NSDB (Nasa Daddy ang Bayad)

NSDB (Nasa Daddy ang Bayad)

We were talking about cosmopolitanism in my History class and the importance of engaging with other cultures and bringing back the lessons learned, as these have equipped Jose Rizal, through his travel and stay in Europe, greater understanding that further ignited his already fomented nationalist spirit. Moving away from nationalist perspective, engaging with others is one way to become more open-minded for we can now see from other worldviews.

And to do so, our professor encouraged us to go on traveling - preferably backpacking. Instead of going around places like a tourist, he suggested to mingle with the local people in a particular place, practice their practices, step back and think the possible ramifications of a particular development in an area (citing Boracay as an example, we could ask, "What happened to the people living before the hotel resorts were built?", "How about the workers, does the tip given to them actually go to them?", "Is the pH level of the beach water still on safe levels with all the developments going on?", and so on and so forth). Bur furthermore, he encouraged us to do so on our own, or with our trusted friends, using our own funds. He said that we were always NSDB or NaSa-Daddy-ang-Bayad (Payment's-on-Daddy), that many of us would not have gone elsewhere if not provided for by our parents.

During my college freshman year, this was something that would not even cross my mind. My parents only started to give me an allowance in high school and always just enough to cover for my meal and regular photocopying expenses. If I were to go out with my friends, that was when I could ask for extra money. That's only when I could start saving, which almost always got wiped out whenever I bought a new book. And to shun any possibility of even thinking about it, my parents were strict, only allowing me to go to very far places (a.k.a. outside Metro Manila) with only those friends whom they trusted. Violate that rule and I'd be grounded. Traveling alone meant commuting from home to school and to the nearest mall from home.

So I am still a NSDB or NSPB (NaSa-Parents-ang-Bayad) to be more accurate. It took me until college to realize that the foreign notion of traveling alone using my own pocket money is actually possible. Meeting classmates who have gone on trips - domestic and abroad - on their own, and others who were saving up to backpack elsewhere just further drove home the point. With my allowance exceeding what I normally spend in school, all I need to do is to save more and plan my own trip.

In countries such as Australia and India and even here in the Philippines, travel loans are granted to people who want to "travel now, pay later." My professor said this scheme will enable us to develop our sense of responsibility especially when undertaking our own pursuits. If the institutionalized set-up is still not friendly to our finances, he recommended splitting up the expenses between our own money and our parents and even loaning the whole trip from our parents, and insist to be paid on an installment basis.

My teacher claimed that we could not argue that it's a "Filipino" thing to depend on parents even if the children could already afford spending for his own pursuits. He and his colleagues went to a town in Batangas, if I had not heard him wrong, and discovered there was a practice of "paying back", where the son or daughter who already earns will give his or her salary to the parents which will only cease upon marriage. And that's an aspect of Filipino culture too. In a Malaysian area, as we were told, there is a practice of giving a dowry to the female's parents, to signify the expenses they have incurred in raising the daughter. 

These things would not have been learned if not for traveling; there is a mystical nature about it which is not present from learning about a particular place from reading and writing alone.

So while waiting for my money to be enough, still, nasa daddy ang bayad.

Same bananas

Same bananas

In my News Writing class two weeks ago, we were asked what we thought on President Noynoy Aquino's lashing out on Chief Justice Renato Corona in his speech delivered at the National Crime Justice Summit. As I told in class, the tone in which P-Noy seemed to be an indication of indirect encroachment on the autonomy of the Supreme Court, stating that the judicial body was getting in the way of his reform agenda. Eventually, I was categorized under the "legalists", upholding the laws and institutions; those who affirmed his tirades were grouped under "political", going beyond the institutions and examining its quality.

I am not sympathetic to Corona. My limited knowledge shows me that there are several circumstances in which the Supreme Court, which he heads, ruled in favor of Former President Gloria Arroyo - the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Truth Commission, the Temporary Restraining Order on her travel ban among other things. Corona was Arroyo's midnight appointee, holding the chief position in the highest court of the land. We see that he is greatly indebted to the previous president.Whether he is acting to return the favor (which, as pointed out by many, is more likely) or that's really what his judicial knowledge tells him to do so, we have yet to know. He is already impeached.

Nor I am sympathetic to Arroyo. More than anything, I am with others who push for her conviction (and others who also played a part) in the shenanigans that were eminent throughout her administration. Legal and political maneuverings have been employed left and right seen by many as her means to survive from the grave unscathed. Evidence that would pin her beyond reasonable doubt does not seem to be of reach yet, but proof from various witnesses, records and ramifications of everything that happened in her administration almost always reveals her accountable.

That does not mean I am entirely in favor of the steps the current administration has done in pursuit of its agenda of eradicating corruption. As my News Writing professor aptly puts it, "Arroyo is the symbol of corruption" for the Aquino administration, hence their aggressiveness in convicting her. True enough P-Noy's first Executive Order was the establishment of the Truth Commission, meant to investigate the plunder and corruption in GMA's term and the joint COMELEC-DOJ panel which swiftly arrived at the conclusion that she was guilty of electoral sabotage upon examining the election documents leading to release of her arrest warrant which prevented her from leaving the country.

At the bright side, at least we know those we know who have "sinned against us" will not be met with impunity. But the rather rash actions of the current administration against the old one appeals to me with certain unease. After all, the Aquino administration also had his share of maneuverings in order to detain GMA, in the same way that the former president puppeted the politico-legal strings to her advantage.

And this can be seen from the very actions the government has taken that the Supreme Court "blocked", christening them as barriers to reform: the Truth Commission, the COMELEC-DOJ Panel and the recent one, the impeachment of Renato Corona.

This one's a really interesting development to the GMA story, and shall I say, a very disturbing one. Inquirer.net, from whom I learned of the event, told that the decision came after a hastily convened caucus of Liberal Party and its allies, which produced the articles of impeachment against the Chief Justice just after three hours, signed by more than 1/3 of the Congress. All these "to appease an angry President Benigno Aquino III."

Certainly, she and her administration had their more than fair share of unscrupulous practices. Let us note however, that they are also acknowledged as skilled movers within the limits of the law, diverting herself away from the attention and wrath of the many numerous times - pork barrel to her supporters, executive clemency to Erap for starters. The latter, which marked the last years of her term, was described desperate on her part, "she was desperately clinging on to power to save herself," my Politics and Development professor would tell me.

Aquino, on the other side of the coin, is seen as the total opposite of Arroyo - the "reformer" of a corrupt system. While no charges of the same cases have been filed against him, this does not mean that our incumbent president is incorruptible or that he does not have a dirty secret hidden elsewhere. What we are sure of is that he and his administration are greatly intent to convict the former President that they create drastic measures, bordering between the constitutional and unconsitutional, between "just" and "unjust".

Time and again we are told to look into the quality of our institutions. When you have a questionable judicial body and an executive branch aggressively bent on pinning her down with seemingly little attention to fulfilling its other promises, it is difficult to see the real difference. The two major figures pitted against one another in this executive-judicial cockfight are crudely same bananas. We have to thank Arroyo's 9  years in administration for making her the criminal we want to convict badly and Aquino's family background, whose influence on our president's political decisions are not yet markedly defined, for putting him on roughly the same page with her.

In his status update, my friend pointed out Arroyo and Aquino's one important similarity: they give away government positions to their supporters. Not that there's anything wrong, except that when you put an incompetent or unqualified for the job, you are putting the quality of service down the line. Same banana.

The current administration is too keen on political cleansing and yet how it plans to actually reform the systemic corruption remains to be seen. Purging the "sinners" will not bring us anywhere if the same old structure that produced them is still allowed to perpetuate.

In the process of pursuing their goals, both parties engaged in methods that lay beyond the legal, constitutional and political "comfort zones". Perhaps, in adamantly wanting Arroyo to be convicted, Aquino is becoming like Arroyo himself.