ISANG malaking eskandalo ang pagkakahuli sa anak ni Boying Remulla, ang kalihim ng DoJ, nga mga ahente ng PDEA. Hindi siya nahulihan ng 2 o 3 sachet ng droga. Nahuli sa kanya ang halos isang kilo ng meth, o shabu, na may halagang P1.3 milyon. Hindi siya small-time user. Bagkus, sangkot siya sa kalakalan sa droga.
Kung nangyari ito sa Japan, walang mahabang salita at magbibitiw kagyat ang opisyal na Japones. Tapos ang usapan. Ngunit pinakamakapal ang mga opisyal na Filipino. Wala sa kanilang kultura ang magbitiw sa gitna ng eskandalo. Habang isinusulat ang kolum na ito, walang sinabi si Boying Remulla na magbibitiw siya ng tungkulin. Ang tanging sinabi niya ay hindi siya makikialam sa kaso ng anak.
Pauwi si Boying mula Geneva kung saan pinatotohanan niya sa isang pandaigdigang pagtitipon doon ng mga tagatangkilik ng karapatang pantao na ang “red-tagging” ay isang lehitimong polisiya ng administrasyon ni BBM. Bahagi umano ng demokrasya ang pagbibintang sa kung sino-sino na komunista sila, aniya.
May ibang pananaw ang ilang netizen sa nangyari sa anak ni Boying. Kaya hinaharang umano ni Boying Remulla iyong binawing testimonyo ng ilang saksi laban Leila de Lima ay dahil apektado ang malakas na negosyo ng kanyang anak. Samantala, hindi pa nagsasalita si Rodrigo Duterte, ang ama ng mga EJK sa bansa. Wala pa rin pahayag sina Sara Duterte, Bato dela Rosa at Bong Go. Abangan.
***
Halaw ang mga sumusunod sa isang aklat na aking tinatapos tungkol sa diktadurya ni Marcos.
‘PEOPLE’S WAR’
Nationalism was the oft-used convenient springboard of national liberation movements of several countries that sought independence from colonialism and vestiges of neo-colonialism. China, getting rid of the “Century of National Shame,” had resorted to a Chinese Communist Party-led revolution to kick out the Guomindang out of China and the main power supporting it – the United States. Vietnam likewise launched a nationalist revolution against France and eventually the U.S. In the Philippines, the same anti-colonial direction manifested in the 1960s as indicated by the inordinate rise of nationalism and its ferment to attract supporters.
Before Marcos rose to power, Jose Ma. Sison and close associates formed the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) in 1964 and the Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK) in 1967, two militant youth mass organizations that led other sectors to prominence and dissent – labor, peasant, women, professionals, Church, among others. Because of the recruitment of new members and their eventual indoctrination through discussion groups (DGs), among others, the campaign against Marcos and the U. S., which anti-Marcos forces perceived as supportive of him, became pronounced and vividly perceived, as the unprecedented mass actions rocked Manila after his reelection in 1969. The intellectual ferment that was brewing since the early 1960s became visible and discernible.
These were not all. The Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN) was born on February 8, 1967 to spearhead the intelligentsia, or the intellectual class to the clamor for nationalistic changes, which included the removal of the U.S. military bases in the country and the pursuit of nationalist industrialization as the key program to economic development. The MAN membership of a little over 300 businessmen, professionals, youth leaders, labor and peasant leaders, religious workers, among others came out with a position paper that adopted nationalist positions taken by the Kabataang Makabayan, Lapiang Manggagawa (LM), Malayang Samahan ng Magsasaka (Masaka) and other mass organizations. MAN, as an advocacy group, had the cream the crop, but it did not take off. MAN had organizational issues and after a year or two, it disintegrated and died too.
Incidentally, the draft history of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) admitted that its basic mistake took place in 1948, when it decided to launch armed struggle as its main form of struggle to wrest political power. This decision prompted the PKP to discard legal forms of struggle, although they were available and possible to advance the struggle of the revolutionary forces and seize political power. In its own words, the PKP felt it “overestimated” its strength and “underestimated” the forces of the enemies. The mismatch in its approach to revolutionary struggle considerably weakened the PKP, leading to the arrest of its key leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. It was regarded a spent force in the 1960s even as newer and younger members called for its resuscitation and revitalization as a revolutionary organization.
Jose Ma. Sison joined PKP in 1962. When he saw the PKP was stagnant after the captures of its leaders, Sison became critical of the old party and developed a new thinking, which included the ideological lines that had brought the Chinese Communist Party into the 1949 political victory over its rival the Gumindang. In 1967, Sison raised serious questions about the capacity and capability of the PKP to carry on the struggle. By that time, Sison started adopting the Maoist lines of a peasant-based political struggle, jettisoning the old Marxist-Leninist line that every struggle would have to be insurrectionary, or urban based.
The reorganized CPP felt that the Philippines, during those days, possessed what he termed “semi-colonial and semi-feudal” qualities and this was a situation different from “an independent capitalist state.” Hence, it dismissed PKP’s rejection of armed struggle and instead took a harder line, which was the adoption of a “people’s war,” an armed struggle with the peasants and workers together as the main forces of the armed revolutionary forces. “Surround the city by the countryside” was the CPP’s strategy and battle cry. Sison’s revolution was aptly called the “national democratic revolution” anchored on the participation of the peasants and workers’ classes and its nationwide scope.
Ferdinand Marcos did not take the issue sitting down. Marcos took the re-emergence of the local communist movement not a national security matter, but an ideological issue as well. Adopting Adolf Hitler’s initiative to write a book to reflect his thinking on the reasons behind Germany’s defeat in the First World War and its perceived backwardness during the Weimar Republic’s days in the 1920s, Marcos came out with his own book, which mirrored his desire to establish an authoritarian regime in the Philippines. “Today’s Revolution: Democracy” was not a blueprint to strengthen democracy in the country. It mirrored his perverted plans and justifications to touch the nerve of history, destroy the democracy – its structures and traditions – nurtured by the 1935 Constitution, create an authoritarian government, and extend himself in power beyond 1973, the legal end of his term of office. The book, copies of which came out in 1972, was a misnomer, but it was not obvious during those days.
During his rule, Marcos interestingly published several books under his name, but they were obviously ghostwritten for him by journalists and academics, who were commissioned by him to produce written literature to justify his martial law government. The book “Today’s Revolution: Democracy” (1971) and its sequel, “Notes on the New Society of the Philippines” (1973) were rebuttals of Jose Ma. Sison’s books “Struggle for National Democracy” (1967) and “Philippine Society and Revolution” (1970), which both gained popularity and acceptance among activists’ circles of the time. Strangely, Marcos employed the buzzwords of those days, as indicated by Marcos’s twisted ideas about democracy and revolution vis-à-vis his authoritarian legacy. Marcos’s books did not take off in the intellectual circles. In fact, they were flops and widely ridiculed
The post FERDINAND MARCOS (Ikasiyam na Bahagi) appeared first on Police Files! Tonite.
Source: Police Files Tonite
Walang komento: