The Many-Countries Solution

I promised my friend Fritz Reith that I would provide him with a blow-by-blow and round-by-round account of the Donaire-Montiel fight last Saturday. I was just behind ringside and no more than thirty feet from the boxers. I could see every punch thrown. I had my Composition notebook on my lap and was prepared to take notes.

After the first round, I wrote on my notebook: Boxers feeling each other out. Donaire appeared to be stronger and his hand speed remarkably superior. Donaire slipped a couple of left hooks in, Montiel didn't do a thing.

Then came the second round. They were still sizing each other up. Montiel threw a right straight which Donaire countered with a stinging left hook. Montiel fell forward and as he was going down, Donaire met him with a right upper cut. Montiel, sprawled on the floor, tried to get up but looked like a newborn horse trying to right itself. He managed to clear his head and sold himself to the referee as fit to continue. Donaire went after him with two punches to the head and the referee stopped the fight.

There was not enough material for this blog.

It occurred to me that since kindergarteners and early grades public school students in the Philippines are now being taught in their native tongues, it may be the right time to introduce the idea of a "many-countries solution" to folks who have not read my book. Teaching early grades students in their vernacular would make it easier for them to learn their academic subjects, but it would also reinforce the strong regional identities of those students. That's the unintended consequence.

So I'm reprinting Chapter 11 of my book, Out of the Misty Sea We Must, in this blog. I hope y'all like it.

------- O ------

Kayangan Lake Carlos Esguerra Photo
Chapter 11
The Many-Countries Solution

I favor the confederation, or many-countries solution, over federation because of the fragmented nature of Filipino life and psyche. We are many islands, many nations, many languages, cultures and traditions.

Yet if Filipinos had a "free look" period of five to ten years, they would not take all that time but instead return the idea of a confederation to the salesman immediately. Especially if the salesman is a Tagalog. Filipinos probably would claim that the confederation idea favors the Tagalogs too much and will put the other independent states in a deeper hole.

Assuming that the partition of the Philippines is done along the lines of the 17 regions in the Philippines, the poorest regions would be Ilocos, Bicol, Eastern Visayas, Caraga and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

Those regions would have per capita incomes of less than 20% of the figure for Metro Manila. In the case of the ARMM (Autonomous Region) the per capita GDP would be less than 12% of Metro Manila's.

Metro Manila, or more formally the National Capital Region, has an annual per capita income of $10,000+, with Makati having a whopping per capita of $29,000+ and Mandaluyong with a nearly equally impressive $20,000+.

Metro Manila's per capita Gross Domestic Product is the 30th highest in the world. Beijing is barely ahead of Metro Manila, while Jakarta and Delhi, India are immediately behind Manila. Guangdong, China comes right after Delhi, and Bangkok is two places behind Guangdong.

Metro Manila is in giddy company. If Metro Manila becomes a separate country, it will look like Hong Kong of a couple of decades ago.

Should the Visayans, the Ilocanos, Kapampangans, etc. reject the idea of a confederation as overwhelmingly favoring Metro Manila? If time were to be frozen, the answer is a resounding "Yes." This idea could be easily dismissed as a ploy by Manilenos to allow Metro Manila to splinter from the archipelago known as Philippine Islands and never look back.

Time, however, stands still for no one. Along with time, huge changes will quickly follow. What are the prospects for the other regions which will now become independent states - alone or in combination with others?

Metro Manila has developed quickly since Independence on July 4, 1946 while the provinces, especially the remote areas, have stood still. Not completely stood still, for certainly progress has come to those areas albeit at a snail's pace. And it is progress at the barest of all minimums.

It's patchwork progress.

David C. Martinez, who writes prose with equal passion as his poetry, is the foremost proponent of breaking up the Philippines into separate countries. His book, A Country of Our Own, has been reviewed very favorably in international literary circles. I am reading that book – it is not meant to be for one sitting – and I often wonder how someone who was not born in the language could write so well in English.

Here’s an excerpt of a review of A Country of Our Own published by the Tambara, a publication of the Ateneo de Davao University – that Jesuit university in Mindanao, Philippines:

This book shouldn't be read in one sitting. Martinez' critical analysis of the fabricated state that is the Philippines is a lifetime thesis on a subject so insistently compelling to its student, filtered through years of anguish, outrage, confusion, yearning, and hope against hope.

The Dumaguete-born exile essays Philippine history sans the distracting, driving emotions that had fueled his fevered inquiry, in a brutally honest tone that engages reason, in lyrical words that speak to the heart. What is left is the distilled conviction of an intellectually honest man who knows what he is talking about, though he is constantly on the verge of digressing given the sheer volume of data he needed to present. What makes this book well argued is the magnified clarity to detail that must have come only from remembering ever so often that which had been forgotten every now and then.

The book poignantly begins with the newly exiled casting off into the high seas to escape the political persecution that came in the wake of the proclamation of PD 1081(the Marcos martial law decree). Adrift in the waters, the world rendered aloof, he became as one with the countless many who came centuries before, seemingly tied to the world only by the fragile moorings of his unutterable hope, the distant stars and an ancient map on cloth. He discovered for himself the emergence of the age-old need wrought in the human psyche to search for authentic identity…

In the first nine chapters, Martinez provides a thorough depiction of the accidents and intents that have led to our (Filipinos’) current experience. Like a marriage made in hell, this tells us why we're not likely to stay together forever. Advocates of federalism and secession would find this book indispensable.

Martinez posits that it is the imposition of uniformity that set the Philippines on the road to self-destruction. He examines the myriad ways through which homogeneity in thought and behavior was hammered over time through conversion, colonial governance, and elitist protectionism, regimented by a twisted concept of Catholicism, an equally twisted concept of democracy, and a system of education meant to indoctrinate attention to form rather than substance.

Can uniformity be fashioned from diversity? Of course not. But oh, how we all suffered in the cruel attempts to make this pipe dream (a single Filipino nation) come true for its deluded dreamers.

Will diversity achieve harmony and equality? Only if consent to be inconvenienced is respectfully sought and willingly given.

But if legacy is about planting seeds that would take root, this book deserves to be read by the young who, in their unconscious wisdom, deny the lie that is Philippine history taught in our schools, are repulsed by it, and cannot relate to it. Excised from their indigenous communal roots and trapped in the incongruous exercise of a culture alien to where they are, four out of five seek psychological congruence in the expression of this desire to be out of here. For all intents and purposes, the next generation has virtually seceded anyway. Rootless, they long for solid ground under their feet, one that would allow them to stand firm, stand proud.

Roots are not so much about where we are physically as they are about who our minds know us to be. Reading this book would lead the young to seek a connection to their authentic roots, to find genuine validation of their psyche, and to finally come home to their primal selves. That, I think, was what the author had in mind when he rose to the duty of putting this out.

As promised by its subtitle, this book audaciously dares to make a case for partitioning the Philippines according to its indigenous nations: the Cordillera, Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, and Bangsamoro.

Gail Tan Ilagan teaches Social Justice, Social Psychology, and Sociology at the Ateneo de Davao University.

YOU CAN’T GO HOME AGAIN

The first time I went back to the Philippines - in 1992, after a 25-year absence - I was dumbfounded when I saw the rivers in the rural areas. What used to be pristine rivers where the local damsels washed their laundry, all I could see were garbage strewn all over the banks, some sticking from beneath the water levels. People were using the rivers to dump their everyday castoffs.
Was there even garbage collection in those areas? In Boracay two years ago, the catamaran I took my family on was caught in a heavy downpour. We had to make an emergency landing in the back of the island. Then it struck me: that's where all the garbage and some of the sewage were ending up.

This was not the country I had left in 1967, when I promised myself that I would study for five years in the U.S., get my Masters, perhaps even my PhD and then return to the Philippines to be a part of the nation-building.

I had dreamed for 25 years of going back and seeing the Philippines once more. I had envisioned myself dropping to the tarmac at the Manila International Airport (already renamed the Ninoy Aquino International Airport) and kissing the tarmac.

When I saw the tarmac and the countless chewing gum discards stuck to it and other forms on the surface that I judged to be dried up spit, I quickly changed my mind. I would rather kiss a four-foot two midget woman with no teeth.

I recalled what a doctor in Seattle once told me when I told him of my plan to go back to the Philippines to do important work there. He quoted Thomas Wolfe. “You can’t go home again,” he said.

Even Paradise, it seemed, had been despoiled, all in the name of "progress".

Progress for the hinterlands has come at a tremendous cost. Because of a lack of infrastructure development at par with Manila's, the rural areas are overrun by the trappings of progress.

While people's garbage have increased a thousand-fold (progress is always accompanied by a geometric explosion of garbage), people still have no jobs or adequate education. People have nothing to look forward to but the prospect of going abroad someday - to Saudi Arabia, to Hong Kong, to Malaysia, to Canada, California or New York. The luckiest ones have only to go to the nearest Western Union to claim remittances from relatives abroad.

The nearest convention center is in front of Aling Inday's sari-sari, where locals congregate at night to drink lambanog and trade jokes. Lately, the karaoke bars have served as the magnets for locals to trade jokes and to drink.

The only truly significant, transformative progress over the years is the one that has come to Metro Manila, Cebu, Angeles City, Subic and Davao. Only portions that are in excess of Metro Manila's needs have trickled off to the provinces. I know, some of you are thinking, what about Baguio, General Santos City, Cagayan de Oro? What about this and that city?

THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CASE FOR PARTITIONING

Once the regions become independent states, they will be able to carve their own destinies and implement laws that favor them. They will not need the permission of a Manila government to pursue their own dreams. All progress will accrue to them, not to an overbearing Metro Manila.

If the independent states wish to open their countries to foreign investments by scrapping the prohibition against foreign majority ownership of businesses, they will be free to do so. There will be no Manila government trying to stop them.

If those states want to scrap minimum wage laws to make them more competitive in the world market, there will be no Manila government frowning on them.

If those states want to offer their natural resources - industrial and precious metals - for development by foreign interests, there will be no Manila government trying to thwart their will.

If those states want to lease their territories to governments for commercial or military purposes, there will be no Metro Manila halting the construction.

If those states want to pursue social policies that differ from Manila's, they will be free to do so.

For example, if some independent states favor a more progressive family planning policy, there will be no Manila government or CBCP shaking a stick in their face. Spain, the source of the country's religiosity, has after all leaped into the 21st century and has legalized abortion (under certain strict conditions) and divorce. I do not personally favor abortion or divorce, but if the independent states want them, who am I to stand in their way?

Were some of the independent states to make ten-year temporary marriage contracts legal, there will be no overbearing CBCP to stop them. Because there will be no CBCP. Each independent state will have its own archbishop and lineup of bishops - or none at all, as in the case of the ARMM.

If some independent states want a more liberal or more aggressive tax policy, they will be free to follow their wishes, without some bureaucrat in Manila telling them they can't do it.

Each independent state shall be able to adopt economic, educational and social policies without interference from the other independent states. They will be free to set off on a course that is their very own.

All tax collections and revenues shall accrue to the states and will not go through Manila, where some funds are now being used to line pockets of some very powerful people there. There will be no corruption or favoritism at the national level, because there will be no national treasury to plunder or distribute to a national government's favorites.

Each state will be free to organize the equivalent of its own Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs. The old corruption-ridden BIR and Customs of the current Philippine government shall be scrapped and replaced, hopefully with equivalent local agencies that will honestly collect income taxes and customs duties. It will be an opportunity to start over and set up tax collection agencies in the mold of the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S. In fact, I would advise the states to seek assistance from the U.S. government in setting up their Internal Revenue and Customs laws and offices.

Each state will have its own constitution and legal system. It can make justice happen as fast or as slow as its people want to. The corrupt arreglo system in Manila will be replaced by judicial systems that can dispense justice. Will there be a jury system? Only if the locals want it.

Finally, and most importantly, the focus of all activity in each of the independent states is the rise in the standard of living and educational level of their people. There will be no Manila-centric policies to pursue.
There is no doubt that the partitioning of the Philippines into independent states will be beneficial to the archipelago as a whole. We have to be certain, however, that the independent states we set up shall be economically and politically viable.

Because of what happened recently in Haiti, and more distantly in Somalia, the question of viability is front and center. Viability is the reason some states shall not be organized according to the ancient divisions of language and nations. For example, the Central Luzon state shall be made up of Kapampangans and Tagalogs.

THIS, FOLKS, IS THE LINEUP OF INDEPENDENT STATES

I have tentatively drawn plans for setting up the various independent states and offer the following lineup. (All chartered cities shall be absorbed by the provinces where they are situated.)

1. Metro Manila, or National Capital Region.

2. Ilocandia - Ilocos, the Cagayan Valley Region, which includes Batanes, along with Abra, Benguet, Baguio City, Ifugao, Apayao, Kalinga and Mountain Province.

3. Central Luzon - made up of Pampanga, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac and Zambales.

4. Calabarzon - Cavite, Batangas, Laguna, Quezon, Aurora and Rizal.

5. Bicol Region - Albay, Camarines Norte and Sur, Catanduanes and Sorsogon.

6. Western Visayas and Mimaropa - Aklan, Antique, Guimaras Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Marinduque, Mindoro, Palawan and Romblon.

7. Central and Eastern Visayas - Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental, Siquijor, Samar, Leyte and Biliran.

8. Northern Mindanao - Bukidnon, Camiguin, Lanao del Norte, Misamis Occidental and Oriental.

9. Central and Southern Mindanao - Davao peninsula, Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, Agusan, Dinagat and Surigao.
10. Muslim Mindanao (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) - Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.

There you have it, folks. Toss these in your heads and let us as a country discuss. But before you hop on your soapboxes, I want you to know that upon breakup of the Philippines, Metro Manila will be tasked with the development of Bicol to help that region become a viable state. The Bicolanos will have an incentive to build their nation properly, for the alternative will be their absorption into the Calabarzon state and resultant loss of the Bicolanos' country of their own.

Central Visayas, and Central and Southern Mindanao will be depended upon to help Northern Mindanao and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao become viable states. If that doesn't work, the ARMM shall be allowed to break off in the future and become a part of Malaysia if that is their wish, while Northern Mindanao can be absorbed by Central and Southern Mindanao.

.