Presidential candidates link arms after debate. (Photo by Danny Arao)

The presidential campaign officially starts today (February 9) and the debate organized yesterday morning (February 8) is supposed to give the Filipino electorate an idea of where the presidential candidates stand on pressing issues of the day.

Notwithstanding the usual rhetoric of good governance under their watch, it is good to know that the eight candidates have some specific goals if elected into the highest office of the land.

1. Sen. Noynoy Aquino, for example, is in favor of adding two more years in basic education to improve the quality of education in the country.
2. Olongapo City Councilor JC delos Reyes is generally against foreign ownership of land but wants to explore the possibility of “limited ownership” of land for foreigners.
3. Sen. Richard Gordon is in favor of increasing the salary of teachers to PhP40,000 (US$857.26) monthly and he wants to raise the necessary funds by imposing a tax on texting (i.e., SMS or short message system).
4. Sen. Jamby Madrigal, for her part, wants to limit the advertising of junk food and milk products for babies 0 to 2 years old and impose a tax on softdrinks.
5. Environmentalist Nick Perlas wants to set up an Office of Civil Society Affairs so that “civil society” would be integrated into the government.
6. Former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro believes that opening up the economy is a guarantee that it will not be controlled by a few.
7. Evangelist Eddie Villanueva wants to study the possibility of repealing Presidential Decree No. 1177, an old law that provides for automatic appropriation for debt payment in the national budget.
8. Sen. Manny Villar, on the other hand, sees the need to confront deficit spending.

The ninth candidate, former President Joseph Estrada, did not attend the debate, claiming that the leading newspaper that organized the event is biased against him.

The dearth of specific courses of action, however, is very evident as the eight candidates ended up giving general statements when asked about what they would do to effect meaningful change in the country. The debate focused on their unified stand against corruption and the need to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, all of them made a promise not to steal from the government coffers and argued that eradicating corruption could help provide more funds to basic services like health and education.

The empty – and at times questionable – rhetoric proves to be the order of the day as all candidates tried to sell themselves to a broader electorate. Consciously or unconsciously, they made promises that are either impossible to fulfill or hard to define.

1. Villanueva, for example, promises “absolute press freedom” if elected President even if existing theories in communication in journalism clearly defy this point.
2. Teodoro is in favor of consulting with indigenous peoples for whatever “extraction activities” will be done in their ancestral domains, unmindful of the fact that indigenous peoples through the years have been against the wanton exploitation of their land.
3. Villar wants to “let the people decide” on the issue of foreign ownership of land, without giving any specific steps on how this could be done and whether or not a healthy debate would happen on the issue if he becomes President.
4. Gordon claims that Filipinos should “make themselves look good” to foreign investors to attain development, which leads one to ask the role of local industries in his concept of national development.
5. Perlas is not against mining per se, but he wants to change the mining law so that there would be “equitable distribution of income,” a big departure from the stand of anti-mining activists and environmentalists like him who had called on government to repeal the Mining Act.

Debates are supposed to be venues to test the mettle of the candidates, but their arguments are still neither here nor there based on the quality of the answers they had provided. To be fair to the candidates, the limited time prevented them from fully explaining their stand on issues. In addition, the questions are, for the most part, both broad and person-specific, preventing candidates from giving answers to common questions for better comparison of where they stand.

If the recent debate were any indication, the candidates’ arguments are currently neither here nor there. The presidential campaign in the coming weeks should help clarify their stand on issues. Is it possible for the campaign to be elevated to a higher level of discourse? Would presidential candidates be willing to stick to the issues in their political ads? Would it be possible for them to refrain from muckraking?

As the candidates prepare to answer yes to all of these questions (as they are expected to do so), the Filipino voters should then ask themselves what they would do to the candidates who break their promise to wage an intelligent campaign. Empty rhetoric, after all, should never be tolerated.

DAEJEON, Timog Korea – Mabagal ang oras para sa naghihintay. Mabilis ang pagtakbo ng minuto para sa taong may sanlaksang trabaho. Paano na lang kung ikaw ay katulad kong inaantabayanan ang nakatakdang pag-alis habang nakatali sa napakaraming gawaing kailangang matapos?

Sadyang kay bilis ng panahon! Ang Marsong nagdaan ay tila ilang taon na sa aking pamantayan, lalo na’t kung iisipin ang paghihirap na dinaanan ko sa pagpunta sa Korea. Ano bang mararamdamam mo kung mapadpad ka sa isang lugar na hindi naiintindihan ang wikang kinagisnan (Filipino) at natutuhan (Ingles)? Alam mo rin ba ang epekto ng lamig ng panahong bago sa iyong katawan sa panahon ng pag-iisa’t pag-aalala?

Mula Marso na siyang simula ng aking pagtatrabaho rito bilang visiting professor, binilang ko ang mga araw na nagdaan at minarkahan ko sa aking kalendaryo ang mga nakatakdang pagbisita ni Joy sa Korea, pati na ang aking mga pansamantalang pagpunta sa Pilipinas. Aba, pati ang ilang araw na pagpunta sa Indonesia para magbigay ng pananalita ay nagsilbing oportunidad para makapiling ang mahal na asawa.

Talagang hindi mapakali sa pagbibilang ng mga sandali! Pero kung dumating naman ang unang araw ng pagkikita ay tila nakikipagkarera ang mga segundo para sa mabilis na pagsapit ng gabi. Bawat araw na nagdaan ay kabawasan sa kabuuan. Hindi man ito nasayang dahil sa kasiyahang naramdaman, indikasyon pa rin ito ng katapusang may hatid na kalungkutan.

Ang 17 araw na pagbisita ni Joy nito lang Nobyembre, halimbawa, ay tila 17 oras lang sa aming alaala. Marami man kaming napuntahan at magkasamang ginawa sa muling pagkikita, may panghihinayang pa rin sa bawat araw na nabawas dahil papalapit nang papalapit ang kanyang paglisan.

At ngayong nakatakda na akong umalis sa dayuhang bansang dalawang semestreng pinagsilbihan, kapansin-pansin ang mabagal na pagtakbo ng mga minuto’t segundo tuwing iniisip ang eksaktong oras ng paglipad ng eroplanong maghahatid sa akin sa Pilipinas. Ang dapat ay maliliit na bagay na may kaugnayan sa pag-iimpake ay nagiging malaking isyu para sa akin na nagdudulot ng walang-batayang pagkainis sa hindi-mawaring konteksto.

Ang simpleng pagpili ng tatak at kulay ng packing tape ay kinailangan ko pang pag-isipan nang malalim samantalang hindi naman nagkakalayo sa presyo ang mga ito, at alam nating lahat na hindi pangunahing usapin ang kulay. Ang simpleng pagbabago sa takdang araw ng pagkuha ng jumbo box na ipapadala ko sa Pilipinas, halimbawa, ay naging dahilan ng walang-batayang pagkainis at pagkasira ng araw ko noong Biyernes. Sa totoo lang, hindi naman ako dapat mag-alala dahil kukunin din naman ito!

Kung sabagay, normal lang naman ang aking hindi-mapakaling aktitud. Sa loob lamang ng ilang araw ay iiwanan ko na ang Korea. Ramdam na ramdam ko na ang ligayang hatid ng muli naming pagkikita ni Joy, ng muli kong pagpasok sa luma kong opisina sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP), ng muli kong pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga kapwa guro’t peryodista.

Pero may komplikasyong hatid ang aking pagkabaon sa maraming gawain, na kung tatanungin ang sinumang nakakakilala sa akin ay tila bahagi na ng aking propesyunal na buhay. Dahil tapos na ang fall semester dito sa Linton Global College ng Hannam University (HNU-LGC), abala ako ngayon sa pagkokompyut ng mga grado. Kung sa UP ay komportable akong magbasa ng mahahabang papel sa wikang Ingles man o Filipino, mas mahabang panahon ang kailangang gugulin sa pagsusuri sa mga isinumiteng papel ng mga estudyante ng HNU na karamihan ay hindi pa matatas sa wikang Ingles, ang midyum ng pagtuturo sa LGC.

Bukod sa ibang sistema ng pagbibigay ng grado (ang pinakamataas na marka sa UP ay 1.0 samantalang sa HNU ay 4.5 o A+), iba rin ang kultura ng mga Koreano’t ilang dayuhan pagdating sa mga grado nila. Madalas ang kanilang pagrereklamo kung bakit mababa ang kanilang nakuha at kailangan mong bigyan ng kaukulang panahon ang lahat ng kanilang katanungan hanggang makumbinsi silang tama ang ginawa mo.

Hindi ako naiirita sa ganitong gawi ng maraming Koreano’t iba pang dayuhang estudyante ko. Sa katunayan pa nga’y natutuwa ako dahil binibigyang halaga nila ang kanilang pang-akademikong katayuan. Marami sa kanila ay may mga scholarship na kung saan kailangan nilang masigurong mapapanatili nila ang mataas na grade point average (GPA).

Sa aking palagay, wala sa bokabularyo ng mga Koreano ang sumipsip sa kanilang mga propesor para lang makakuha ng mataas na grado. Kung ayaw nila sa iyo, hindi ka nila papansinin. Pero kung gusto ka nila, handa nilang ipahayag ang kanilang nararamdaman.

Sadyang nakakataba ng puso ang mga iniwang mensahe ng mga estudyante ko sa huling semestre ko ng pagtuturo sa HNU. Halimbawa, may isa akong estudyanteng takot na magbigay ng mga sanaysay na kailangan niyang isulat dahil mahina siya sa wikang Ingles. Pinilit ko pa rin siyang magbigay ng mga kinakailangang papel, pero binigyan ko pa rin siya ng mababang marka dahil sa kalidad ng kanyang mga isinumite.

Sa halip na sumama ang kanyang loob, tinanggap niya ang kanyang grado’t nagpadala pa siya ng email sa akin. Ito ang sipi ng aktuwal na mensahe niya: “I will remember your advices that i am normal  being afraid of writing. and i will never forget even i couln’t see you again. Thank you for being my professor for last semester. I learn many things from your class. I hope you had special remembrance in Korea as well. In the future, i will see you with professional English ability.”

Puro mensahe rin ng pasasalamat ang nakuha ko sa marami pang iba: “i will miss you and i hope to say goodbye.” “You are so passionate and professional professor. I wish all the faculties were like you.” “thank you for everything and take care in the philippines.” “I’m appreciating for your teaching for 1 year.” “I learned many things. I think you are great professor.”

Ang mga ganitong klaseng pasasalamat ay nagpapaalala sa akin kung bakit nagustuhan ko na rin ang pagtuturo katulad ng pagmamahal ko sa peryodismo. Kung noon ay tiningnan ko lang ang pagiging propesor bilang pinansiyal na suporta sa aking peryodismo, ngayon ay pantay na ang pagpapahalaga ko sa dalawang propesyon.

May sinabi noon si Confucius na isinalin sa wikang Ingles: “Find a job you love and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Sa aking opinyon, hindi akma sa akin ang kasabihang ito dahil hindi ko tinitingnan ang peryodismo’t pagtuturo bilang trabahong magbibigay ng personal na kasikatan, pag-abanteng propesyunal o benepisyong pinansiyal. Para sa akin, ang epektibong paggampan ng mga ito ay maliit na kontribusyon ko sa pagkilos para sa pagbabago.

Sa madaling salita, ang aking nahanap ay hindi dalawang trabaho (sa propesyunal na pamantayan) kundi makabuluhang pagkilos. Ang peryodismo’t pagtuturo ay serbisyo sa nakararaming mamamayan, lalo na ang kabataan. Kahit kailan ay hindi usapin ang perang makukuha mula sa mga gawaing ito, dahil pangunahing salik sa mga ito ang makapagbigay ng kaalaman.

Kuha ni Joy Balean-Arao noong Marso 2009.

Sa kontekstong ito dapat maintindihan ng lahat ang desisyon kong huwag nang mag-renew ng aking kontrata sa Korea, kahit na may alok ng mas matagal na pananatili sa maunlad na bansang ito. Nariyan man ang tukso ng permanenteng pag-alis sa Pilipinas dahil sa sanlaksang problemang kinakaharap nito, ang mismong mga problemang ito ay nagtutulak sa akin para bumalik. Wala man akong susing papel sa kilusan para sa pagbabago, nais ko pa ring tumulong kahit sa pamamagitan lang ng pagtataguyod ng makabuluhang peryodismo’t pagtuturo.

Pero higit pang mahalaga ang pangangailangang makapiling si Joy, dahil ang pansamantalang paghihiwalay ay hindi maganda para sa relasyon ng mag-asawa. Hindi pa rin mapapalitan ng ilang oras na pag-uusap sa Skype ang personal na pagkikita’t pagyakap sa minamahal sa pagtatapos ng araw.

Sa panahong tulad nito, sadyang mahirap gampanan ang maraming gawain dahil patuloy ang paglalakbay ng aking isip. Kapansin-pansin ang kontradiksiyon sa ilang araw na nalalabi bago ang aking takdang pag-alis.

Nararamdaman ko kasi ang mabilis na pagtakbo ng oras sa pagsusulat ng mga artikulo, pagkokompyut ng mga grado at iba pang mahahalagang gawain. Pero sa kabilang banda, lalo na sa panahon ng pag-iisa, nariyan ang mabagal na pagsapit ng takdang oras na siyang hudyat ng aking pagdadala ng matagal nang nakaimpakeng maleta.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

Today you celebrate your 41st birthday. It’s unfortunate that we’re thousands of kilometers apart so we cannot be together to enjoy your very special day.

Since two weeks ago, I have thought long and hard about my gifts. Finally, I decided to give you two things that come not from my bank account and wallet but from my heart and mind. Just like me, I know that you prefer the inherently priceless over the atrociously expensive.

But before I tell you what my two gifts are, a short explanation is in order: My preoccupation with so many concerns sometimes leads you to think that I do not listen to you, and that I only pretend to do so as my mind wanders off to “more important things” even if I’m with you.

Well, I should clarify a couple of things right now. First, I do listen to every word you say. Second, nothing is more important than nurturing the relationship we have. You are my raison d’etre, in the same way that you always say that I am yours.

Underneath the public image of a serious journalist is a husband yearning for his wife, constantly trying in her absence to answer the proverbial 5 Ws and 1 H — What is she doing right now? Why is she not calling? Who (if ever) is on the other line? When will she call me? Where is she? How is she right now?

With you, I am irony personified as I get flustered by your online presence. I am always at a loss for words whenever we end our day with a two-hour or so conversation on Skype. The reason for my odd behavior is simple: It’s not that I don’t want to talk to you. It’s just that seeing you (albeit virtually) more than makes up for my otherwise tiring day teaching students, checking papers, attending meetings, conducting workshops, writing articles, editing papers, among others.

That you are married to a teacher is something you could live with, as your parents used to be college professors. But I know that being married to a journalist is tortuous at the very least, what with the constant necessity for me to spend a lot of time reading, writing, editing, among a million other tasks.

I do apologize if my work gets the better of me and I sometimes forget that we should be spending more time together. On the occasion of your 41st birthday, consider this promise as my first gift to you: I will spend more time with you.

What’s my second gift? To prove that I do listen to every word you say, I know that shortly before we got married, you had the chance to listen to all of the 12 songs in the Rosas ng Digma (loose translation: Rose of War) album. I distinctly remember that your favorite cut is titled “Sa Duyan ng Digma.”

Allow me at this point to make it our song as I translate it into English, a feat that you know is very hard because translation is not my specialization (aside from the fact that singing is my Waterloo). Even at the risk of public embarrassment, I admit that I spent the whole day yesterday doing this.

I know it’s not perfect, but the perfection I strive for is not mastery of the language but the shaping of my identity to be deserving of you.

Happy birthday. I hope you enjoy your day and sing our song of joy.

The verdict is in and the signs are there.

The latest survey from the Social Weather Stations (SWS) shows that 62 percent of Filipinos are dissatisfied with Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s performance. She has consistently received a negative net satisfaction rating since the third quarter of 2004, making her the most unpopular President since 1986 based on SWS data.

Note: Past Presidents are Corazon Aquino (1986-1992; deceased), Fidel Ramos (1992-1998) and Joseph Estrada (1998-2001).

The powers-that-be can always argue that governance is not a popularity contest, since unpopular measures have to be implemented for the good of the people. Then again, the people’s wrath comes not from these so-called unpopular measures but the culture of impunity and shamelessness that goes with wielding political power.

What good, for example, does lavish dining last July of the President and her entourage in the United States give to poor Filipinos who could barely eat three meals a day? Is it really necessary for a government agency to ostentatiously celebrate its anniversary early this October at a time when 80 percent of Metro Manila was submerged in waters as high as six meters due to Typhoon Ondoy (Ketsana)?

The worst of times indeed brings out the best in Filipinos. When Martial Law was imposed from 1972 to 1986, journalism and the arts flourished as writers and artists creatively expressed their dissent as they tried to help in the shaping of public opinion.

In the age of both Gloria and the Digital Media, Filipino artists have used the Internet (and, for that matter, image editing software) to freely share their works not only to elicit chuckles from the disillusioned but to also to remind people of the grim reality in the country. Carlo Barrameda, a young Filipino artist, gave me permission to feature some of his works that are already making the rounds of the Internet. His caricatures of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are not only funny. They also have deep political meaning.

In reference to a popular Wonder Girls song (Nobody), the artist attempts to make the President look “cute” but at the same time strip her of the power that goes with being the head of government. And why is there a growing perception that she should be removed from office?

She has joined the dark side, that’s why! One could argue that the reference to Yoda is by virtue of her intelligence (she has a PhD in Economics, among other credentials). Then again, it could just be due to her height. Now, what makes many Filipinos think that she has joined the dark side?

There was much controversy over the expensive dinners at Le Cirque ($20,000) and Bobby Van’s Steakhouse ($15,000) in the United States last July. Many Filipinos now wonder just how much food a (presidential) stomach can take before she bursts into a hulk of incredible greed.

As a result of this negative perception (as proven by surveys past and present from credible polling organizations in the Philippines), every little decision made by the administration becomes suspect. People have become jaded observers of reality, always skeptical of whatever decisions government makes.

Translation: THE STATE OF CALAMITY SHOULD BE…ONE YEAARRRRRR!!!

Yes, Gloria appears to be a green monster gone berserk, an obvious reference to the culture of impunity in Philippine society.

Under “normal” circumstances, Filipinos should have no objection to declaring a state of calamity in the wake of destructive typhoons that hit the country recently. In theory, this declaration is necessary for the expeditious release of funds for relief and rehabilitation of affected areas like Metro Manila. But for many Filipinos, a one-year state of calamity translates to a one-year opportunity for graft and corruption.

And so, one cannot be blamed if calls for her ouster have been made since 2002. She now has a few months left in office as national and local elections are scheduled in May 2010. But there are speculations that she might run as a representative of the second district of Pampanga to have a seat in the House of Representatives (HOR). If elected into office, she would run as House Speaker and ensure the change in the form of government from presidential to parliamentary by changing the Constitution. Once the parliamentary form of government is in place, guess who becomes the Prime Minister?

Is this a fantasy, a mere product of an imaginative mind or, worst, a conspiracy theorist? Not so, going by past attempts to change the 1987 Constitution, and the President’s countless visits to the second district of Pampanga where she is a registered voter.

In these trying times, we need such works of art to remind us of the need to stop the fantasy and to change the reality. How soon her reign ends depends not on her decisions but the people’s actions.

Dada Bacudo, Drea Pasion-Flores, Danny Arao, Dennis Gorecho and Alecks Pabico at the Kule office, Vinzons Hall, UP Diliman. Thanks to Dennis for this undated picture.

Alecks and I joined the news section of Kule in the late 1980s. If memory serves, I was just a few months ahead of him.

He was my best friend even if we were the complete opposites – Alecks was funny and level-headed, I was serious and hard-headed. Alecks was always smiling and sometimes self-deprecating, I was always unsmiling and sometimes self-conscious. If our sense of humor were beer, Alecks’ jokes were Red Horse (extra strong, on target!) while mine were Super Dry (corny, off the mark!)

How could one forget his countless jokes and pranks? Let me give you a classic example: One day, he found a bat on campus, brought it to the Kule office and borrowed a friend’s paper fan. He put the bat on the conference table near him and covered it with the fan. For every person who would enter the Kule office – the door was very near the conference room – he would request him or her to hand him the fan. I could still see the smile on his face whenever someone shouted or cursed upon seeing the dead bat underneath the fan. He would then ask his victim to sit beside him and wait for the next one. If I recall correctly, I was Alecks’ third victim.

Antics like these made presswork from Friday night to Sunday afternoon fun, not to mention unpredictable. Because of Alecks, we would forget the hard work that we did, just so many UP students would have a copy of Kule which they could use as seat cover for dirty benches on campus.

Oh yes, as Alecks jokingly said before, there had been a few who would bother to read our issues, and unfortunately some of them would end up sending complaints to the editors of Kule.

For those who had not been involved with Kule, each section (News, Features, Kultura, and even the Editorial Board) had a log book where we would write important announcements and report the progress of our articles.

How was the News logbook related to complaints from irate readers? Proof of Alecks’ irreverence was his introduction of the “Slandering Newsies” section in the News logbook where he identified (and jokingly congratulated) all Kule news writers whose articles became controversial due to such complaints.

He started “Slandering Newsies” when a group of faculty members complained about his article’s alleged lack of objectivity. He had written about a faculty member’s conflict with the dean of her college. Our editors at that time thought Alecks’ article was balanced and fair, but the dean herself and her allies thought otherwise. Even if the letter of complaint had been signed by most faculty members of that particular college, Alecks was not so affected by it. He even found something funny in the situation – at least he had one fan in the college, i.e., the dean’s enemy!

When it was my turn to be complained about by a high-ranking UP official because of a news article I had written, Alecks made me suffer by not just simply “congratulating” me but by drawing a not-so-flattering caricature of me on the News logbook. Looking back, it’s clear that his light-hearted manner helped me and the others withstand the pressures that went with taking our journalism too seriously, even if we were only students then.

Alecks obviously took his job more seriously than others so he ended up being appointed news editor of Kule in 1990. Initially I was assigned as his assistant, but after a few months I became classified as co-editor though the kind of collaboration that we did for the News section was the same. That’s one thing you could say about Alecks: For him, it was not an issue of title, position or power but how we could all work as co-equals. Because of his work ethic and dedication to Kule, he eventually became our managing editor.

How seriously did we take our jobs at Kule? Alecks and I would encourage the newsies to write about topics beyond UP. As section editors, we agreed to also find the time to write news and column articles on top of the responsibilities of editing, designing and laying out the news pages. And so Alecks, I and other newsies would find ourselves being in the same room with reporters of the mainstream media, who ask questions both probing and irritating like “Isn’t UP too far from where you are right now?” and “Why should a campus publication be concerned with an issue like this?”

If there were no one willing or available to write about important stories that require traveling very far from UP, Alecks and I would actually go ourselves. For example, even if we had not yet recovered from the July 1990 earthquake – Alecks and I, together with other friends at Kule, were on the fourth floor of Vinzons Hall when we felt the strong tremor – we decided to go to Pangasinan which was one of the hardest hit areas. Armed with tape recorders, notebooks, pens and a camera we borrowed, Alecks and I traveled around Pangasinan talking to different kinds of people and taking pictures. We ended up spending the night at an evacuation center and taking the next available morning trip to make it to our classes at UP on that day.

Alecks also had no second thoughts about sharing his experience as a campus journalist. In between presswork (and acads), we traveled for three hours to UPLB to conduct a workshop for the writers of Perspective, UPLB’s student publication. After the workshop which ended late at night, our friends at the Perspective gave us an envelope containing some money apparently meant for our transportation back to Manila. They also said that we could spend the night inside the publication office. Very tired and sleepy, we readily accepted the envelope and slept on our makeshift beds consisting of small tables put together.

You could see Alecks’ selflessness when, upon waking up, he asked me if we should accept the money even if Kule could reimburse us for our travel. We agreed to return the money, knowing fully well that Perspective could put it to better use, even if it’s just a small amount.

Many don’t know that Alecks had a way of making things work in a manner that was both fun and systematic. As a way to motivate the newsies to write on the News logbook, he came up with his own “SWS Survey” documenting the most number of notes addressed to a newsie. It was actually a self-serving survey as he and another newsie always got the top spot, conniving with this other newsie in writing notes to each other even for just the smallest of details. In a way, it helped expose the inactive and unproductive newsies as there were no notes addressed to them.

How could one describe News or EB meetings with Alecks? That he made people laugh is an understatement. I distinctly remember one newsie laughing so hard that she had to go out of the meeting to laugh some more. Another newsie who was just recovering from a sickness had to ask him to stop because she found it hard to breathe. Yes, his humor also proved to be hazardous to one’s health.

Of course, he could be serious when necessary. I remember a time when some newsies ignored deadlines, failed to report for presswork and submitted badly written articles. Instead of giving a warning to the erring ones, Alecks and I announced that both of us would resign if the entire section does not shape up. Our ploy actually worked because all of us beat the deadline and participated in the long hours of press work in the weeks that followed. Looking back again, the newsies were obviously worried about losing Alecks.

It was not surprising that all Kule editors and staff were very ecstatic when Alecks topped the Collegian Editorial Examination and consequently became Kule’s editor-in-chief for Academic Year 1991-1992.

As his best friend, I was very happy for him. He wanted me to help him run the paper. Unfortunately, I had graduated in April 1991 and made the hard decision to move on. Up to now, I still remember the disappointment on his face when I said that I cannot stay at Kule any longer.

His busy schedule and mine prevented us from seeing each other often, even if both of us were introduced to the small world of NGOs after Kule. I was with the now defunct CPD, of which a member-network was the CDRC where he worked. Later on, he would find himself working for TABAK, a PO affiliated with CPD.

It’s a strange coincidence that he started to work for PCIJ in 1994, the same year that I joined IBON Foundation, an independent research think-tank. We somehow renewed our friendship when I helped in the PCIJ’s training for journalists on computer-assisted reporting in Baguio, Cebu and Davao, after which I co-authored PCIJ’s The Electronic Trail which was nominated for the 1998 National Book Awards.

During late-night gimmicks after our training, we shared stories about the fun times we had at Kule. Yes, the friendship was still there but we somehow grew apart.

Perhaps it was due to political differences. Being familiar with each other’s post-Kule writings, we were aware of each other’s convictions that put us on different pages of pursuing both journalism and social change. Unlike in our student days, I was not able to talk to him like a kasama (comrade). (Even at the risk of speculation, you can blame it on the unwritten rule among former comrades not to talk about IPO lest civility be replaced by hostility.)

I learned about Alecks’ serious liver ailment in the early part of 2009. But I already noticed that he had lost weight when I saw him at the awarding ceremonies of the 4th PopDev on November 25, 2008 at Gateway Mall in Cubao where PCIJ was an awardee and I was one of the judges.

We talked for a while and he flashed an enigmatic smile. Had I known that it would be my last time to see him (and that his death would come a year later), I would have introduced him to my wife Joy so that she could finally meet my best friend in college.

The strong rains (and the consequent flooding it brought about in Marikina where I live) prevented me and Joy from attending Kule’s reunion (which served as a fundraising for him) last July 17. I sent a message to Alecks through FB asking him if it’s possible for us to meet before I return to Korea. He gave me a short reply (July 23, 7:08 p.m.): “Salamat, Danny. Sayang nga at wala ka sa reunion. Sige. Kailan ba balik mo sa Korea?” (Thanks, Danny. It’s indeed unfortunate that you were not at the reunion. Sure. When will you be back in Korea?)

I now write this in the middle of the fall semester in Korea, regretting that I did not see him before I left the Philippines. My biggest regret, of course, is not being able to pay my respects for very obvious reasons. I take consolation from the fact that I am not alone in grieving over his untimely death. With the number of lives he had touched in his 42 years of meaningful existence, I am certain that they are grieving as much as I am, if not even more.

Goodbye, Alecks. And don’t worry about your other secrets (especially your lovelife in college). They’re safe with me (I think!).

Definition of terms:

• Alecks – real name: Alexander Pardo Pabico (April 19, 1967-October 7, 2009)
• Acads – academic work
• CPD – Council for People’s Development
• CDRC – Citizens Disaster Response Center
• EB – editorial board of Kule composed of the editor-in-chief, managing editor and the section editors (news, features, kultura)
• FB – Facebook, a social networking site
• IPO – ideology, politics and organization
• Kule – Philippine Collegian, official student publication of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman
• Newsie – a member of Kule’s news section
• NGO – non-government organization; provides support to a PO
• PCIJ – Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
• PO – people’s organization; a community-based, grassroots organization
• PopDev – Population and Development Media Awards organized by the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD)
• TABAK – Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa Katutubo (Genuine Alliance of the Nation for the Indigenous Peoples)
• UPLB – University of the Philippines in Los Baños

One of the emails I received upon arriving in Manila is a request for me and Joy to guest on The Sweet Life (QTV 11) hosted by Lucy Torres-Gomez and Wilma Doesnt.

As you may already know, it is one of the highly-rated weekday shows on QTV 11 which is part of the GMA Network. We had our taping yesterday (July 6) at Studio 4. Other guests are TV and movie personalities Ciara Sotto, Gabby Eigenmann and Paolo Paraiso who are all active in the “social media” scene.

Joy had the opportunity to have some loose talk with Ciara whom we found to be very down-to-earth and humble despite her celebrity status. She does not have a coterie of yayas and alalays, unlike some celebrities I met in the past.

Our Friendster-inspired love story is featured in The Sweet Life’s episode on Facebook, Friendster and social networking. It airs on July 17 (Friday), 5 p.m. on QTV 11. I hope you’ll find time to watch it.

Joy and I take this opportunity to thank Erick, Snow and the other people working behind the scenes for their warm hospitality.

As a teaser of sorts to the July 14 episode, here are some of our pictures (mostly Joy’s).

Check out Joy’s make-over!

I hope Ciara doesn’t mind these pictures, in the same way that Joy doesn’t mind being referred to as “Ate” whenever Ciara addresses her.

This post can never be complete without a group photo with hosts Lucy Torres-Gomez and Wilma Doesnt. Just like Ciara, they are very accommodating and polite. Update (July 14, 10:45 a.m.): If you want more photos, please go to my Facebook account.

“Tenure is not only a matter of votes ,
numbers or accepted departmental practices,
it is also a matter in which fairness
and transparency must be ensured
and academic freedom rigorously protected.
I have served the university
as best as I could in the past 10 years
and have fulfilled the university’s
academic requirements for tenure
but I still find my position
in the university unclear.”

Prof. Sarah Raymundo in her letter
to UP Chancellor Sergio Cao

Appendix A: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

In February 2008, I submitted my application for tenure to the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department through our then-chairperson Dr. Clemen Aquino.

By the second week of June 2008, on account of some information regarding my application through informal channels, I was informed by Dr. Clemen Aquino of the official result of the tenured faculty’s deliberation on my tenure application. The voting that took place among the tenured faculty was to my favor at seven to three. I was also informed that the minority sent a separate minority report to the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA). Subsequently, the OVCAA wrote the Sociology Department asking the majority, who voted in my favor, to justify their position in light of the allegations cited in the said minority report. During this talk I was also assured that the back-and-forth between different levels of decision-making as well as the delay are only to be expected when one applies for tenure. I was also made aware of some issues that were discussed when the tenured faculty deliberated my application. These issues involved the Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan press conference. Lastly, the process that my application would undergo from then on was explained to me. The College Executive Board (CEB) would comment on the clarification requested by the OVCAA and Academic Personnel and Fellowship Committee (APFC), after which the Dean would write a response to the OVCAA. However, months later, I would find out that the OVCAA’s request for my position on the tenured faculty’s hitherto undisclosed allegations was not mentioned in this discussion.

Towards the end of July of the same year, the aforementioned department majority invited me to a discussion, which revolved around the most minute details relating to a press conference held in the previous year that called for the immediate release of Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, two disappeared UP students. In particular, I was asked about which faculty members I had invited, as well as the means of communication.

On November 6, 2008, Dr. Clemen Aquino informed me that the tenured faculty unanimously decided on non-recommendation. To this day, I am baffled by this sudden reversal. When I asked her about the grounds of this decision, I was told that the Chair was bound by the tenured faculty’s wish that she only be allowed to merely inform me of their decision. Furthermore, I was told not to show up for my classes the next day, until further notice. When I asked her if my contract until May 31, 2009 was aborted, the response was that this is being clarified with the administration.

In January 2009, some members of the tenured faculty wrote a letter to you questioning the prior decision of the tenured body for non-recommendation.

By March, I was invited to a dialogue by the whole body of the department’s tenured faculty. I was again asked several questions regarding my involvement on the press conference on the disappeared students, some details on the poem I had written dedicated to Karen Empeño that I submitted to the Philippine Collegian, and my role in preparing a statement that was eventually adopted by the University Council calling for the immediate release of Karen and Sherlyn. I was also made to clarify some details that appeared in another statement signed by the University Student Council. Note that these are the same questions raised in August of 2007 (a meeting with Dr. Clemen Aquino and Dr. Cynthia Bautista on matters regarding the renewal of my contract and in July 2008 during a meeting with the tenured faculty “majority”). I was also made to explain my involvement in the statements released by the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND) and the All-UP Academic Employees Union that questioned the process of my tenure application.

A few weeks later, I was called on by Dr. Joy Arguillas in her capacity as OIC and Dr. Ging Candaliza-Gutierrez as member of the tenured body to inform me that the tenured faculty voted, with five in my favor, four against, one abstention, and one in favor of waiving the discussion for a year. They added that since the vote was “deeply divided,” the tenured body decided to defer their decision and thus left it to your esteemed office to decide on granting my tenure, after which, my tenure application and the department vote were discussed by the CEB.

On June 2, 2009, after waiting more than two months after aforementioned meeting, without a word as to the status of my tenure application, I decided to talk to Prof. Randy David, who was then acting as the Department’s Officer-in-Charge. During our discussion, I learned that some members of the CEB questioned the exercise and officially sent you a letter a few days after the CEB voted in my favor.

Moreover, I learned that on May 19, 2009, Dr. Aquino and Dean Zosimo Lee received a letter from you asking for my basic papers to be prepared for “the tenure process to commence” and that the tenured faculty, yet again, met to discuss this on May 25, 2009. It was mentioned that members of the tenured faculty found your letter “vague” as to whether or not you had decided to grant my application for tenure as “the tenure process” commenced when I applied for tenure in February of 2007. I was also told that the tenured faculty were of the position that for my basic papers to be processed, a vote amounting to a simple majority is required. It was also made known to me that a letter to your office to clarify whether or not the tenured faculty was correct in their interpretation of the requirement of a simple majority for processing of basic papers for tenure.

Lastly, I was informed that, as far as my contract is concerned, I am technically no longer a faculty member of the Department of Sociology despite my open case for tenure, and that given this, I am no longer entitled to teach any courses from the same department. When I mentioned the 60-day rule on the termination of contracts, I was told that that “the former Chair was emphatic in her position that it was the Dean’s responsibility to inform me about the end of my contract.”

On June 15, I finally got the chance to discuss the matter with Dean Lee. On my status, it was clarified that it was the Dean’s responsibility to enlighten me on the matter. When I inquired as to what he would have told me, however, I was told that there was no clear answer since my case was still being discussed between the OVCAA and your office when the 60-day notice should have been given. The results of the CEB meeting on my case was also revealed. The same body voted 7 to 1, in my favor. Furthermore, I was apprised of the fact that the OVCAA studied my case, upon your authority, and that the same office wrote you a letter stating that there should be no obstacle to my tenure based on my records. I was also informed that your office sent the Dean and the Department a letter asking for my basic papers to be prepared. Lastly, I was made aware that a meeting between Dean Lee, your office, Dr. Aquino, Prof. David, and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs Lorna Paredes was to be held on June 16 to discuss the issues surrounding my tenure, and that the Dean would inform me of the proceedings of that meeting.

“Linton Global College graduates are historic pioneers building on 52 years of historic faithfulness, sacrifice and service.”

Dr. Hyung-tae Kim, president of Hannam University, made this assertion in his message at the first annual graduation event of LGC held last June 13 at the Daejeon Convention Center.

Stressing that it is the first of its kind in Korea, Dr. Kim said that LGC remains “a beacon of change and challenge for a competitive nation taking a leap toward the global standard.”

The first graduates of LGC are Mi-jin Jang, Do-yeon Kim, Ji-hyun Park, Young-tae Chon, Jun-young Song, Jee-hyun Cho and Kyu-seok Kang (Winter 2009); and Yoo-kyeong Jeon, Hye-young Kim, Soo-min Kim, Yong-ki Lee and Ye-seul Park (Summer 2009).

Prof. Todd Terhune, dean of LGC, commended the first batch of graduates for their hard work. He said that LGC has been “highly successful in preparing students for the international workplace or graduate study abroad.”

Success, according to him, should be defined along the lines of “helping students find and achieve their dream no matter what next step is required.”

The first batch of graduates has a TOEFL average of 95 which is above the 90 required for 80% of graduate schools in the United States. Eighty-six percent of them have already achieved their goals or dreams. On the part of the Winter 2009 graduates, all of them are already employed.

Dr. John Linton, medical director of the International Health Care Center of Yonsei University Medical Center and the only foreigner licensed to practice medicine in Korea, was the event’s keynote speaker.

His grandfather, William Linton, co-founded Hannam University in 1956 and served as its first president. LGC, established in 2005, was named after Hannam’s founding president.

The first annual graduation event which carried the theme “Inspire the Future” was also an occasion to pay tribute to Prof. Martin Peterhaensel (1943-2009) who died early this year.

As a sign of gratitude for his noble work, his name and photograph was included in the list of LGC’s faculty and staff. His photograph was also prominently seen in the multimedia presentation during the event which showcased the achievements of LGC through the years.

Para sa iyo, madaling isulat ang mga bagay na hindi kayang panindigan. Dahil nagtatrabaho ka sa bangko, alam mong may mga taong hindi tumutupad sa kanilang mga pangako, kahit na ang huli ay malinaw sa kontrata.

Ibahin mo sana ang mga responsableng peryodista. Ibahin mo sana ako.

Sa ating kasal noong Disyembre 28, 2004, nangako ako sa harap ng ating mga kamag-anak at kaibigan na aalagaan kita’t paliligayahin. Mag-aapat na taon na tayong mag-asawa, at aaminin kong sa paglipas ng panahon ay tila dumarami ang aking mga pagkukulang.

Hindi na kailangang isa-isahin pa ang mga ito dahil napakatalas ng iyong memorya. Sigurado akong natatandaan mo pa ang madalas kong litanya sa iyo noon: ”Mababaw lang naman ang mga pagkukulang ko, at nagtataka ako kung bakit pinapalaki mo ang mga bagay na ito.”

Pero sa aking pagsusulat ng saloobin ko, naisip kong hindi naman ito usapin ng kababawan o kaseryosohan ng mga pagkukulang, kundi ang aktuwal na pagkakaroon ng mga ito.

Mainam sigurong balikan natin ang pangako sa isa’t isa noong tayo’y ikasal sa Parish of the Holy Sacrifice, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP) Diliman.

Ang sabi ko noong umaga ng Disyembre 28, 2004, sa wikang Ingles, ”Ours is neither a long engagement nor a whirlwind romance. Thanks to modern technology, our physical distance was not a hindrance to the expression of our mutual affection. I once said that I will love you forever, and in the presence of our family, friends and colleagues, I repeat that promise. I will do anything for you, as manifested by my vain attempt to sing for you today. I will be a good husband and father. As I remain committed to the struggle for meaningful change, I assure you that I will always have time for you and the family we will build together. At this point in my life, personal ambition does not matter anymore since you are right here with me. For me, this is my most fruitful year, not because I won a journalism award, but because I have the biggest reward of all – YOU.”

Napakaganda ng naging sagot mo: “Before I met you, I was already resigned to living a single life; I pictured myself living alone in the province, focused on career development and other advocacies. But when I met you, I began to see a different future: the two of us living happily together with our children. Yes, ours is neither a long engagement nor a whirlwind romance. We can call it a three-quarter romance. Since April, we have used practically all means of communication like snail mail, landline, SMS and email. Finally, this December in this place where we first asked for blessing, I walk down the aisle with a firm commitment to make our marriage work. I promise to be a good wife to you and a good mother to our children. Indeed, our marriage is also my biggest reward as I cap this memorable year with a life-changing decision.”

Isang salik ng makabuluhang relasyon ang pagiging mapagbigay, at hindi masukat ang mga sakripisyo mo para lang sa akin. Malaking bagay na, halimbawa, ang paglipat mo mula sa komportable’t masaganang buhay sa Bikol para makipagsapalaran dito sa Maynila.

Dahil sa oryentasyon ng aking mga trabaho bilang guro’t peryodista, isang kakulangan ko ang hindi paglalaan ng mas mahabang panahon sa iyo. Maituturing na ”kaaway” natin ang oras dahil sa dami ng aking ginagawa.

Maraming bagay na kailangang isulat, maraming pagtitipong kailangang puntahan, maraming gawaing kailangang gampanan. Noong hindi pa tayo mag-asawa, madalas na biro ng mga kakilala ko ang kawalan ng panahon ko para sa sarili, o kahit simpleng pagtulog lang. At kapag sinasabi nilang ”malas” ang mapapangasawa ko, mabilis ko silang sinasagot na wala akong intensiyong ”magpasakal.” Pero siyempre’y masaya ako sa sitwasyong kinain ko ang aking mga salita noon.

Siguro’y madalas mong iniisip ang ”kamalasang” pinagdaraanan mo ngayon dahil napakasakit talagang hindi ko nasusuklian ang mga sakripisyong ginagawa mo. At masasabi kong may positibong epekto ang mahusay mong pag-aalaga mo sa akin: Maraming nagsasabi, halimbawa, na mas kagalang-galang na ang hitsura ko ngayon kaysa noong wala ka pa sa buhay ko.

Pero higit pa sa (diumanong) pagbabago ng pisikal kong hitsura, natuto akong pangalagaan ang aking kalusugan. Kahit na marami pa rin akong gawain (at talagang nakakairitang minsa’y kailangan kong dalhin ang mga ito sa bahay), mapapansin mo ring nababawasan na ang mga ito dahil na rin sa payo mo.

Ano naman ang nagawa ko para sa iyo? Aaminin kong madalas akong nagiging sakit ng ulo dahil mas nabibigyan ko ng prayoridad ang trabaho ko. Sa ilang panahong kailangan mo ako, kapansin-pansin ang pagkawala ko sa tabi mo.

Gusto kong kunin ang pagkakataong ito para sabihin sa iyong pinipilit kong baguhin ang aking maling aktitud. Alam kong tulad ng pakikibaka para magkaroon ng makabuluhang pagbabago sa ating lipunan, ang ating relasyon bilang mag-asawa’y kailangan ding paunlarin.

Tanggapin mo sana sa pagkakataong ito ang munting regalo ko – ang pagbibigay ng nakasulat na pangakong mas magiging mabuting asawa sa iyo at ang paninindigang tutuparin ito hanggang sa ating pagtanda.

Maligayang ika-40 kaarawan, Joy!

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

A former student of mine, Bianca Consunji, emailed a few months ago 38 pictures of funny signs. Some of them have been used in previous posts, and there are a few that have been circulated in e-groups.

For this installment, allow me to present what I would call the 12 cardinal rules for sign-making (read: “funny sign-unmaking”).

Our first sign makes me re-read and deconstruct the message several times. Is there something profound about the latent content and the intended message?

Rule 1: If you want a person to enter, make sure he or she knows where to go.

Ever heard of “conditional” entrance?

Rule 2: It’s okay to impose conditions, but be careful with your syntax. What happens, for example, to a hopelessly obedient but seriously “wet” person who needs to go to the bathroom?

This is another conditional entrance, where you should leave your worries (and your slippers) behind!

Rule 3: Be prepared for excuses that erring customers might use (e.g., “Sorry, my slippers can’t understand your English!”)

Once you’ve made your melodramatic (and problematic) entrance, you should know the “followed-to-be” rules!

Rule 4: Don’t let the Secretary of Justice make a sign for you!

Despite your headache over the horrendous grammar (especially of some government officials), you should always be on your toes and not fall for catchy slogans (and I’m not just referring to government claims of progress!).

Rule 5: Be wary of what the people should watch out for! Is it the potentially falling, or the already fallen?

There are also signs that are very, very hard to “digest.”

Rule 6: When it comes to bad grammar, don’t expect people to just “grin and bear it.” Or, in this particular case, “bite the bullet.”

Care to buy a pair of pants with jagged edges?

Rule 7: If you’re selling, know your spelling! A pair of pants, incidentally, can be “jagged” if they’re unevenly cut.

But enough of the seriousness. Let’s go back to “recklessness.” Can you buy a shirt that matches your “taste?”

Rule 8: Use the adjective “sweet” mainly for things that are edible (sweet lover is obviously an exception, do you agree?). Otherwise your customers will become sour and bitter!

Aside from that, they might feel miserable. But if it’s any consolation…

Rule 9: Unless you’re a government official, don’t convince people that misery is an acceptable reality.

Yes, don’t be in a state of denial. Keep away from people who ask you to smile despite the abject poverty our country is facing. Fight for your space! Avoid swerving! In other words…

Rule 10: The correct spelling of a word is not necessarily its pronunciation.

Indeed, these signs are very much unwanted. The one below, however, is a bit peculiar because the “wanted” is the one that’s unwanted. Huh?

Rule 11: In writing signs (funny or otherwise), be sure to use the present or future tense. What’s the point, after all, of living in the past? (If you “want” somebody, go for it!)

What’s the best way to end this installment of funny signs? An ungrammatical one, of course (and in Filipino at that!).

Rule 12: Even if you know your grammar, try not to let the people get away with what’s prohibited.

I promise to provide more funny signs in the next few days. At this time, we have Bianca to thank for this installment. All the best (and worst funny signs)!