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.