My personal political space: My compound.

I’m the person that sympathizes with the poor, especially in economic needs. That’s why I have a lenient mindset towards them in terms of money. Sometimes, they all have the necessary means but lacked money. Money hampers their productivity when they are full of them, and also when they are destitute of them. I believe it’s because they don’t handle their money well. It’s either they spend too much on non-essentials, or they just don’t budget it well. Sometimes they even venture into business opportunity that in the end makes them twice as poor as they were. This is how I view them. That is why I’m willing to lend them certain amounts of money. I thought that lending them money would also benefit me in terms of making them more kind and willing to run some favors for me, but I was proved wrong.

It is interesting to share the political space that currently exists around the compound where the house I live is located. The compound is a few blocks away from a railroad track, a church, almost near two ‘barangay’ halls. Observing where the compound is situated, it is surrounded by a vibrant community that is mostly occupied by the working to middle type class of people. I seldom interact with the people in the community since the point of interaction comes only when I walk on my way home or to the light rail transit station at the main thorough fare. But I know a few of them personally, such as: Gerry, a pedicab driver; Mario, the newly ordained guard of the compound; Diaz, long time guard and part-time pedicab driver and some type of healer; Ronnie, driver of the most affluent family in the compound; Edwin, cousin of Ronnie, also a driver of a different affluent family. There are others which I don’t know by name but easy to remember faces.

These people are very dear to my social life since they are the ones that I asked for some help and favors. These favors are reaped from the political relations that exist between them and me. In a Marxist view, it can be considered that I’m an exploiter since I asked them to do something because of the social class and structure that we are currently in. The truth is Marx is right when he said that the capitalist exploits the workers. Indeed, I agree with that reality, but in the case of the people that I mentioned it’s a bit different. Although there is a social divide between them and me, the division is not in the means of labor. Though technically I’m considered their ‘little bossing’ that’s because I live in the compound.

Basically, the compound collectively hires two guards for each shift, but owns their own respective drivers. These people know each other very well, and for quite some time had conducted their own little happenings inside the compound. The reason that I know these little activities take place it’s because sometimes I joined them for the reason that I’m on a little social experiment. I’d like to disprove the general notions of my Chinese elders have on them. I consider it a daunting task, since it would be very difficult to disprove what they already considered as conventional of this poor working class. Another reason that I socialize with them it’s because I believe that there will be a day that they can prove of worthy aid to me.

The interaction and current power relation that they have fostered with me began when I was still a child. With almost every day of contact it is impossible that there won’t be any development of certain kind of personal/impersonal or cliental relationship. I think it’s a conventional habit for people to know and categorize ‘manong’ guard, ‘kuya’ driver, or ‘manong’ pedicab as mere acquaintance level of relationship. Who would be interested in being a friend of ‘manong’ guard, ‘kuya’ driver, or ‘manong’ pedicab? Certainly we hold them as valuable only as to make our daily amenities constantly available. Only a meager portion of the rich, wealthy, and affluent befriend them for reason of making and treating them as the proper other. Personally, I consider them as friends. I heard their views, their goals, and their problems. Whether it is a means to dupe me into believing their poor state or just really their way to make known their grievance and concerns, it’s acceptable to me.

What makes the power relation in the current relationship tilt towards me is because of their employment and their debt to me. I’m not proud that they’re in debt, but I’m happy to help them in their current situation. I don’t yet fully understand the general habit of the working poor to be always mired with debt. But usually this happens when there are unexpected events that demand a sum of money to serve as a temporal remedy of the situation. I observe, they are usually financially troubled. There was a time that they came to ask for financial aid. They asked to borrow a certain amount of money, and I agreed. From that day on forward, the balance of power relation is tipped over my favor as so I thought. There are documentaries that insinuate that debt is an effective way of coercing people to do what you want, to enslave them to an extent. For me that’s an extreme interpretation of debt as tool for coercive means to an end, but it holds certain truth. I was able to experience the benefit of someone having a debt from you, because they treat you better.

Debt is a dangerous. That is the hard truth for the lender and borrower, since the person might choose to honor repaying his or her debt as part of a mutual agreement. This is all the more true when the debt is exclusively made without paper trail, but only through transaction by word. The borrower might renege on his promise and the lender can’t do anything about it. The resulting power relations between the debtor and borrower, it all depends on how both would use the leverage of power sourced from debt. Power from debt is unstable since it all depends on the honor and shame or the concept of ‘hiya’ from them. Occasionally, ‘walang hiya’ attitude dominates the ‘hiya’ since their dire needs calls for it.

The reason that I agreed to lend is simply because I like to trust them as part of fulfilling my small social experiment around my community. It’s an experiment concerning how far ‘utang na loob’ would fare during between them and me. But debt is not the only that matters in the current structure of the power relation in the chosen political space. The practice of coercion with expected compensation through small favors also matters. For example, there would be times that I asked ‘manong’ Mario to accompany me to go the local community market. I remembered in the past that I asked a former guard working for us Valdez to go with me and buy some animals, liquors. Basically, I asked them to help carry the items which are heavy. This small favors don’t go without any returns. Sometimes we would buy a kilo of chicken feet for them to feast on. Sometimes they asked me for a portion of contribution for their small ‘happenings’, which I gladly give some. For example, Gerry would ask me for a gift for some occasion.

There are also times that they’ll treat you or share with you some form of amenities to ease your situation. For example, they’ll offer a ride for you when they see you on your way out to school. ‘Kuya’ Edwin would offer his master’s car to let me ride on and get me off at a certain point. ‘Kuya’ Ronnie offered me his boss’ service van to drop me off at a certain junction. ‘Manong’ Diaz offered me to ride on a car owned by a former tenant in one of the units of the compound. He asked his friend to give me a ride so that it would save me energy from walking. I think they’re being nice, but more importantly they are playing politics. Though they are at the bottom, they seem to be on top. They can use the transport of their bosses to do some little favors for others. This is not a criticism but an observation on how they utilize opportunity in their favor. In this way, they’ll turn the table and have you caught in ‘hiya’, ‘utang na loob’, ‘pakikisama’ and ‘pakikikapwa’ without actually bearing any cost or expense. In a more positive light, they make use of the available utility in a more efficient and productive manner.

The political spaces that I shared influence only parts of me. Though only portions of me, I consider its impact serious and enormous. It not only confirmed how I view and think about my surrounding world, but also shaped the way I am yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The way that I deal with the people that have power over me and the people I have power over will never be the same in any circumstance in any period of time. 

The political space that I am in is in constant change. Today I might be on one of the high places of the political relations, and tomorrow I might as well be at the bottom. The political space in the compound between the poor working class and me a middle class person is mechanize by debt and gratitude, and with certain ‘filipino’ cultural values. The power relations exist between them and I, but they have some ways of circumventing the conventional power relations. That’s why I partly believe the Marxist conjecture of the exploited working class, but I doubt if the working class is not manipulating the power relations in their favor.

Lending money is not a bad act, but it is a dangerous one. If lending is meant for yielding power, don’t forget that the other party being in debt can turn the power against you. Yes indeed, money can be equated to temporal power, but wits can wield you more power. It is when the indebted party uses their wits against you in not paying their debts that the balance of power tips toward their favor. If you are not in position to lend, then don’t or else you’ll get trampled upon by the power struggle.

Critical Analysis on Singson and his controversial drug case as a cultural product

Cultural Analysis on the popular Discourse concerning Ronald V. Singson

Ronald V. Singson is a cultural product of the country and Filipino psychology. His behavior can be positively praised and negatively criticized depending on the prevailing public discourse. His acts are judged by the public. Whether he is found wanting or not in the eyes of the public, it will forever remain that he was caught red handed for possessing illicit drugs.

A mixture of approach between political economic analysis and discourse analysis will be utilized on the drug case of the embattled neophyte political figure Ronald V. Singson. More specifically the analysis will zero-in with the approach of political economic analysis on impact and content, and discourse analysis through genealogy or archeology.

Analysis will be aided with the theories of Marxists, Feminist.  The ideas on class, gender, and identity implications will be touched in both approaches. Analysis may contain lapses and incoherency as this is practically just a superficial application in the analyzing current events associated with culture and politics. The entire study is depended on archival work since no source (participant of the case) would likely want to comment, justify, or clarify on the details. 

The following section consists of the covered general facts and response of other sectors of the public. The facts are based on the subsequent hearings. All information concerned with the case was gathered from the media. Information may contain varied discrepancies from the real facts of the case due to journalistic errors.

• On March 1, 2011 effective, the young Singson resigned from his public office after submitting his letter of resignation on February 28,2011.
• On February 24, 2011 the young Singson was convicted of trafficking 6.67 grams of cocaine with a market value totaling $2,000 dollars, or a retail value of HK$15,791.60 or P89, 634.28.
• Singson was only caught after initial entry to Chek Lap Kok International Airport in Hong Kong on July 11, 2011
• SIngson opted for a HK$2-million bail granted by the Wanchai District court.
• According to the standing Hong Kong drug enforcement law, bringing drugs inside Hong Kong territory is tantamount to drug trafficking.
• The court accepted Singson's defense of personal use after the Judge found him as "a man of ample means."
• According to a report, dated February 23, 2011, Singson openly admitted his intermittent use of cocaine in 2004 and amphetamines in his 20's. He also mentioned of having an argument with his girlfriend after attending an Usher concert in Manila. He cited it as the reason why he started to take in the illicit drugs. Roncesvalles (2011) also reported the same fact that Singson consumed the drugs after having a quarrel with her girlfriend. The reporter quoted him as “depressed after a breakup with Poe, making him seek solace in cocaine.” An unprofitable concert held last July 9 (probably the Usher concert) also accounted for his deteriorating depression.
• Roncesvalles (2011) noted in her report that Singson is getting more special treatment than the other three Filipinos on death row for drug trafficking in China.
• Escudero (2011) wrote that SIngson represented a district of Ilocos Sur province for the second time; however he hasn’t reported nor attended on the session of the newly inaugurated 15^th congress.
• Roncesvalles (2011) reported that as the House ethics committee started mulling for his removal from congress, Singson started considering resignation.
• Roncesvalles (2011), consistent with other reports, reported that ‘Singson’s stature as legislator and businessman’ was considered in their defense.
• Roncesvalles (2011) quoted the elder Singson that his son “was requested to courier the drugs’’; thus, leading the reporter to believed that the elder Singson is claiming “that his son might have been set up.”
• Molina (2011) wrote according to the elder Singson that the younger Singsons are being unfair for pushing through their initiative for the latter’s removal from Congress. The elder Singson that the incident must “have been instigated by [political or business] rivals of his son or those “jealous’’ of him. Reiterating that his son was set-up. In another instance, the elder Singson also conveyed the idea of a set-up by accusing his son’s two other companions of also carrying drugs but nonetheless released.
• According to a report, there is a great possibility that Singson was granted to exit the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) unscathed. Philippine Drug Enforcement Authorities (PDEA), according to Senator Tito Sotto, believed that local authorities with apparent knowledge of the drug possession allowed Singson to pass through the port. But local authorities already alerted the authorities of Singson’s destined airport. According to the report of Romero (2011), Singson was accorded with special treatment by the authorities due to his membership in the House of Representative. It was noted that Singson traverse NAIA 2 around 5 pm on July 11, 2011.

It must be true that what Porcalla (2011) reported about Ronald Singson being given an advice by his father to contemplate on resignation ''out of delicadeza" was true. However the question is if ‘delicadeza’ was really the point for resignation or is it just because he was caught? There a Filipino joke that implies that another extra commandment exists and that is “Thou shall not get caught.”

In addition it is also worth note taking the words of Singson on how he arrived in his decision to resign. The following are his own made statement during an interview with reporters.

 “not because I am succumbing to the pressure of the noisy few among my honorable colleagues; rather, my resignation is a fulfillment of my promise to my father who had all the right to make the first and loudest protest because it was his name and honor that was mercilessly dragged into the tempest of my own undoing.” Quoted by (Diaz, 2011)

Political Economic Analysis:

In the lenses of Marxist inquiry on Singson, being a cultural product, he is considered a cultural product of the elite social, economic, and political class. The way he behaved in the circumstance of being caught in a foreign land also showed that he is deeply ingrained with the phenomenal ’palakasan’ system as some would call it. The fact that his father, the elder Singson, is a renowned politician in the domestic politics somehow made him an overspill of whatever the Elder Singson is. More importantly, an attempt to understand his behavior in the way he faced his case and ardent call for his resignation is interesting.

Singson received varied responses from the various classes of society, and as well as the from government institutions. The narcotic case that Singson faced is not very different from the cases filed in court in the Philippines. But the impact of his conviction was different. The public received his conviction with mixed feelings and interest. The way authorities handled Singson with his drug case is very different from the usual way authorities handle other normal OFW cases. The young Singson’s colleagues in the House of Representative also responded fiercely by mulling for his resignation or eviction.

In the ‘palakasan’ system people are treated with the amount of coercive power they have. For instance, MIgrante International cited a valid concern. The government authorities especially the Department of Foreign Affairs has unevenly attended to Singson’s case over the OFW’s case. That is obviously because the House Speaker ordered them so. But in a more concrete way, it is important to take notice of the comment of its undersecretary. Though it can be said that it was only a comment, still the gravity of that comment is shocking, because in another light it is ‘papogi’ for Singson.

Another impact worth take noting is the impact on the House of Representative as the legislative institution of the country. The colleagues reacted the way they did is because they are currently protecting the dignity of the institution. However, that is a big problem because in the first place the institution itself is hounded with alleged corrupt activities. Currently the House Speaker is attempting to turn around the tarnished image of the House of Representative. The other house colleagues for one reason or another took advantage of Singson’s case to prompt for an investigation and demanded immediate resignation.

The enforcement ability of the authorities in NAIA was also circumvented because Singson is considered a high profile person in the Philippines. If the reports were true then, authorities here are rendered powerless to act in their mandated authority. Power relation between the airport authorities and the young Singson is unequal and unbalanced. Maybe it is also because of the standing reputation of the Elder Singson being rich and powerful. Under Marx’s view this would not be surprising because power relations always tipped in the favor of the economic elite.

Singson’s stature, as a legislator and man of ample means, evidently had an impact on the Judge's decision. His stature and current status paved the way for the Judge to believe the defense of SIngson. Singson defended by claiming that he brought the drug for personal use. The drug was not meant for any transaction of any sort. Singson in the latter end was sentenced with a light imprisonment in Hong Kong. The Judge’s acceptance of the Singson’s defense can be seen in the light of social class. Fortunate for Singson his social class was cited as a reason for the validity of his defense. Contrast this affirmation of social class; other OFWs who are currently embroiled in numerous drug cases in China weren’t as fortunate as Singson.

Discourse Analysis:

This paper would like to ponder on the discourse of the current public discussion on Singson’s resignation after his conviction of drug trafficking. The analysis would consist of Singson’s resignation letter, and the general public perception on Singson’s resignation.

Ronald V. Singson officially abdicated his position as member of House of Representative on March; thus vacating his actual representation of his district. His resignation did not come immediately after the incident was exposed by the media and got the attention of his colleagues in the House of Representative. Everything that followed in the case was a bit controversial since what happened to him is politically damaging. However, in the end he did submit his resignation from being a representative and public servant of his district. The letter of resignation was believed to be submitted and transmitted on February 28, 2011. His letter of resignation contained the following words quoted from a periodical article: “in keeping with the time-honored tradition of this august Congress to be ever vigilant that all who walk in its corridors or sit in its various sessions must come with clean hands, clean minds and clean hearts.” Quoted from (Diaz, 2011)

No one really knows what is running in the mind of Singson, but notice his grand statements. “In like vein, I would also like to thank the noisy minority who demanded my ouster even before my plea of guilt and the final verdict. Let me thank them as the Lord Jesus preached, ‘If they throw you stones, throw them bread’,” quoted also from a different periodical article by (Diaz, 2010). He knew he was doomed. His colleagues tried to throw in a good punch by sending his case to the House ethics committee for immediate hearing for his possible eviction. His fellow representatives were said to be mindful of the image of the legislative body and institution. His fellow representatives kept on invoking that His unlawful conduct is costing the House its political image. Though, ironically the House is one among the many institutions that the public don’t trust. The public image is currently hounded by controversies of graft and corruption.

Singson wrote in the letter that he has come to a point of 'masakit na desisyon'. It’s also interesting to note that a portion of the letter contains these words. He said he was quitting for his father’s sake, and maybe it is also implied for the sake of his constituents. The following emotional statements were made known by Singson after issuing a resignation letter. He claimed to have consented to resign for his father’s sake. In the Feminist view, this reason would be very patriarchal since the honor of the father is regarded important. What about then the honor of his mother? The social meaning or discourse being conveyed here by Singson would be disturbing for the Feminists. However, this just proves that patriarchal oriented society tends to weigh the father’s honor over the mother’s.

Another interesting fact is that the elder Singson tried to play the blame game of his son’s mishap. On various occasions, Singson allegedly claimed that his son was framed or set-up. He even said that his son might have been entrapped by people jealous of his current stature. He even further defended his son by stating that his son was asked to courier the said drugs. In Filipino term this behavior is called ‘palusot’ because his son failed to observe the 11^th commandment of “thou shalt not get caught”. Apparently the judge did not take notice of these statements when the court ruled over the case. But the point here is that Singson is trying to wash his son’s hand clean, when in fact his son was already caught red handed.

The public opinion on Singson’s resignation was received with mixed response. The young Singson’s resignation was regarded as “gentlemanly gesture”, “left with no choice”, a sign of “delicadeza”, “worthy of emulation”, “opportunity for political rebound”, “international blunder”, “he deserves it”, “it doesn’t really matter”, “tarnished record”. These various categories will be explained below. The public opinion at a glance seems to be lenient on Singson since some of them praised him for resigning, while others are critical of him.

Some of the public sees Singson’s resignation as “a gentlemanly gesture” because he accepted defeat by whatever reason or motivation. Accepting a mistake is the most acceptable thing to do in the eyes of the public; therefore, resignation is an option that accolade some praise. Some even saw this move as a saving grace for the legislative institution. His move somehow restored a little dignity to the title of “honorable”.

Second, some of the public saw the resignation as a sign of coercive power of his colleagues in the House of Representative. The fact that he was threatened of eviction was enough for him to accept graceful exit rather than experience humiliating expulsion. In the end, the discourse here suggested that in order to avoid further embarrassment or ‘hiya’, resignation becomes an optimal thing to do. Third, for some the discourse is about ‘delicadeza.’ It similar to the concept of ‘hiya’, however this is more of like ‘hiya’ with a productive initiative. Some would equate his resignation for it because it is an honorable act for a leader to act on. His sense of honor still dominates his decision process.

Fourth, the public regarded his act as worthy of emulation. In other words, it is an act worthy of imitation, and it stands as an example toward other politicians. The public claims that his resignation appealed for the conscience to dominate in the decision making of other politicians. This is accorded as true leadership by some commentators. Fifth, for others this is just a show. People should watch and see for his political comeback soon in the near future. At this point in time, this is just a test for Singson. This incident will further shape his character. Sixth, his resignation did not brought about any redemption, but rather another shame before the face of our country.

Seventh, some of the public conceived that he deserved to be convicted and thus resign. In this category of comment some of the public exuded anger, because he wasted the votes and trust that the public entrusted him with. Some of them just exclaimed with great approval and contentment. In the end, some of the public conceived this as nothing. Reason cited was concerned with the power of Singson’s wealth. He wasn’t able to unleash it, because his wealth was irrelevant in the international arena. In short, his wealth is not enough for him to buy his freedom.

These sentiments of the public can be analyzed with the theoretical perspective of Marx. Different classes of the society would view him differently. The public correctly perceived Singson’s wealth as being powerless in a foreign land. The public’s comment can be seen to be critical of his stature as a statesman, and as a politician. It should be noted that it is common knowledge that the economic elite and the political elite in the Philippines are distinctively blurred. Though, there is no concrete identification of which comment came from which social class. It could be seen through their intelligent reactions that they quite understand the social class dividing politicians from the public. The public would readily accept and emulate a wealthy public servant if he only does what is right as perceived by the public.

Critical Reflection on Post-Colonial theories

Post-Colonial Theorists are more enlightening than the Western critical theories. This is a personal opinion that can be regarded as an Asian perspective. The ideas of Post-Colonial theory are more related to the Filipinos like us. I mostly agree with what Post-Colonialists say, but when I reflect on the people that think about these ideas I realized that they also came from the very races that have racists’ attitude. For an example, Edward Said is known to be a Palestianian-American. Edward Said was very much concerned about the image that the Americans and the West conjure about it. I guess Edward Said should have also considered what image the Middle East projects, especially the Islamic fanatics. Speaking about Middle East, one should be immersed in the history, the unnecessary wars and atrocities in the region. Yes, the West did its part of savagery, but Arabs did too. It is my belief that Arabs are not barbaric but some Arabs exude over religious zealousness that they become the source of cultural oppression. For instance, Jewish ancestral cemeteries are desecrated. Tombs of significant religious patriarchs of the Jews are being taken over by the Arabs. Various sites that are spread all over the territory of Israel, West Bank, and believe it or not Iran are being demolished or taken over and stripped of Jewish significance. Basically, what they are doing is an attempt to root out the trace Jewish presence to evict them from the region and from its territory. UNESCO, now dominated by the Arabs and Islamic member countries, has become the instrument of the Arabs and Islamic countries to attempt eradicating the significant markers and traces of the Jewish history in the region. I wonder what would be Edward Said’s reaction on these developments in the Middle East. The main point being thrust here is that Orientals like the Middles Eastern countries though oppressed are also oppressors in one way or another.

Critical Reflection on the theories of the West

I’m glad that Marx’s theory and call for revolution to overthrow capitalism and its ideals triumphed within a short period of time but failed miserably in the long run. Marx’s ideal world is hard to achieve because the possession of wealth and information always conjures power relations. If the workers around the world succeeded in overthrowing the ruling capitalist, the vacuum of power would be filled by those who are triumphant. Perhaps in that reality, the working class would be the center of power and wealth concentration and thus power would just transfer from one class to the other without really diffusing it as envisioned by Marx. Being happy about the failure of Marxism to set up a world system of equality does not mean that I accept the idea of Capitalism in its totality. Capitalism is not a perfect ideology and the consequences brought about by its ideas were a mixture of cost and benefits.

Capitalism is obviously the victor in the contest against Marxism. However, the supremacy of Capitalism is not yet certain because a new challenger has come to light. The new challenger is brought about by the consequence of Capitalist Imperialism or colonization. Capitalism became the tool for the powerful to manipulate the culture and consciousness of the colonized and subjugated. The unwanted consequence of Capitalism gave birth to something that threatens its continual survival. I think this is what the western cultural theorists realized in their observation. The attempt of man to fully put fellow men and nature into his or her subordination through reason and logic prospered only to fail in the latter end. I think this is because human logic and reason, no matter how advanced it is, is still is far from fully comprehending everything the world has to offer.

Most of the discussion about culture being a commodity sounds so true to me. Basically the first thought that came into mind when speaking of commodified culture is tourism. However, culture as explained is not just something sought after from place to place, but it has become export oriented commodity. There is no doubt that culture has this property since culture is an idea. Writing this blog has made me remember about the film ‘Inception’ by Christopher Nolan. Like the main idea of the film, culture can be like an idea in the process of ‘inception’. There is a strong sense of belief that the film fully demonstrated the expression of the idea being addressed here. Ideas can be planted in the depths of our mind, and bet we Filipinos are the best example of such.

Maybe someday I’ll write a blog an analogy in some of the narrative elements in ‘Inception’ to the anatomy of commodified culture in the Philippines.

The great other and the not so great other

Knowing who your others are is really a tough and personal question that I don’t really often think about. However, this doesn’t mean that I’m completely unaware who they are. The ones that I’m going to mention are the ones that I can think of the moment. Generally my intermediate family can be considered as my intermediate others like my Father, Mother, sister, uncles, aunts, and cousins. But the most significant other in my family would be my grandmother. She is already old but still practically acts like an overlord concerning family matters. She is sweet and kind, understanding and loving. She had 12 children and my dad was among them. And she has numerous grandsons and granddaughters who are happily married and raising their own family. I think the reason that I picked her as the most significant other in my family is due to the fact that I grew up under her intensive care. And growing up under her custody made me feel how far reaching her power and influencing can be in any matters concerning the family. She is no despot. She’s just powerful because she is much respected by all of her children and grand children. Aside from the family, I find my others from my pool of friends and buddies. The people that I usually hang around, and of course the authorities are also significant others. Another important other that have a great impact on me is a figure of my faith. I see my G-d as an important other. I claim this to be not that I claim to be a god, but I claim this because I feel that I’m happily bound to please my G-d.

Have I ever been dominated and objectified, I think yes, dominated and objectified consciously and unconsciously. I believe I’m dominated and objectified as long as I’m alive but not by all people. Only certain people might have dominated and objectify me, but I guess they possess higher authority or just plain arrogant. Some people dominate and objectify people on purpose just to feel good about their self and feed their own ego. I remembered that there was once an encounter just a few years ago. A friend of mine posted something on facebook. Naturally, I posted a comment. But apparently he has a friend that totally disagreed with the comment I wrote. The way he argued his disagreement with me was totally degrading. He was so arrogant in the way he criticized my comment. Although he was convincingly right, but the way he did it dominated and objectified me intellectually. Though he has his right to speak out his mind, he has also the responsibility to deliver it responsibly. I think he was just too proud of his opinion, because it makes so much sense, but not thinking that his wit has made him a bigot. Sorry, but I guess his bigotry overwhelmed his wit. At that time when I asked my friend about that guy who made those arrogant comments, he said that the person is his teacher. Well, what a teacher we have there. I could have learned something, but because of his unmannered reply I learned that he has a mind of an intelligent being, but has a heart uncivilized “kanto” boy. He objectified me, so I guess I might as well make him an object to be ridiculed with.

I think there were numerous encounters where I tried to dominate and objectify people willingly and unwillingly. Though I know that objectifying people is somehow a crime to humanity, I do it because sometimes I act on impulse. It is not necessarily that I feel superior at those moment in time but because I felt that I was right and they were wrong. I can still remember that last new year’s eve of 2010, I almost got embroiled with a fight against other bystanders watching the fireworks. It all started when a guy threw some tiny “paputok” near where the household maids were. We were all watching the fireworks display when suddenly we were thrown with small fireworks. I thought that it was disturbing and rude to throw small “paputoks” at populated areas, especially when the small “paputok” was really thrown at us. And it did not happen just once but twice. So the fact that I felt that I had a moral advantage, I felt that I was in the right position to demand apology from them, I howled against them and pointed my finger at the culprits. I barked at them, “What’s your problem?” “Don’t you know that what you guys are doing are dangerous… you might hurt somebody!” After this few remarks they approached me, there were 2 of them I supposed. I don’t quite remember exactly. When they approached me we went further into a heated argument. I argued that when they hurt anyone of us, can they pay the bills for our hospitalization. I pointed that what they were doing were really unjustified, since we were just innocently watching the awesome fireworks display, when they suddenly threw some fireworks at us. Suddenly another guy came up as if join those whom I confronting. This part is where I think things got messed up. Those guys were almost ready to hit me. Luckily, somehow they were restrained not only because the guard employed at our compound knew them, but he was also ready to protect me if things get worst from worse. Somehow, the arguments turned into reconciliation, when the guy who threw those fireworks offered his embrace. That was the time when I realized and remembered, that due to my zealous pursuit for justice for the wrong they have done against us bystanders, I tried to dominate them on the grounds of morality and objectified them as uneducated and low class people. When my family heard what happened, they also undermined them and gave me an advice not to confront these kinds of people because they are uneducated. They think that they are oppressed therefore, whatever they do is justified. I guess this piece of advice is also like objectifying them. Whether they deserved it or not, I don’t want to judge them anymore.