FBI: Occupy, Kampuhan, Reclaim at Overhaul the System

FBI: OCCUPY, KAMPUHAN, RECLAIM, AT OVERHAUL THE SYSTEM

Mykel Andrada

 

Mga sagot ko sa Facebook Interview na isinagawa ni Marc Jayson Cayabyab ng Tinig ng Plaridel noong Disyembre 7, 2011. Tungkol sa “Occupy Movement” sa Pilipinas ang panayam. Ang mga tanong ay naka-boldface at sa ilalim ng bawat tanong ay ang aking sagot. Salamat!

 

 

1. ano po ba ung pinaparating na mensahe ng ganitong malawakang movement po na sinasabayan ng bansa? siguro po usapin ng pagreclaim po ng isang espasyo. occupy nga po, ganyan. Hehe

 

Sa totoo lang, hindi naman bago sa Pilipinas ang “occupy” na konsepto ng mobilisasyon o mass action. Matagal nang nagsasagawa ang mga progresibo at aktibsta ng tinatawag na mga “kampuhan,” “piketline,” “welga,” at iba pang tawag sa mga aksiyong masa na kapwa pisikal at alegorikal na nagpapatungkol sa pagbawi sa espasyo.

 

Kung sa mga magsasaka iyan, laging nagsasagawa ang mga progresibong magsasaka at manggagawang bukid ng KMP (Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas) ng mga kampuhan, na nagmumula sa lakbayan ng mga magsasaka.

 

2. ano naman po ang pinpahiwatig kumbaga po na simbolo ng ganitong occupy na konsepto po? lalo na po’t pinapangunaha po sya ng 99 percent, sa diwa po ng occupy movement

 

Haimbawa, pag babalikan ang mga talumpati sa halos lahat ng kampuhan, rali at demonstrasyong masa, sinasabi ng maraming tagapagsalita na ang Pilipinas ay pinatatakbo lamang ng 1% ng mamamayan ng bansa. At tunay na mayorya ng mamamayan, ang 99%, ay dinodomina ng 1%.

 

Kung kaya mainam na suriin kung bakit ang konsepto ng “occupy” ay sa katotohanan “pagbawi” o “reclaim” — isang politico-cultural na aksiyong-masa na naglalayong ipakita sa mamamayan

at sa bayan na ang mga panlipunan, pang-ekonomiya, at pampulitikang isyu ay makikita hindi lamang sa lansangan.

 

3. sguro po sa diwa ng “pagbawi” o “pagreclaim”. ano naman po ung nirereclaim ng 99 percent sa pag”occupy” ng isang espasyo?

 

Both physical at symbolical ang reclamation ng isang espasyo. Halimbawa, kung 99% ang nag-ooccupy to reclaim a space, it means that majority of the Filipino people originally “own,” “reside” or are free to use and cultivate the said space; but because of the domination of the 1%, free access of these spaces, that do not only constitute geographical or physical loci, but also represent the whole political and economic spectrum whereby the impoverished are denigrated day by day.

 

So this means that reclaiming a geopolitical space such as Mendiola — that has been actually a site or locus of struggle by warring social classes — is an action which is very political although symbolical.

 

Reclaiming a space such as Mendiola is also a political narrative — a writing of the present and the future. When we say “to occupy” or “to reclaim” is a political narrative means that we see the narrators or writers of this historical narrative as essentially class-based. The 99% becomes the collective author that progressively redesigns and re-attributes their notion of counter-hegemonic aspirations, of changing the current capitalist system for a better and more humane system.

 

4. so bale po ang pagreclaim kumbaga sa isang espasyo ay paraan rin po ng pagreclaim sa isang political power na nararapat naman ay nasa 99 percent po?

 

We occupy a space, we reclaim a space, because we want to reclaim the rights that have been stolen from the 99%.

 

5. ok po. so bale naman po sa usapin ng motibo ng mga occupants sa movement na ito. paano naman po naiiba ang pilipinas bilang ang mode naman po sa US ay to end corporate greed? ano naman po ang atake ng pilipinas sa ugat ng kahirapan sa bansa?

 

Oo, yung political power at economic power na ninakaw at hinawakan na lang ng 1% ang nais na bawiin ng 99%. Pero siyempre, dapat malinaw na yung pagreclaim ng political at economic power ay para talaga sa 99% at hindi lamang para sa iilan. Kaya essentially, sa unang stage or level, sinisimbolo ng “occupy” o “reclaim” ang pagbawi ng bourgeois rights ng tao tulad ng lupa, trabaho, pagmamay-ari pa rin kasi.

 

Pero siyempre, sa struggles to occupy and reclaim, ipinapakintal na the fight doesn’t end sa pagbawi ng bourgeois democratic rights kundi simula lang ito ng pagpapalalim sa kung anong klase ba ng sistema ang kailangan ng bansa. So yun ang second level o antas ng occupy o reclaim. Na it’s time to change the system!

 

6. ano naman po ung masasabi niyo dun sa mode ng ibang occupy movements na against corporate greed lang po? samantalang sa Pilipinas ay mas social system mismo ung kinukustyon, samantalang sa US po ay value system kumbaga tulad ng corporate greed

 

Yun naman kasing anti-corporate greed ng occupy movement ay nagpapakita na yung klase ng movement nila, or at least ng mainstreamed na notion ng occupy movement, ay isang anti-capitalist pero burgis na klase pa rin ng movement.

 

Corporate greed, of course, necessitates subversion from the people. After all, greed for superprofit is the end-all and be-all of capitalism. So sa isang banda, progressive naman yung occupy movements, pero kelangan pa talaga ito ng mass participation at nang mas revolutionary na direction. Sige, let’s say that these corporations agree to lessen their greed or to weed out their greed, does this solve the poverty problem and unemployment? No.

 

Because the system, the capitalist system, is retained and sustained. So there must be a need to overhaul such system and not just reform the system.

EI: “Required” ba ang Campout sa Mendiola simula Disyembre 6, 2011?

Mga Sagot ko sa mga tanong ni Victor Gregor Limon ng Philippine Collegian patungkol sa December 6 Campout sa Mendiola. Inemail niya ang mga tanong noong December 3, 2011. Ang kaniyang mga tanong ay nakahilig (italicized) at sinusundan ang mga ito ng aking mga sagot. Salamat!

1. Sa hanay po ng mga guro at iba pang empleyado ng UP, paano po ang paglahok natin sa camp-out ngayong Dec 6? and 3. Paano po ang kasalukuyang kampanya para mapalawak ang suporta mula sa mga guro at iba pang empleyado ng UP?

Isa sa challenges sa hanay ng mga guro, REPS at kawani ng UP ay ang mapalabas sila mula sa kanilang opisina at lumahok sa mga pagkilos tulad ng mobilisasyon, rali at ito ngang sa December 6 ay campout. Sa karanasan ng All UP Academic Employees Union at All UP Workers Union, ang mahigpit na kondisyon ng paggawa at ang peti-burgis na kamalayan ng maraming empleyado ng UP ang pangunahing mga hadlang sa partisipasyon nila sa mga mass mobilization. Ibig sabihin, kahit dama ang kahirapan at dama ang diskriminasyon, hindi madali ang paglabas ng opisina at unibersidad. Hindi mo naman sila puwedeng i-require na sumali sa rali. Para rin lang yan sa mga klase, hindi magandang tingnan na ang mga estudyante ay nire-require na sumali sa rali. Napapalabas natin ang mga empleyado at estudyante mula sa kanilang nakasanayang akademiko at administratibong routine kung napapataas natin ang kanilang kamalayang pampulitika lagpas sa pulitika ng kanilang personal na mga adhikain at pangarap. Tandaan, hindi required ang rali at hindi nirerequire ang rali. Sa pagkamulat sa mga tunay na isyu ng unibersidad at ng koneksyon nito sa lipunan, doon hahantong na mismong ang sarili na ang magrerequire sa kaniyang sarili na kumilos, kasama ang nakararami, nang walang pag-aalinlangan.

Ang kahit na anumang paglabas sa opisina, klasrum at unibersidad ay isang politikal at personal na sakripisyo. Ang pagbimbin sa trabaho, halimbawa, upang lumahok sa mga protesta at aksiyong masa ay hindi matatawaran sapagkat nagmumula ito sa kolektibong inisyatiba na kumilos nang hindi mag-isa kundi “kumilos kasama ng nakararami.”Kung magagawa natin na pagkaisahin ang bawat indibidwal upang lumikha ng kolektibo, mas malakas at mas makabuluhan ang aksiyong masa. Of course, that is not to say that individual efforts would be denigrated, but collectivity, in all the histories of struggles that any nation went through, will provide us a meaningful look into how the collective is far more powerful. Kung kaya, para mapalabas at mapalahok ang mga guro, REPS, kawani at iba pang empleyado at miyembro ng komunidad ng UP, nagsagawa at patuloy na nagsasagawa ng educational discussions ang All UP Academic Employees Union at All UP Workers Union sa porma ng mga forum. Noong Setyembre 2011 na budget strike campaign ay sinimulan ng mga unyon na rumonda o mag-office to office upang ipaliwanag ang direktang epekto ng budget cuts sa mga empleyado ng UP. Nakapagsagawa ng forum sa College of Arts and Letters, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy at Asian Center. Nitong nagdaang mga linggo, napuntahan ng unyon ang Office of Counseling and Guidance, NISMED, Main Library at sa darating na linggo ay sa UPIS. Sa Enero naman ay nakalinya ang pagbibigay ng oryentasyon sa unyon sa College of Engineering at College of Music.Sa ngayon, ang partisipasyon ng mga miyembro at opisyal ng unyon ay nakapostura sa paglahok sa Disyembre 6 na campout. Ang mga porum ay paghahanda para sa paglahok sa nasabing pagkilos. Maglalabas ng regular na isyu ng Pandayan, ang publikasyon ng mga unyon sa UP.Sa bahagi ng mga guro sa unyon at sa CONTEND-UP ay patuloy ang pagsasagawa ng AKLAS o Alternatibong Klase kasama ang mga estudyante at konseho ng mga mag-aaral at mass organizations upang talakayin sa lebel ng imperyalismo at politika ang budget cut, at na ang “standard issues of the day” tulad ng pataas ng matrikula, presyo ng langis at produkto, at politikal na pamamaslang ay mga isyung hindi hiwalay sa pangkabuuang larga ng sistema ng isang mapaniil na gobyerno.

2. Ano po sa partikular ang mga isyung dadalhin ng AUPWU?

Bukod sa mas mataas na badyet para sa UP, SUCs, education sector, kalusugan at iba pang serbisyong panlipunan, bitbit ng All UP Academic Employees Union at All UP Workers Union ang isyu ng STK o Sahod, Trabaho at Karapatan. Nananatiling mababa ang sahod ng mga empleyado ng gobyerno kaya hinihingi ang pagpapataas ng Salary Grade level laluna sa mga rank-and-file na empleyado at entry level. Nagiging laganap ang kontraktwalisasyon at subkontraktwalisasyon maging sa mga ahensiya at opisina ng pamahalaan. Mayroon pa ring diskriminasyon sa pamahalaan pagdating sa pagtataguyod at pagpapatakbo ng mga unyon ng empleyado.

Kasama rin sa isyu ang political at panlipunang hustisya — pagpapanagot kay Gloria Macagapal Arroyo para sa mga paglabag sa karapatang pantao at iba pang krimen ng nakaraang administrasyon. Pagpapanagot kay Noynoy Aquino sa lahat ng anti-mamamayan at pro-imperyalistang Estados Unidos na patakaran tulad ng kaniyang 2012 budget, ang Private Public Partnership, pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin, mga politikal na pamamaslang sa mga guro at iba pang progresibo, ang pagtitiyak ng land distribution para sa mga magsasaka at manggagawang bukid ng Hacienda Luisita at iba pang hacienda sa bansa.

4. Bakit po sa tingin niyo mahalaga ang partisipasyon ng UP sa gaganaping camp-out?

Ang UP ay isang State University at ang partisipasyon ng UP, bilang kinikilalang nagtataguyod ng mataas na antas ng edukasyon, at bilang nakararanas ng taunang paniniil ng gobyerno, ay isang kritikal na mukha at boses sa pagpapakintal ng mga isyung panlipunan at politika ng tunay na pagbabago. Ang laban na ito, kailangang tandaan, ay hindi nagtatapos sa partisipasyon sa campout o anumang pagkilos sa lansangan, sapagkat panahon ito at oportunidad ng oras at espasyo upang magpalakas ng hanay, magkonsolida ng mga miyembro at puwersa, at magpakilos at magmulat ng pinakamarami upang tugunan ang hamon ng panahon. Ang campout ay patunay na hindi matuwid ang daan.

EI: POVERTY PORN

Email Interview by Quennie Aguirre <kittyquennie@yahoo.com.ph>. Ms. Aguirre’s questions are in itals and boldface. My answers are in plain format. Questions sent via email on August 31, 2011.

On Poverty Pornography

Mykel Andrada

1. Have you ever directed any film, or have you been involved in film productions, specifically independent film productions?

I have been involved in two film productions: “Red ang Luha ni Mykel”, a thesis/adaptation by Adjani Arumpac and an indie film short entry entitled “Wanted: Bedspacers” written and directed by Michael Villar. In both films, I acted lead roles.

2. When was the start of the popularity of Filipino independent films?

When I was a freshman student in 1999 in UP Diliman taking up BA Malikhaing Pagsulat, Raymond Red was like a household cultural name for producing independent films. I also remember films like Supermaid and other films by Filipino-Americans or Filipino filmmakers based in the US. But the popularity of independent films in the Philippines was a hype catapulted by the advent of cheaper digital technology during the 21st century. It started out as an alternative to the very commercial mainstream film production monopolized by highly capitalist film productions such as Star Cinema and GMA Films. In the long run, the acquisition of Filipinos of cheaper digital technology — what is called as “relative democratization” of film technology allowed not only those who have money to fund film productions but also progressive and alternative filmmakers and film movements that showcased in their productions socio-political issues of mass concern. These days, independent films are so commercialized and co-opted by the government and capitalist machine outfits that most indie films are slanted towards marketization in the global arena. Also, sexually-charged themes make their way into commercial “indie films” or what is now touted as “(h)indie films” basically to make profit.

3. Aside from the budget and producing, how did they differ from mainstream films?

Supposedly, aside from the budget and commercial film production, indie films should be “free” to tackle issues and concerns that mainstream film production cannot afford to take on.

4. What are the common themes and issues present in these films?  How do they reflect Philippine society? Are they most of the time accurate to reality?

As regards alternative independent films, I believe that Sine Patriotiko (SIPAT), Southern Tagalog (ST) Exposure, May Day Productions, and other progressive independent multimedia groups tackle themes and issues that are very relevant to the general masses of Filipinos in our society. These film productions handle themes like feudalism and the hacienda system, the plight of activists, corruption in government, the need for a genuine cultural change, economic issues like the soaring prices of commodity products such as oil and education, and other such social concerns revolving around the general situation of poverty in the country.

5. How did they gain the attention of the international audience? What are the factors why the said films appeal to them? What are the differences between independent Filipino films and the contemporary Western films?

The Western eye and audience see poverty in the Philippines as something “unique” yet “universal.” The matter by which Pinoy filmmakers package poverty in the country is double-edged. First, it exposes the social ills of society — or at least a semblance of these — that perpetuate poverty in the country. Second, on the other hand, it makes “capital” out of the theme of poverty in the country. By capital I mean a product being peddled to the market, to be sold and bought. Poverty in supposed indie films, sadly, has become a mere product being sold to the international market, in the guise of social awareness and responsibility. But of course, there are films that genuinely tackle poverty and the proposed solutions to such social decay. But these films are not in the kowtowing business of producing indie films for the global or international market. Rather these are documentaries, short films and alternative films by progressive groups that advocate political ideologies in the assemblage of films.

6. What are the benefits of these films to our country and to its reputation?

A rich source of income for international festivals, in the commercial indie scene. But in terms of socio-political alternative indie films, there is what you call “social exposition,” the tradition of agitation-propaganda in the art/cultural scene, the discussion of socio-political issues, and how to address these in a clearly progressive and nationalist framework.

September 1, 2011. 2:30am. Mykel Andrada

EI: Andres Bonifacio Act of 2011 / House Bill 4353

Here are my answers to an email interview by Rachel C. Barawid, Reporter, Manila Bulletin Students and Campuses Section. July 10, 2011. Her questions are italicized here. Read her article “Teaching Bonifacio” by clicking on this link: http://mb.com.ph/articles/327687/teaching-bonifacio. Many thanks!

On the Andres Bonifacio Act of 2011 or House Bill 4353 filed by Kabataan Partylist Cong. Raymond Palatino

by Mykel Andrada

1. First of all, are you in favor of this bill? Why or why not?
Yes. I am very much in favor of the bill being proposed by Cong. Palatino of Kabataan Partylist. It is about time to include in our educational system a more comprehensive teaching of the life, works, theories and praxis of Andres Bonifacio, as the foremost plebeian and nationalist (read: anti-colonial and anti-imperialist) who shaped and continue to hone the consciousness of so many Filipinos from the Spanish times up to the present. Bonifacio’s personal and political life experiences are representative of the experiences of the majority of the population of the country, then and now. Needless to say, Bonifacio is very much relevant today as he was centuries ago.

2. How effective is the Rizal course that is being taught in UP through the P.I. 100? Do you think the Bonifacio subject, if approved, would be as effective as the Rizal course?

Teaching any course or subject cannot just be simply summarized in one syllabus or in one teaching semester. Aside from the syllabus that provides an outline of ideas and concepts to be discussed in class, other factors that need to be included in assessing the effectiveness of the teaching of Rizal course are (a) the mindset of the teacher, (b) the pedagogical methods or teaching strategies, (3) the availability of textbooks and other materials, and (d) the will and openness to learn the course. PI 100 or Philippine Institutions 100: The Life and Works of Jose Rizal, a 3-unit course required for all UP undergraduate students, is only as good or effective as the factors I have stated above. It means that the teaching of the said Rizal course varies depending mostly on the instructor handling it. There are PI 100 classes that dwell on the most basic life and work details of Rizal such as his childhood, his socio-political and cultural background, and his life and works produced as an expatriate scholar, but do not necessarily connect these ideas to the present condition of the Philippines in order to further the formation of a more transgressive Filipino nationalist ideology. There are classes that only dwell on idolizing Rizal, without critically discussing the political implications of his life and works. There are instructors, however, who really historically define Rizal as a propagandist, a revolutionary, and go as far as unfurling how Rizal is being used by recent governments to defend the status quo and by businesses to sell their products. This means that to effectively and comprehensively teach a Rizal or Bonifacio course, or any course for that matter, it entails a continuing education even on the part of the instructors handling the course, to not just simply consider Rizal or Bonifacio or any other hero as a historical artifact but to transgressively showcase how their lives and works are necessary for raising the social consciousness of our youth and our people so that they may engage themselves in collectively and genuinely serving our nation.

3. Cong. Palatino told me that in the 1950s when the Rizal bill was initiated, the life of other heroes were also supposed to be included in the subject but the teaching eventually stopped at Rizal. Are you aware of this Prof? If yes, can you please shed light on the matter?

In UP, for example, the reason why the Rizal course is named Philippine Institutions 100 is because it means that Rizal is considered as one of the Philippine Institutions among the many Philippine Institutions that we have such as Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, Emilio Jacinto, Gabriela Silang, and others. This means that there should be a PI 101, PI 102, etc. The government then should support the Bonifacio Bill by Palatino because it addresses the need to teach Bonifacio as one of the leading Philippine Institutions. In teaching PI 100 in UP, me and some of my colleagues do not only dwell on Rizal’s life and works. We critically and creatively connect Rizal with the lives and works of other Philippine Institutions such as Bonifacio, Mabini, Jacinto, and the like, in order to compare how they addressed the same issues that Rizal encountered.

4. Cong. Palatino said in his bill that the Rizal and Bonifacio lessons can be taught separately for half a semester or a separate course altogether can be created on the life and teachings of Bonifacio. Do you think this is feasible? How do you think the Bonifacio subject should be taught?

It is in my opinion that there should be a separate Bonifacio course, in order to break the very archaic notion of pitting Rizal and Bonifacio with each other. They are products of their times and social classes, so we must study them according to the said parameters. But of course, if this is not feasible, it wouldn’t hurt to teach Rizal and Bonifacio in one subject. The main argument would to draw from their life and works their specific contributions in the understanding of the various brands of nationalism before, during and after the Spanish colonial occupation.

5. What do you suggest should be the content of the course, and lesson plan? and 6. Are there enough materials on Bonifacio? Are they accessible like those of Rizal?

There are so many materials on Bonifacio — his essays, literary works, monuments, places named after him, interviews with his descendants, etc. Moreover, Bonifacio is interpreted and represented in various forms in the age of electronic and digital technology. Also, Bonifacio’s life and works are found in the oral tradition. Fragments of his works could be found in present-day children’s games and songs, in regional magazines, in school oratorical competitions, etc. Bonifacio is everywhere!

7. How important is this bill? and 8. According to Palatino, his bill aims to revive the spirit of nationalism among the youth, in particular the two brands of nationalism, peaceful revolt espoused by Rizal and militant nationalism by Bonifacio. Do you agree? Why or why not? and 9.  What’s the best lesson that we can learn from the life and works of Andres Bonifacio? How can he be relevant to the youth?
This bill is very important in reinvigorating a more genuine and mass-based nationalism among our students and people. There are many things that we can learn from Bonifacio. That it is not a disservice to the nation if you become an activist, a radical intellectual, a unionist, and a revolutionary. That genuine peace does not reside in individual persons alone, but in the collective struggle of the people. Bonifacio was a common tao, yet he participated in a revolution that decisively overthrew a very despotic and authoritarian colonial regime. What this country needs is a retooling of our sense of nationalism, specially that in these times, our sense of nationalism has been a perverse spectacle of Filipinos winning boxing, singing and beauty titles. Filipinos, specially the youth of our times, have been misled to believe that one’s self is more important than his people. We have grown to be individualistic, our sense of collective life denigrated to mainstream functions such as parties. We have been brought up to believe that the revolution need not be waged, unlike in other countries where their people take pride in their revolution. The revolution is not alien to them, and they are not alienated. In the Philippines, we are made to believe that if we are to wage a revolution, we must do it by buying clothes with Rizal or Bonifacio’s face, or staging a Facebook / online / virtual rally, Bonifacio will humble our youth and people with his exploits and examples. We will be humbled by how Bonifacio and the Katipunan revolution struggled to free us from colonial domination.

10. Cong. Palatino said that in UP, students can graduate without taking history subject. Hence, this further increases the growing disinterest in history among the youth who have very little knowledge about it. Is this true?

Yes. Since UP overhauled its general education curriculum via the Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP), an undergraduate student can choose what general education subjects to take. History subjects, therefore, become only options. And this negatively impacts on the students’ perceptions and ideals. I have students in PI 100, who did not choose to take general education History subjects, who still think that the Americans saved and liberated us. When asked with the question “When did the Philippine Revolution happen?”, there are still senior UP students who think that the Revolution took place in 1986, along EDSA.

11. If yes, what do you think needs to be done to make history appealing so more young people will be interested to study it? How should history be taught?

History is not about memorizing facts and figures, though these are of course necessary and important. The best way to teach any subject is to connect the past to the present in order to be able to decisively predict a future for our students. History, is in fact, not a boring discipline. It is the method of teaching history and the regurgitating notion that history is all about the past are the reasons why history seems to less appealing to students. History doesn’t only mean past. History is also the present and the future. I teach history by using popular cultural materials (such as commercial songs, youtube files, and internet materials referring to history) and connecting these to historical documents and materials. This way, students are not alienated by the seeming backtracking of history, but are rather motivated to connect these historical documents and materials to their present lives.

Form is Ideological

Form is Ideological

by Mykel Andrada

 

Let’s oppose censorship! Let the masses/audience view Mideo’s work and let them decide if the said art is acceptable or not.

I believe we are not here to defend Mideo and his art. Rather, we’re here to battle censorship. It is one thing to oppose censorship. And it’s another thing to offer a constructive criticism of Mideo’s work. Whether his work really subverts the hegemonic rule of establishments or not, the fact remains that we should oppose censorship, and let the masses/audience have their say about Mideo’s art. If it’s any indication, it is not only the Church, or the fundamentalists, or the government that criticizes “politeismo.” Even activists and non-Christians have critical views about it. But it should not be any reason to dictate closure of the exhibit.

Mideo, or any artist for that matter, should realize that there is what is called a “mass line.” Audience reception is essential. If the audience finds a work offensive, then maybe there’s a grain of knowledge that we have to consider there. If the audience does not react positively to a work, then maybe there’s a problem with the synthesis of content and form.

We do not alienate the public. We do not hastily generalize and conclude that those who find the exhibit offensive are incompetent of art appreciation, or that they are merely ignoramuses or shitheads. We can say that they are driven by their own political and ideological agenda. Which, of course, should be welcomed, given that these are sites or locuses for struggle. Especially that to struggle — to let viewpoints clash — is to promote the science of constructive criticism.

When we create art, it is because we want to be united with our public. If an art form does not effectively convey the message that an artist wants to purport, then maybe there’s something wrong or lacking with the form used. We do not create art and hold exhibits to alienate the public. If a work does not unite the specific and general public, then, logically, it divorces the audience from the artist. After all, “form is ideological.” For example, we use songs, other oral art forms and visual arts, rather than printed texts, when our target audience is a largely non-reading community.

If indeed we want to symbolically counter patriarchy — or any hegemonic rule for that matter — why put a penis on a rather peasant/working class depiction of Christ? If a calendar depiction of Christ the King — that which symbolizes Spanish colonialism and monarchy — had been used, for example, the message would have been slightly different, but still subject to audience interpretation. Why penis? Why not let Christ hold a hammer or a sickle in place of a scepter? And why Christ in the first place? Why not Gloria or Noynoy or any other bureaucrat capitalist or feudal lord?

We do not gain anything out of alienating our audience. We do not divorce ourselves and our art from the public. We do not promote absolute freedom of expression. That’s anarchism! What we do promote is responsive and responsible freedom of expression. These things hold true even in protest and revolutionary art.

No to censorship! And no to anarchism!

RH Bill & Sexuality Education

HINGGIL SA COMPREHENSIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL.

 

Nagsagawa ang UP Diliman University Health Service (UHS) sa pakikipagtulungan sa UP Diliman Gender Office (DGO) at Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP) ng forum na “Comprehensive Reproductive Health Bill Action Forum” sa Conference Room ng UPS, UP Diliman noong Marso 18, 2011. Nagsalita si Ma’am Ger ng Gabriela at si Rep. Emi De Jesus ng GWP. Salamat kina Tita Connie, Ness at Prop. Marion Tan, direktor ng DGO, para sa imbitasyon. Nagsilbi bilang dalawa sa limang reaktor si Prop. Mykel Andrada, Presidente ng All UP Academic Employees Union-Diliman Chapter, at si Gng. Shirley Cabrera ng Gender Committee ng All UP Workers Union, kasama si College of Home Economics (CHE) Dean Mayo, ang head ng Gender Desk ng UPHS, at si Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez.

Bidyong kuha ni Lisa Marie Clemente ng All UP Workers Alliance.

EI: FlipTop ng Ating Panahon

Magandang araw po. Ako po si Marcel Angelo C. Balabbo, isang estudyante sa UP Manila. Ako po ay kasalukuyang gumagawa ng pagsasaliksik tungkol sa FlipTop bilang makabago at modernong anyo ng Balagtasan para sa aking asignaturang Komunikasyon 2. Ako po ay estudyante ni Prof. Rose Roque at nasabi po niya na naging guro daw po niya kayo at maaari ko raw po kayong ma-interview online.

Bago po ang mga tanong, narito po ang isang link ng sampol ng FlipTop na maaari ninyong mapanood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bp7TcNO-CY

Ito po ang ilan sa mga tanong.

1. Ano ang karakteristiks ng Balagtasan ang makikita sa FlipTop?

a. elemento

b. pamamaraan

c. proseso

2. Maituturing ba ang FlipTop bilang isang makabagong sining pampanitikan?

3. Bilang eksperto at propesor sa Filipino, ano ang inyong opinyon sa FlipTop?

4. Malayo ba ang mararating ng FlipTop?

5. Paano ito mapapalago at mapapaunlad?

Maraming salamat po.

* * * *

hi marcel! pasensiya na sa huling reply. sana makahabol pa ang mga sagot ko sa mga tanong mo para sa iyong papel. heto na

 

1. Ano ang karakteristiks ng Balagtasan ang makikita sa FlipTop?

a. elemento

b. pamamaraan

c. proseso

Kumpara sa pormal na Balagtasan, itong FlipTop ay walang malinaw na topic o subject. Sa Balagtasan kasi, pormal na inihahapag ang isang paksa, na siyang pag-iisipan ng dalawang panig at pagdedebatehan. Yung Balagtasan, hindi lang yan sa anyong oral o pasalita, kasi maging sa printed form sa mga diyaryo dati ay nagsasagutan ng Balagtasan. Sa FlipTop, magto-toss coin lang para malaman kung sino ang unang babanat o hihirit ng kaniyang rap. Parehong may time constraint, bagama’t sa Balagtasan ay mas sa bilang ng mga taludtod o saknong ang basehan. Kung ano ang simulang paksa ng nasabing FlipTop participant, ito ang sasagutin o titiradahin ng kaniyang kakumpetensiya.

Pero tulad ng Balagtasan, malinaw na mayroong ideyal na konsepto ng paraan ng pagsagot o rebuttal sa FlipTop. Kung tutuusin, ang Balagtasan at FlipTop ay parehong dicho o dichohan, o oral na debate, at nangangahulugan ito na kailangang sumunod sa batas ng katuwiran. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng batas ng katuwiran? Maaari mong gawing reference materials para sa Balagtasan ang librong Balagtasan: Kasaysayan at Antolohiya ni Galileo Zafra.

Sa librong Balagtasan ni Zafra, binigyan niya ng katangian at buod kung ano ang lohika at pilosopiya ng pagtulang Balagtasan. Sinabi niya roon na nakasandig sa nosyon ng katuwiran ang pagkikipagbalagtasan. Ibig sabihin, ang pagsagot sa balagtasan ay pagsagot nang tiyak at nasa punto. Kapag ang punto ng isang kalahok, halimbawa, ay kaniyang ipinatawid sa pamamagitan ng alusyon sa hayop, dapat ang rebuttal ay tapatan ang nasabing punto sa pamamagitan rin ng alusyon sa hayop, o di kaya’y ang “pagbaligtad” sa katuwiran ng alusyon sa hayop. Kailangan ay sinasagot ng rebuttal ang pangunahing punto, at mas maganda na bukod sa tatapatan ito ay lalagpasan ito. Ang mga Balagtasan noon ay kalakhan tungkol sa sosyo-politikal na klima ng bansa, bagama’t mayroong mga balagtasan na di naman kontrolado ng simbahan o gobyerno. Pero ang kalakhan ng mga pinag-aralan ni Zafra na Balagtasan ay nagpapatalos ng sosyo-politikal na klima, noong panahon ng kolonyalismo / imperyalismong Amerikano, halimbawa.

Sa kaso naman ng mga FlipTop sa kasalukuyan, ibang-iba ang mga pinapaksa rito, sapagkat di naman regulated yung paksa. Freestyle nga, kumbaga. Kaya kadalasan, ang mauunang mag-rap-debate ang siyang titirada, at madalas, sa mga FlipTop ay “pataasan ng ihi” o “paguwapuhan” ang nagiging sistema. Nauuwi ito madalas sa pisikal na patutsadahan lamang; paglait sa pisikal na hitsura ng kapuwa. Bagama’t mayroong pagkakataon sa FlipTop na bukod sa pisikal na insultuhan ay nagiging punto rin ng pang-iinsulto ang social class o panlipunang uri na pinagmulan ng mga kalahok. Halimbawa, sa isang FlipTop sa pagitan nina Batas at Delio, tinawag na iskwater ni Batas si Delio. Kung tutuusin, wala na sa lohika ng katuwiran ang pinagbababato ni Batas, sapagkat kung tirahin siya ni Delio ay sa pamamagitan ng pisikal o di kaya’y  intelektwal na patutsada, ay ang isinasagot ni Batas ay panglalait sa uring panlipunan ni Delio. Samakatuwid, walang istriktong batas o lohika sa FlipTop. Basta makapang-insulto lamang.

Bagamat, siyempre, hindi naman ito lagi. Ibig sabihin, mayroon ring mga FlipTop na “matino” at “matuwid” at mayroon itong potensiyal na tumalakay ng mas malalim at mas malawak na mga isyung pambansa at panlipunan, tulad nang naisagawa noon sa Balagtasan. Para sa reference tungkol sa sining ng pang-iinsulto, magandang mabasa mo ang sanaysay na “The Art of the Insult” ni Resil Mojares na matatagpuan sa kaniyang librong House of Memory.

2. Maituturing ba ang FlipTop bilang isang makabagong sining pampanitikan?

Oo, maituturing itong makabagong sining pampanitikan. Pero magandang tingnan na nag-evolve ito mula sa Beat Poetry, Spoken Poetry, at lalo na sa Freestyle na dumating sa Pilipinas. Ang rap kasi ay isang sikat na porma ng panitikan laluna sa mga urban poor na komunidad, at maging sa mga lumpen proletaryado. Mayabong na itong pamamaraang pampanitikan para sa pagpapaabot ng mga isyung personal hanggang politikal.

3. Bilang eksperto at propesor sa Filipino, ano ang inyong opinyon sa FlipTop?; 4. Malayo ba ang mararating ng FlipTop? at 5. Paano ito mapapalago at mapapaunlad?

Para sa akin ay malaki ang potensiyal ng FlipTop para sa kalagayan ng sining at panitikan. Kung sikat ito sa masa, maaari itong maging alternatibo sa pagpapatalos ng mga diwang makabayan at mapagpalaya. Sana ay magkaroon ng kilusan o movement, o di kaya’y i-empleyo ng mga aktibista at progresibo ang sining ng FlipTop para sa mga transgresibong proyekto nito. Tingin ko’y tulad ng sa tradisyong protesta at rebolusyonaryo na nakita natin sa mga oral na panitikan ng Pilipinas, mula dasal tungong FlipTop, ay maaaring magkaroon ng subversion. Kung ang mga dasal ay ginamit ni Marcelo H. del Pilar para i-kritika ang kolonyalismo at frailokrasiya, maaari ring ang FlipTop ay magsilbing porma upang i-kritika ang tiwaling mga sistemang nagpapatakbo ng ating bansa at mundo. Bakit hindi natin gawan ng FlipTop ang isyu ng Porsche ni Noynoy sa Matuwid na Daan?

Transgressing Transphobia, Transgressing Labels

by Mykel Andrada

What needs to be addressed in this issue is the subject-position of the persons and ideologies involved. It is clear that the teacher, in a classroom set-up, occupies the position of power, while students struggle it out to empower themselves. Religion becomes an issue in an institution that supposedly believes in academic freedom if the teacher uses her ideology (religion) to marginalize her students. It can thus be asked, “Does the teacher use her religion to mark or grade her students?” If the teacher uses religion as a parameter to grade students, there is an obvious opening for ideological bias, either to denigrate or uplift her students’ academic standing.

Is such the case with Hender?

In Hender’s case, she was actually told by her teacher that she can’t acknowledge Hender as a “she” because of legal-biological reasons and because of her religious standpoint. Here lies the problem. Puwedeng sabihin na “Wala pa naman tayong batas tungkol diyan!” O kaya ay puwedeng tanungin, “Pero di ba dapat irespeto rin ang relihiyon ng guro?” Kung ganun lang ang punto, e di maging anarkista na lang tayong lahat! Pero hindi iyon ang kaso. Kailangang tingnan na mayroong dominanteng batas at relihiyon, at mayroong dominanteng sistemang lumikha ng mga batas at relihiyon. Ang kontrapuntal (counterpoint) dito ng mga transgender ay gender-biased kasi ang batas at ang relihiyon. Ibig sabihin, ang batas at ang dominanteng relihiyon ay hetero-sexist at patriarchal. At ang batas at dominanteng relihiyon ay chauvinist.

It should be recognized that the rise of the notion of transgender is brought about by a long history of the struggles of social movements that advocate equality among sexes, genders and sexualities. It is an obvious action to eradicate homophobia, transphobia and other sexist hegemonic aggressions.

Hender is obviously in the subject-position of the marginalized gender and ideology. Though marginalized by society, transgenders do not simply succumb to the norms of a hetero-patriarchal society. “Bakit ba kasi nagpuputok ang butsi ni Hender kung ayaw siyang tawaging ‘she’ ng titser niya?” Labeling is not simply an issue of nomenclature. It is part of a move to confront sexist and chauvinist conventions and norms. It can be considered a step to progress transgender empowerment, though it is neither the zenith nor the end of the liberation movement.

Suffice it to say, the struggle to liberate all sexes, genders and sexualities does not end in claiming labels and sex and gender assignations. Di rin naman dapat sa names/labels natatapos ang laban ng LGBTQIs (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexed). Pero dapat talagang ipatalos na kung sa labels pa lang ay nililikida ka na, paano pa kaya sa mas malalaking isyu na kumokompronta sa minamardyinalisang mga kasarian at sexualidad? Ngayon, higit kailan pa man, dapat kolektibong pinapataas ang antas ng kamulatan, lampas sa pagbibigay ng pangalan o kategorya. Ang pagpapamulat tungkol sa LGBTQIs ay hindi lamang para palayain ang LGBTQIs kundi palayain ang lahat ng tao, kasarian, at sexualidad mula sa mapang-aping mga transaksiyon ng lipunan.

That’s why we should support Hender’s fight and stand up for our rights!

 

Mykel Andrada. Iba, QC. March 13, 2011. Around 11pm.

EI: P-Pop and K-Pop

Email interview ng grupo nina jennifer.dullano@yahoo.com ng University of Santo Tomas (UST) tungkol sa P-Pop. Enero 14, 2011.

 

Good day, Sir Mykel! Salamat po sa pagpayag na matulungan po kami sa aming thesis (“What is P-Pop? : A Comparative Analysis on the Determining Cultural Derivation of XLR8 and Pop Girls’ Music from K-Pop groups Super Junior and Wonder Girls”). Eto po yung mga questins po namin na gusto po sana naming ipasagot sa inyo. Maraming salamat po sa inyong panahon.

 

Mga sagot ko:

 

1. How do you define pop culture?

Popular culture or pop culture is invented by a dominant economic system known as capitalism, whose ultimate goal is to gain profit or “super-profit” by establishing financial oligarchies and by expanding geographical and economic territories via violent conquests. Capitalism also acquires its super-profit by not paying its workers real-time compensation for real-time labor. Historically, capitalism has utilized all forms and persuasions to advance its purpose of achieving stratospheric profits, thereby widening the gap between the wealthy and the impoverished. It has and is using the cultural terrains of various groups and peoples to gain profits. Thus the invention of popular culture as a synthetic, artificial and mainstream culture peddled to the people.

 

Needless to say, popular culture is a product of capitalists, for the very reason of selling cultural products to favor the ruling classes, atop are the capitalists. And because capitalism is such a dominant system, it has been dominating our lives and has been “normativizing” pop culture as a “true, genuine, and mass culture.” Which, of course, is very ironic, since pop culture does not emerge from the masses or general populace; on the contrary, popular culture is “popularized” by mainstream capitalist media and is passed off as “popular.” As a matter of fact, the popular culture forced down our throats is the popular culture which carries the thoughts, social class positions, politics and general ideas of capitalists and other ruling classes.

 

Pop culture did not “normally” or “naturally” develop as a culture coming from the people. Pop culture is a clear product of capitalist machinations. In common parlance, pop culture products are advertised and packaged, thereby eviscerating illusory thoughts or notions of normality and normativity.

Please refer to the following Filipino authors for further clarification on the discourse of popular culture: Bienvenido Lumbera, Soledad Reyes, and Rolando Tolentino. In particular, read Rolando Tolentino’s book Sa Loob at Labas ng Mall Kong Sawi, Kaliluha’y Siyang Nangyayaring Hari, which is a book on popular culture.

 

2. Is K-Pop a fad or fashion?

This is a very dangerous line of thought. For one, it should be clarified that the terms “fad” and “fashion” are both capitalist inventions, to refer to styles or trends in popular culture. When we actually ask if Korean Pop or K-Pop is a fad or fashion, we actually need to be illuminated that if K-Pop has become a fad and a fashion, it is because its capitalist creators have triumphed in selling it to the general public, which it considers as its clientele. Therefore, we should instead ask, “Who said that K-Pop is a fad and a fashion?”

 

K-Pop is both a fad and a fashion. It’s a fad because after much capitalist packaging and capitalist maneuvering, K-Pop has become a “trend” in the lives of a group or groups belonging to the general masses and has spewed crazes and the like. It is also a fashion, since it has become a kind of “lifestyle” or “practice,” again, after much capitalist packaging and manipulation.

 

3. Why did K-Pop boom in the Philippines?

K-Pop boomed in the Philippines because compradors or capitalist networks, such as ABS-CBN and GMA, have imported K-Pop and have bombarded the general audience with products such as Korean television shows, music, fashion, and the like. The capitalistic success of K-Pop in the Philippines is brought about, largely, by capitalist networks’ aggressive mass media campaign, in particular, advertising and sponsorship contests. Because of this aggressive campaign, Filipinos grew acquainted with K-Pop and were all of a sudden familiar with it. Thus, K-Pop was manufactured and sold as “popular” culture to the Filipinos.

 

4. What are the similarities of the Korean and Filipino culture which enabled K-Pop to be easily popularized locally? 5. Do you think K-Pop really has the power to create a “new culture” in the local arena? 6. How did Filipinos adopt these certain cultural changes and love them? 7. What are the channels which allowed K-Pop to be widely spread?

First of all, it should be highlighted that the “Korean” in K-Pop is actually “South Korean” and not “North Korean.” Socio-politically, South Korea is a capitalist nation, while North Korea is a socialist nation. So the K-Pop that Filipinos are ingesting hails from capitalist South Korea. This is important in analyzing the triumph of K-Pop in the Philippines. The connection of the Philippines and South Korea is that these are countries both influenced by the capitalist power of the United States of America, otherwise known as United States imperialism (the highest stage of capitalism). So what K-Pop indulges the general public is to believe in capitalism, and not in socialism, which is a more progressive and more humane economic system.

 

Again, it is a matter of capitalistic manufacturing. It should be noted that Korean and Filipino cultures are largely different, even though both are Asian countries. Their religions, languages, cultural practices are largely different. Though, we may say, there are certain cultural fields that are similar or near-similar, like close family ties, romantic and sexual love, etc.

 

But what actually enabled K-Pop to be locally popular is capitalist intervention. Local business corporations, especially in the field of television and multi-media, have imported K-Pop in order to sell this to the Philippine market. What local capitalists did is to “translate” and “adapt” these Korean “sensations” to fit the cultural and “class” taste of the Filipinos. How do they do it? They do it by “Filipinizing” Korean capitalist aspirations. This means that the capitalist logic of K-Pop is re-invented in the Philippine context. This is what you call “co-optation.” This is a capitalist process whereby cultures are used by capitalist corporations, turned into cultural products, and sold to the paying public.

 

Class consciousness plays a very large part, if not the largest part, in the triumph of K-Pop in the Philippines. What have been ultimately linked are the class aspirations created by capitalism for both South Koreans and Filipinos. Thus, when watching and listening to K-Pop, the audience is bombarded with first-world dreams of becoming international singers, of working in the capitalist industry of the advertising world, of cladding one’s body with “esoteric” or “halu-halo” fashion and other flashy images; these are all done in the “art” of capitalistic packaging.

 

8. How would you explain the creation of P-Pop?

Pinoy or Philippine Pop or P-Pop is clearly an offshoot of K-Pop. It is really easy to see the connection. Members of P-Pop groups look like Koreans, physically. Add to that the mimicking of the distinct Korean pop, artsy hairstyle and layered clothing. It clearly derives its origin from the glam-pop of South Korea’s mainstream music and multi-media industries.

 

9. Would you say that P-Pop can be regarded as pop culture or as a trend? Is it here to stay? 10. Does P-Pop reflect a Filipino identity? If no, will it eventually create its own identity?

It all depends if local capitalists will continue to promote P-Pop. But needless to say, P-Pop is not something that is here to stay. Since the Philippines is a neo-colony of the United States of America, K-Pop-inspired P-Pop will eventually have to transform or adapt itself to be able to survive as a dominant or influential part of Philippine pop culture. Let’s just say that for P-Pop to survive, it has to perennially re-invent itself, all in the name of profit.

 

Mykel Andrada. Enero 30, 2011. Iba, QC.

 

Madaling Maging Honorable at Academically Excellent na Estudyante

Ngayon ko lang muli naranasan na pinagbabangga ang aktibismo at pang-akademikong kahusayan. Walang duda, bahagi ng kontinuum, bahagi ng makapal na sinulid na nagdurugtong sa mga estudyante at sa edukasyon, itong tila magkatunggaling konsepto. Ngunit naroon ang kahungkagan sa mismong perspektiba na magkalaban itong dalawang dulo, pilit na pinaghihiwalay.

Sa buong kasaysayan ng sistemang pang-edukasyon sa Pilipinas, wala tayong maituturing na iisang klase ng edukasyon: kalakhan ay nananatiling kolonyal at represibo, sumasagitsit ang komersyalisasyon ng larangang ito, ngunit lagi’t laging sumusulpot, lumalakas at umuunlad ang makabayan at mapagpalayang pagturan sa edukasyon. Laluna nitong nagdaang mga dekada, kung kailan ang kolonyal, represibo at komersyalisadong karakter ng estado at naghaharing uri ay mariing binabangga ng mapagpalaya’t progresibong edukasyon ng mga kilusang panlipunan at ng mismong mamamayan.

Sa aking mga klase, dalawang klase lamang ng aktibista ang naging mga estudyante ko, magmula man sila sa iba’t ibang partido politikal sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa Diliman. Una, ang nagkukunwang may pakialam ngunit sa katunayan ay indibidwalista. Ikalawa, ang may pakialam at handang magsakripisyo. Hayaan ninyong ipaliwanag ko.

Minsan, tinanong ko sa klase kung sino-sino sa kanila ang aktibista. Mabilis na nagsitaasan ang mga asul-an at dilaw-an. Tinanong ko kung ano ang depinisyon nila ng pagiging aktibista. Narito ang kanilang retorika: ang mahusay na naglilingkod sa estudyante habang nababalanse ang gawaing pampaaralan. Palakpakan ang kanilang mga tenga, palakpakan ang kanilang mga palikpik. Nagtanong ako kung may aktibista ba na mula sa partidong kilala sa pagru-room-to-room, pagra-rally, pagsta-strike, pagpapapirma ng signature sheets, pamimigay ng polyeto. May iilang nagtaasan ng kamay. Nakapagtatakang iilan lamang ang nagtaas ng kamay. Ngunit hindi naman rin talaga nakapagtataka. Ang sagot nila sa tanong ko kung ano ang depinisyon nila ng aktibismo: iyong sa teorya at praktika ay nasa larangan ng laban at digmaan. Wala sila sa klase sa panahong iyon. Dahil ang panawagan ng lipunan at ng masang estudyante ay ang lumabas ng klasrum at makiisa sa rally, strike at mga popular na pagkilos ng estudyante laban sa budget cut at iba pang tiwalang pamamalakad ng unibersidad, pamahalaan, at monopolistang dayuhan.

Ano ngayon ang kanilang kaibahan? Ang unang klase ng aktibista ay lalahok sa rally kapag walang exam. Ang ikalawang klase ng aktibista ay lalahok sa rally kahit na pasistahin pa sila ng guro at sabihing ang mag-rally ay tiyak na babagsak sa exam. Sa unang tingin, kahanga-hanga ang unang aktibistang “nababalanse” ang aktibismo at pag-aaral. Anila, hindi lamang sa pagra-rally nasusukat ang aktibismo. Para paniwalaan ang isang aktibista — ang isang lider-estudyanteng aktibista — ay dapat pumapasok siya sa eskwela, hindi lang basta naka-enroll. Pangunahin para sa kanila ang pagpasok sa klase, pagsusumite ng mga takdang-aralin, pagkuha ng mga exam, pagpasa sa klase, at hindi pagka-dismiss sa programa ng departamento at kolehiyo. Kahanga-hanga ito, ngunit ito’y kahanga-hanga lamang sa isang perpektong lipunang walang anumang kontradiksyon, walang anumang kahirapan at pagmamalabis ng iilan. O mas tama yatang sabihin na kahanga-hanga ito sa isang mundong burgis, na nag-aastang walang anumang kontradiksyon sa lipunan.

Ngunit ang katotohanan ay batbat ng kontradiksyon ang lipunan. Paano matinong makapag-aaral sa klase ang mga mag-aaral ng UP Manila Extension Program sa Palo, Leyte, kung hindi dumarating ang kanilang allowance pambili ng pagkain bunga ng pagkaltas sa badyet sa edukasyon? Paano matinong makapag-aaral sa klase ang isang estudyanteng ilang oras nang zombie dahil sa sabay na pagtatrabaho sa call center at pabrika habang iniraraos ang digri sa kolehiyo? Paano makapag-aaral nang mabuti at mapayapa ang isang aktibista at lider-estudyanteng aktibista kung tinatawag siya ng responsibilidad sa sektor at sa lipunan na kanilang sinumpaan sa kanilang mamamayan? Hindi kasi perpekto ang lipunan. At ang mga aktibista’t lider-estudyanteng ito ay nagsusulong ng digmaan laban sa imperpektong sistema. Bakit mo sila pupulaan? Bakit target ngayon ng mga asul-an at dilaw-an ang mga pula-han?

Hindi pagpapabaya ang pagliban sa klase dahil sa pagtugon sa mga responsibilidad ng isang aktibista at isang aktibistang lider-estudyante. Ang tawag doon ay mataas na uri ng sakripisyo. Na dapat hangaan at tularan. Hindi laging nangangahulugan ang mababa o bagsak na grado bilang pagpapabaya, bilang kabobohan. Kailangang suriin ang uri ng pagliban sa klase o pagbagsak sa eskwela: ito ba’y sakripisyong bunga lamang ng pagmomoda sa burgis na pag-ibig at paglalango sa alak ng kapitalismo; o ito ba’y sakripisyo para sa pag-ibig sa bayan, pag-ibig na lampas pa sa sarili’t sarili? Sakripisyo para sa layuning lahat ng mag-aaral ay makapag-aral at patuloy na makapag-aral. Sakripisyo para sa malayang lipunan.

Ang tunay na kapabayaan ay iyong isinasakripisyo ang paglilingkod sa bayan para makakuha ng hungkag na uno at mataas na grado mula sa neoliberal at pasistang sistema. E, ano kung uno ka kung hindi ka naman tunay na naglingkod sa masa! Aanhin mo ang laude kung ang utak mo’y puro tae. Madaling maging honorable at academically excellent na estudyante, pero mahirap ang maging pula-hang aktibistang lider-estudyante.