeful admission, the triumphant announcement are blood-curdling. How can one punish the innocent and claim reward in heaven?

I wish self-respecting Muslims would raise their voices to denounce the use of Islamic jargon in the terrorists’ justification of this latest attack on human beings. Do they also believe that this kind of ``martyrdom’’ is a sure way to heaven? No, I don’t think so.

The Feb. 23 issue of Newsweek carries Joanna Chen’s interview with Thauria Hamur, a 26-year-old Palestinian woman who was supposed to carry out a suicide bombing mission in Jerusalem in May 2002. Hamur was captured by Israeli forces shortly before she was going to set off the explosion. She is now in prison, serving out a six-year sentence.

When asked to pinpoint the moment she decided to volunteer for the mission, Hamur said she could give many examples of the killing of Palestinian children. Her own cousin, she said, was killed by Israeli soldiers.

Men are promised they’ll become martyrs in paradise, so what was Hamur, promised? Chen asked. Hamur answered: ``According to the Qur’an, God promised the martyrs a reward of 70 virgins, and those who die a martyr’s death will be kept alive and sustained by God. Women martyrs are promised they will become the purest and most beautiful form of angel at the highest level possible in heaven.’’

The training to explode the backpack took only half an hour, Hamur disclosed. There was a button she was supposed to push when she got into a crowded place. ``It was a pizza restaurant…I decided to go and blow myself up in the evening hours, when people were going back home from work and there would be a big crowd of people around the target area.’’

But then Hamur was captured. But she isn’t sorry. She would do it again, if she could. ``I don’t have anything against Israeli children, but I know that there is a possibility that this Israeli child will grow up and come to kill my son or my neighbor’s son. Therefore, I think he should be dead now.’’

The vicious cycle of hate, revenge and violence continues.

*****

Bantayog ng mga Bayani, QC. Every last Saturday of the month, in the afternoon, families and friends of martyrs and heroes listed on the Wall of Remembrance who died or were born in the current month, are invited to gather, light candles, offer flowers and exchange memories in an atmosphere of peace and joy. Call 4361769 for details.