Words and Music

Share this Post

Like Water…

At this very moment, while nursing a cup of freshly brewed coffee- I am simply wondering and reflecting about various factors and the manners in which the nature of things seem to be defined…

Say, the essence and nature of water- embodied in oceans, seas, lakes, waterfalls, brooks, rivers, etc… All these are called bodies of water- all these are different; yet almost the same stuff. What gives then- so that an ocean would fit in to be called an ocean; or a lake to be described as a lake; for a waterfall to be called such?

If these are all “waters”, it would be logical to assume then that the definitive factor that makes each bodies of water distinct from another kind rests upon “the externalities”- or the effects of elements aside from “water” (i.e., the coalescing forces which produces a “lake”). Such appear to become more encompassing in effect, more than the very nature of water itself- therefore, it can be interpreted that the essence ceases to become the defining element that pertains to this particular thing…

Or is it so?

What if, is it is inherent in the “nature” of water to need something else in order for its very essence to be magnified? Say, a lake must rest upon a physical surrounding void of strong current and stuff for it to acquire and exhibit its essence as a lake- that of stillness, peaceful existence. This state, on the other hand would be contrasted by the essence of a waterfall, whereby strong currents and forces would be essential to display its raging, forceful essence…

So what then? Why all the fuss and effort in trying to make sense of such mundane things? Am I being nonsensical here in thinking stuff like these? I don’t personally see it that way though, – am just being my inherent nature, in my usual reflective mood when having coffee…

If Life is like water, does it mean that life takes many forms? Does it mean that the essence of life may not be magnified without external factors being thrown into it? Quite possibly- but am sure, others would look such predicaments differently.

©2009leofinajanegalleta
10 November 2009
19:17:11

Share this Post

Excerpts of Wisdom (Words and Music

Share this Post

Human “Universal” Rights in a Pluralist Society

Note: This is a “blog version” of one of my latest papers…

Several issues from the past decades, particularly those that pertain to social justice and human rights, have been highlighted and exposed. These dehumanizing realities magnified the depth of sufferings and injustices  endured by millions of people. Such stirred up responses of indignation and protests from the different realms of societies. Social injustices inflicted to human kind during first and second world wars and from the colonization era prompted global efforts aimed to ensure that individuals are protected and their rights as human beings be recognized and uplifted, especially those of the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Universal treaties and organizations were created, and these were supported by nation states coalitions, the United Nations most especially, which purported the creation of different “universalized” pacts and lawful mandates.

The universality of such rights, i.e. human rights as promulgated by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, basically promote the rights of every individual in the world- whereby such rights are perceived as inherent to the very existence of human beings. These abstracted rules are adopted by every government of nation states who signed for the promulgation of the treaty. The “abstractness” of these mandates which were justified as a response to different cultures and social norms, allow for every society to interpret these global social orders in accordance to the acceptable notion and practice within their social circle, and these remain to be questionable to some with regards to its “applicability” and effectiveness in different social settings and practical situations. More so when other unique mandates from different authorities that social actors must perform (i.e. military personnel) would be taken into consideration. Thus, debates in different areas of concern, mostly pertaining to these very laws’ nature of “universality” still continue.

From a certain vantage point that one would opt to view social dynamics within semi-autonomous social fields (according to Sally Falk Moore, such would highlight the existence and interplay of legal pluralism, defined as the existence of a social “condition” created when several social orders occupy a certain social sphere), it would be inevitable that issues on human rights be exposed and magnified. Thus, one would be able to point out several issues of concern. Adapting such method of examination, it appears to me that issues pertaining to the rationality of these universal or “universalized” laws would be essential points of discussion.

Due to the diversity of cultures and normative orders, different moral interpretations (and the inherent ethnocentric nature of the social actors) tend to be applied in various social settings and situations. Such would inevitably result to varying interpretations by different societies and cultures. In this case, it might not be possible to attain a universally acceptable interpretation and/or shared understanding of meaning whereby every culture and socio-ethnic group would accept it as valid and fair. Thus, the complexity of the cultural groundings of such “universal” laws’ may lead to some critical questions as to the rationale and rationality of its “foundational basis”, and quite possibly, questions may arise as to the validity and fairness of its mandates and rulings.

Human rights, in accordance to the UN’s operational definition, which are rights granted to every human being “simply by the virtue of being human,” asserts that there are inherent rights which are fundamentally derived from the very existence of human beings; and such rights constitute certain forms of laws (Woodman 2006:1). Human rights, moreover, are said to be grounded in cross culturally recognized moral values, which, in my understanding, is basically saying that the cultural groundings of such “universalized” mandates should be taken into consideration with regards to fair interpretation and application of these legal mandates. This would correspond to the assertion of most cultural relativists, who support the notion that “value judgments (in connection to universalized laws) should be withheld or suspended until cultural context is taken into account” (Fluehr-Lobban, 1998). It would be from this point that diverse perceptions possibly arise- one of such would concern the existence of a “universally valid human rights”. As Woodman posits, “human societies tends to be so varied that no moral values can be found which are accepted within every human culture, and that therefore no universal values exist” (Woodman 2006). In this regard, the validity and basis of claims to rights in universal laws may be constantly put to some kind of scrutiny, if not to be coupled with cynical criticisms, most likely by different human rights groups from different fields and affiliations.

Another pressing question would be focused on the role, or consideration of, culture in the promulgation of human rights.  It is undeniable that opposing concerns between culture and rights has been part of ongoing debates with regards to issues of human rights. Culture, prior understood as more of a “static”, shared systems of beliefs rather than as a process that develops and changes through time (the latter being the more dominant view at present) – may tend to be perceived as a “source of human rights violations” i.e. due to tolerance and/or allowance of violence inflicted on women. Thus, it can be viewed as putting more value on “culture” rather than on “rights”.  Thus, as Merry puts it, “the important contemporary questions are not how to resolve the opposition between culture and rights, but how claims to rights and to culture are articulated in global debates about social justice (Merry 2001).

As a personal realization on these concerns, one may add the factors regarding the nature of social dynamics and the “fluidity” of societies as well as the existence of validly recognized normative orders, as point of consideration. Validity of legal orders must correspond to its “reliability”, which means that such mandates still cater to “up-to-date” situations, that societies still interpret it the same way as before (in accordance to changes in meanings associated to social factors,) and that the context in which these laws’ has been basically grounded upon still depict the same or similar social practice and sense of understanding. This is essential because interpretations of such mandates on the level of the subordinated social actors/factors play a very important role in the assessments of its effectiveness. Thus, the abstractness of lawful mandates may constitute polarized or extreme results, whether it is being asserted from an international, national or local sphere of the social world.

Different social situations and conditions whereby “universal mandates” need be implemented is another concern. One has to remember that most of the time; the “oppressors/propagators” of human injustices are not signatories in any universal treaties. Thus, “defenders” of the oppressed and exploited (i.e., the men and women of the Allied Forces fighting against terrorism in the Middle East, or the military people fighting extremist groups like the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines) has the tendency to be subjected to difficult situations whereby human rights mandates include considerations of the “rights as human beings” of the members of groups they are supposed to be fighting with.

In conclusion, there are instances whereby sources of human rights produce polarize and extreme results due to differences of practices, unanticipated consequences, or the conflicting effect of such to one’s culture and tradition. State laws and culture are both resources of normative orders aimed to protect and emancipate human rights. Surprisingly, these very sources of human rights can also exacerbate violations of human rights and social injustices. For instance, state laws can aggravate arbitrary arrests, detention and torture (Fluehr-Lobban 1998), like what happened with the US’ extraordinary case of rendition applied in the Guantamano bay prisoners; while some customary norms may enforce normative practices i.e., forced practice of sati and female circumcision, which certainly cause sufferings and pain to women. In both cases, human sufferings and violations of individual rights certainly breed from exertion of “rights (legal order) and culture (customary practice)”.

Moreover, the changing social meanings which contribute, or supposed to, the fluidity of laws and normative orders posits challenges on the interpretation and thus, may tend to compromise the effectiveness of legal renderings so as to meet the supposed objectives of the universal nature of these global laws- and that is to protect and emancipate human conditions that would ultimately lead towards the abolition of human sufferings and injustices. Thus, in order for us to realize such noble vision, the effectiveness of such rights should be imminently and universally valid and constructed in such a way that it can effectively protect and uphold human rights and social emancipation.

References:

Gordon Woodman 2006. Human Rights: The Route to Judgment or a Diversion?
Sally Engle Merry 2001. Changing Rights, Changing Culture, in Culture and Land Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Jane K. Owen, Marie-Benedicte Dembour and Richard Wilson.
Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban 1998. Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights in Anthro Notes, Volume 20, No. 2, Winter, 1998.

Share this Post

CRY FOR HELP – REMEMBERING THE BAYANIHAN SPIRIT

Something to think about….
In time of crisis, what can we do as individuals to help our fellowmen?

For the rich and the able, it won’t be so hard to come up with an answer- or probably so…
But how would a person who “doesn’t have much (material resources)” yet his/her heart has that burning desire-
to be of help to people who are in dire need?

This is a challenge for the likes of me-the “have-not(s)”-
who may be thinking that perhaps, it is not possible to be of help to other people
especially if one “doesn’t even have enough” to share and to sustain one’s personal (immediate) needs.

In times of trouble and crises-
All kinds, “all sorts” of help is needed.
In times of difficulties-
We are all under the grace of uncertainty.
We all desperately need something.
The person next to us probably need and ask for things that we, ourselves need.
In disastrous times like this-
All of us become a “giver” and a “taker” at the same time.

WHAT CAN WE POSSIBLY DO FOR THOSE WHO SUFFER IN THE SAME WAY WE MIGHT BE SUFFERING…
This is a challenge-a call for unity
a call for everyone to respond to the need for a “sense of community”-and security.
All of us, everyone of us must have been crying for help.
In times like this, we must not totally rely on outside help (except God’s grace)-

This is my personal stand- that no one is incapable of doing anything for anyone- at all given circumstances.
Take time to think about it, what can you possibly do for others  in times of crisis?

——

I feel so “isolated”- like I have these hands yet I can’t even stretch my arms to pat a shoulder, or to wrap someone in a tight embrace just to let him/her that the worst time has passed; life will be okay soon. I have these feet- yet I wasn’t there to walk with people, to carry a child, or guide an elderly; I can speak- yet I can’t even sit beside somebody who went through all those horrible time of struggling and fighting for their lives to let them know that someone mourns with them, that they are not alone-

I can only pray, and at least try to invoke hopeful thoughts so as to keep the fire of hope unite within us all- I am here- not physically present where my limited “resources” would probably help, yet my whole being longs to be there- I just hope that each one of my fellow Filipinos-who were hit by this catastrophic event and the rest of us- would be able to survive as “one people”, as one nation.

©2009leofinajanegalleta

Share this Post

Through the Lenses of Legal Pluralism

As societies continue to undertake different processes of development, gradual movements from simplistic to more complex and overarching designs of social regulation and order would be an inevitable social consequence. Pluralist societies are usually characterized by the idea that the universe is explainable in many principles, without any particular system prescribed as means of description. This perception has been justified by the notion that societies are composed of many ultimate substances. Thus, it can be sensibly assumed that pluralistic ideas (as basis for social actions) may possibly lead to the propagation of conflicting and competing mode of processes and delineation of orders. In essence, the resulting social condition can be interpreted similarly with similar resulting effects like that of a dialectical process. Given that the basic tenet of dialectical materialism states that- changes takes place through the struggle of opposites- it follows that general assumption would be that such “conflicts” would eventually lead to growth, change, and development. It would be an interesting point of consideration to find out if the existence of conflicting orders within a particular social field would yield similar result.

The progressive pace of development is associated with the creation of more complex levels of organizations. It is further characterized by technological advances which facilitate fast transactional exchanges. Thus, there seems to be a need to catch up with social growth elicited the proliferation of appropriate social orders and regulations that could keep up with the speedy pace of economic, technological, and social progress. Due to the present complexities of regulations and normative orders, the possibility of clashes and conflicts would most likely to occur. Occurrences of such may happen when customary norms are inconsistent with formal legal orders. Oftentimes, such situations would breed competing reactions from stakeholders. Involved social actors would, most likely have, a stake or interest that they would try to protect, thus efforts would be exerted in imposing power over the other group (if possible).

To point out the essential factors in this dynamic, people involved are basically aware about the coexistence of competing systems of order in a given social setting. These multiple regulations and orders also promulgate competing claims of authority for concerned individuals. Social actors are, more often than not, probably aware that particular actors may possibly possess more power (i.e. resources, connections, opportunities) over them. This awareness of “inequality” might possibly tip off the balance of justice. In other words better equipped social actors would most likely to try to exploit these advantageous positioning in complex situations that best characterizes legal pluralism.

Prior studies on legal pluralism focuses on the relationship between customary and state law during the colonization era, in addition to other kinds of self–regulations within the business settings, ethnic and local communities, and other realms of society. John Griffiths, in his seminal paper, “What is Legal Pluralism?” describes the concept of legal pluralism as “the presence in a social field of more than one legal order”. Furthermore, Sally Folk Moore pointed out in her seminal paper, “Law and social change: The Semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study”, that the best field of observation for the study of law and social change in complex societies is the semi-autonomous field. That is, due to the “inadequacy of instrumentalism” and its “relevance to the social workings of legislation” (Griffiths, 1986).

Rich stocks of literature suggest various theories and concepts on legal pluralism, thereby suggesting further that legal pluralism has become an essential field of study for social scientists alongside fields of legal anthropology, sociology, political science, and other fields of the social sciences. Benda-Beckmann wrote that legal pluralism has been “one of the most controversial and interesting concepts in the sociology of law and legal theory” (Benda-Beckmann, 2001:18-19). This claim was further attested with heated debates at that time, surrounding the monopolistic claims of the states on the creation and maintenance of law, thus, ,marginalization and exclusion of individuals (in terms of their rights and privileges) are inevitable results.

In order to examine the impact of multiple orders in a complex society, I chose to look into social concerns involving natural resources and rights. In line with the process of development, conservation and sustainability on natural resources become a global concern. Alarming rates of forest degradation, negative effects of climate change, massive extraction of mineral reserved, improper utilization of forest and aquamarine resources, etc., are but a short list of natural resource concerns of the world today. As a response, nation states and international organizations initiated the development of social policies and programs, provisions of grants to academic institutions and stakeholders, among others. Civic organizations took part with this initiative by generating funds to be used for environmentally- related research, for organizing people’s organizations and for conducting capacity building initiatives, with the ultimate goal of eliciting collaborative and participatory actions and processes between governments, social groups, down to the local communities and individuals. Majority of nation-states governments nowadays call for the preservation and proper utilization of natural resources.

However, if one would look into some of the existing laws and policies in nation states, one would find that these are not enough to protect and promote the rights of common people in marginalized sectors of society. In cases of implementing laws which advocates and promotes the rights of local people and communities (i.e., as “caretakers” and managers of natural resources, as mandated by CBNRM/CBFM laws) it sometimes happen that these legal orders would end up to be in conflict with customary laws (like the conflicting effect of IPRA implementations with some customary norms in relation to ancestral domains). Even international laws which were suppose to protect and promote indigenous peoples rights from repressive/restrictive state laws, would end up entangled with other universal treatises (example is the ramification of Article 26 of Agenda 21 and the Rio, which subordinated indigenous people’s human rights in favor of universal environmental concerns).

Thus, it shows that formal legal orders’ entanglement with other recognized normative systems may possibly become oppressive and/or repressive to the individual’s rights that it supposes to uphold. It looks as if, in a democratic setting that- the state law, clothed with its noble aim (with its intent to create order) of empowering people by acknowledging their rights is, at the same time, the very same force that causes conflict and marginalization to underprivileged and less-able individuals. One possible means for this to happen is when state law allow autonomous governmental agencies to impose different policies as they deem necessary, without conducting necessary baseline researches to ensure maximum results without complicating the social field that it aspires to dominate.

As a result, one question that permeates into one’s consciousness would perhaps be; if there are indeed cases wherein formal orders eventually end up defeating its own purpose, do we really need more laws and regulatory mandates to address social conflicts? Wouldn’t it probably be better to realign the currently existing multiple legal mandates in order to come up with easier, doable, and simpler solutions to recurring and ingrained social problems?

Ideally, social order should show the way to social justice which would, in effect, ensure equal spaces for each person to exercise their rights. Thus, social orders/regulations should serve its purpose(s)- which is to promote equality and empowerment to the marginalized sectors of society when benefits of social justice is available for everyone. Only then, would a sense of balance in terms of the existence of legal regulations would promote enabling environment for people to exercise their rights.

Thus, more than the challenge of maintaining order and finding a way to secure an “observable” field to monitor the overarching clouts of regulations and norms in a complex society, implications of the existence of many legal orders and normative systems in a particular field of society should be an equal concern for policy makers. An ideally crafted law/policy would not possibly end up with an opposite result if the implementing rules’ construct would not elicit oppressive/repressive impact on the marginalized sector of society.

At hindsight, it may appear at first that legal pluralism depicts a paradoxical scenario in a complex society, whereby the purpose of social orderings seems to defeat itself within the dynamics of interactions in a democratic setting. Possible “clashes”, as a result of simultaneous implementation of such may cause more conflicts, misunderstandings, and oppression to the marginalized sector. To look at it the other way, legal pluralism is favorable to the marginalized sector because it allows them to have more choices, it gives them more freedom to exercise and fight for their rights. It other words, it is a means to level the playing field.

In conclusion, it appears that with legal pluralism, the oppressed is not as helpless at it seems when a paradoxical condition arises that is most likely emancipated by legal pluralism. The chance for the marginalized to pursue equality comes with the danger of being tangled up in a complex social setting that allows for the existence of multiple social ordering. Legal pluralism creates a condition that becomes a leveling factor that would prevent the individual social actor to be lost within the overarching different orders in a complex and pluralist environment.

References:
Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, 2001, “Legal Pluralism”, Traditional Law and Values in Thai Societies, Thai Culture International Review on Tai Cultural Studies, Volume VI, No. 1&2, p.18-19.
Griffiths, John, 1986 “What is legal pluralism?” Journal of Legal Pluralism No. 24.

©2009leofinajanegalleta
All Rights Reserved.

Share this Post

Season’s Change

It’s almost time to go back to the scholarly routines- the exciting life @ the academe, lol! Since I my ever-erratic appearance here would become worse (again, lol!) – I’ll leave this pieces of  thoughts- as reminder that time and again, I’ll be back in here- as time (and my choices-) would allow me to. So long, dear friends…

Baguio City, Philippines - Summer at its best- view from my window...

Season’s changes-
over time,without warning.

Just like Life that
keeps on changing.
Season may change
but some things remain
constant, like-
faith.
Resilience.
Courage.
Hope.

-and, the
Wisdom of Time.

©2009leofinajanegalleta

Baguio City, Philippines- View from my window... a foggy morning of June.

Share this Post

ODDS AND ENDS..

Blessings and Greetings!

 Am happy to share an extended part of this new "sanctuary" of mine...  

My idea of  Home? “A house becomes a home only when the heart and soul of the occupants also dwells in it…  In my case, my whole being has been in this blog from the beginning. I assure you that, . I loved the clutter before- but then one needs to do some redecorating/redesigning/enhancements from time to time, even in our real life houses, right?  Thus, I decided to “compartmentalize”-  I see the need to add more “room” in my literary home- a new place for my poetry that  I call POETRY OVERLOAD… - -which contains all my english contemporary poems that has been shaped and inspired by timeless wisdom from this ever-changing world…”

If there is one thing that I am proud about being a filipino- it would be my country’s very rich literature. The Philippines’ prose and poetry has a unique blend of oriental and ethnic flavors- and that of romanticism with a strong sense of valor and solidarity- for me, these factors strongly defines each regional/ethnical differences- as a result of numerous ethical groups- and at the same time, it is the embodiment of the Philippine’s literature and the Filipinos artful ways and craftsmanship- thus, the heart and soul of the Filipino people. I’ve seen these features evidently resurfacing in many of the written words created by filipino poets and writers before our time- as I read their stories, poetry, etc.

If I am to make a vision or goal, I must say that I always wanted my Art to be seen and felt in any medium of expression I use- my written songs, my poems, or in reflective essays I’ve written. I do hope that somehow, over the years, I’ll be able to fully express my art in this manner- like a fusion. I always believed that I am, and I will always be a work in progress….”

Moreover, people  exist for some reasons more than to simply expedite being alive-for personal gains. Art, for me- is priceless. A natural gift bestowed to a person is something to be shared without any condition- my personal opinion, of course. There are just things that doesn’t come with a tag price-or equating value. Those things defines the true meaning of existence. In my case, my art is something that I would share to humanity-properly, of course. This is the very reason why I opted to write online instead of trying to get published in print- simply a personal choice. [Note: this is basically the same words I used in the blog's description]

Poetry-for me, is timeless- eternal. The beauty of this art lies on its fluidity, which is something that I can relate to- Poetry, like my life- will always be “a work in progress”. -- Leofina Jane G. Galleta

Share this Post

Freedom, Happiness and Life’s Choices

**Edited and reposted.***
also posted @ Iluko.com Website

I used to say, and almost everyone that I know says the same, that – “happiness is a choice”. However, there are instances wherein the choice to be happy becomes more like an effort to manipulate or condition the manifestation of this wonderful emotional bliss. In my opinion, such effort would distort the essence of happiness. Moreover, such option appears to imply that “when one is not happy, that person is lonely” – which is something that I don’t agree with.

No matter what motives or underlying thoughts that may possibly compel individuals to act in such manner, it could be understood and interpreted in different ways by other people. Of course, one might say that it is nobody’s business. But for the sake of analysis and sound understanding (about the essence of happiness), please allow me to take this line of thought a little bit further. As an observer, one might consider such effort in trying to attain happiness as something close to fooling one’s self with some “make-believe”, diluted thoughts. It could also be viewed like one is more concerned and hence, puts more weight on the “output” rather than “on the process”- that is, in order for one to achieve a kind of result that appears to be “a success” of some sort.

I, being a person who delights in “the true nature” of things- do not totally feel comfortable with the thought. Thus,instead of taking that instance during such times that I don’t feel happy at all- I made a choice (as my way of addressing such “bleak” state of being albeit persistent pull of external factors that usually tempts me to just “condition my mind and feel happy” without properly addressing the possible causes of such emotional state)- and that is to always try to be happy by accepting that the present is “just the present”, in its deliberate “open, unfilled spaces”.

In life, there are, and such will always be mixtures of- disappointments, fun times, irritating circumstances, longings unfulfilled, small victories, etc. If not a mixture of, it could be one following the other perhaps… Sometimes, if not so often, we fail- we fall short from what is expected of us, we fail with our own self-imposed expectations, yet we must look for, and befriend humility – the wisdom to accept that circumstances are not always on our side, especially when we are subjected into “life’s obstacle course”. On the other hand, however, there are times that we fail – and we win at the same time. We fail when we don’t get what we desire- yet we win, because we are given something else instead. That makes life “fair”, I suppose.

Therefore, the essence of life appears to be a matter of acceptance and appreciation of “the present”- hence, one has all the reason to be happy as one feels it, and to ponder on the possible reason when one feels alienated from it rather than trying to live in a feigned presence of such blissful state. That, I think is a better way to appreciate happiness.

Thus, I am compelled to believe that happiness is more than a choice – it is also about sincere acceptance of the “gifts of the present” and being able to enjoy it despite and in spite of the “open spaces” that allows one to learn, to accept and to love- one’s own imperfect nature.

Besides, isn’t it so that- “what matters most in life is the “journey”- more than the “destination”?

©2009leofinajanegalleta. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.drippingmind.wordpress.com

“Happiness or desire fulfillment represents only one aspect of human existence.“
- Amartya Sen

Note:

A million thanks to friends who always tend to “bring out the best in me” – you know who you are. Life is more beautiful because of your existence, . – LeofinaJane

HUMILITY – TRUE OR FALSE… Anyone?

WHAT is humility? I got interested in this topic for some reasons…In my search, I found the following definitions/characterizations over the internet..

HUMILITY ACCORDING TO…
*wordnet.princeton.edu
- a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride; “not everyone regards humility as a virtue”
- a humble feeling; “he was filled with humility at the sight of the Pope”
*wikepedia -humility/virtue
- The seven virtues are a set of seven cardinal virtues recognized in Christian philosophy, especially virtue ethics, and theology.
*wikipedia-humility
- Humility, or being humble, is the defining characteristic of an unpretentious and modest person, someone who does not think that he or she is better or more important than others.
*wiktionary
- The characteristic of being humble; humbleness in spirit and deportment
*robcom2000.com glossary
- The quality or state of being humble in spirit. Freedom from pride or arrogance. Humble: Modest or meek in spirit, manner or appearance, not proud or haughty. Absence of vanity.
*godweb.org
- The attitude of the Christian that suggest one should not”…think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment…” (Rom. 12:3). It is knowing our true position before God. It is not self-abasement or demeaning one’s self. …

There is, however ,something more about humility that caught my interest… the thing about “false humility”. What could possibly be this thing called false humility?

This post will not be about what I THINK about the matter – but rather, it would be about WHAT YOU THINK as you come across this post.

There are just very personal matters that motivated me to ask this question over the net. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.. in advance, .

An Evaluative Analysis on HB 5043- Reproductive Health and Population Development Act

[Note: This article was included in Social Development Studies Bricolage –an initiative of SDS-271, Second Term/AY2008-2009, of MASDS Graduate Program – University of the Philippines Baguio]

From its conception, House Bill 5043, or the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, has been viewed by the Filipino people (and the rest of the world) in numerous angles and perspectives. Perceived with different interpretations, reactions, and opinions, debates related to this proposed legislative agenda show differing opinions and concerns coming from different stakeholders – mostly from individual’s observations based on limited information and biased position and from the public at large. It is undeniable that such occurrences would indirectly; if not subtly give way to a certain degree of influence on the on-going deliberation presently done in the House of Representatives.

This paper would focus in an effort to answer the question: Is there a proper and definitive way to look at the expressed and unexpressed values embedded in House Bill 5043 without the possibility of obscuring the intended purposes and objectives of this bill? This concern led to a close examination on the specifics of RH 5043 in the light of “justice as fairness” theory of John Rawls, along with the possible connection of this bill to the Philippine’s state of development. Moreover, the underlying thought in this paper is concerned with the possible negative effects of preconceived external observations and opinions which may possibly obscure the realities of the embedded concerns and junctures in this proposed legislative feat.

A CLOSER LOOK ON HOUSE BILL NO. 5043

As stated in the “Fact Sheet and Explanatory Notes” (from the Committee on Health, on House Bill No. 5043, House of Representatives, Republic of the Philippines), the population of the Philippines is approximately 88.7 billion as of 2008, which clearly suggests that “four babies are being born in every minute, and that “the fertility rate of Filipino women is 3.05%, which belongs to the upper bracket of around 206 countries”. It is noted however in the above mentioned fact sheet that available data from previous studies states that “Filipinos are responsive to smaller-sized families through free choice of family planning method”. Looking closer into the provisions of HB5043, which is commonly known as the “Reproductive Health (RH) Bill” it is apparent that the authors of the bill aimed for a national unification and participation in its implementation through a nationalistic approach, which coincides with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, the bill aims to pave the way towards sustainable human development, empowerment, and gender equality and equity as it appears that the bill could possibly bridge the gap of inequality especially in gender related societal issues in the Philippines. HB5043 appears to promote “quality life” through application of informed choice, and respect for life among Filipinos (Section 2). Moreover, the authors of the bill stressed in its Guiding Principles that the bill is “about health and rights” (Section 3.b), thus, promoting gender equality and women empowerment (section 3.c), responsible parenthood (section 3.d), freedom of informed choice (section 3.f), among others. There are several provisions in the bill that infused heated debates from different sectors of the Philippine society, primarily from groups and individuals who openly expressed their oppositions, allegedly due to “moral and religious implications”. Other opinions against the bill include – that the bill is unconstitutional, anti-life, and the notion that there are contraceptives that act as “abortifacients”.

Some even believe that promulgation of the bill is more of a means for the national government to qualify for more “AID/welfare” funds from international funding agencies than its expressed objectives. Some specific provisions on the bill that cause strong reactions and oppositions include – Section 10 proposes that contraceptives be considered as an “essential medicine”; Section 12, in its Mandatory Clause wherein the Age-Appropriate Health education was tackled; and Section 14 with regards to “Certificate of Compliance”. On the other hand, proponents of HB 5043 strongly promotes the importance of the following provisions – Section 11 on Mobile Health Care Service; Section 4 i & g, on Reproductive Health Care and Male Involvement Participation; Section 6 on Midwives for Skilled Attendants, and Section 7 on Emergency and Obstetric Care; among others. Proponents of the bill believes that these provisions are essential means, especially for women and the marginalized sector, with regards to the couples’ as well as their children’s overall well-being as well as in promotion to the couples’ equity and equality in terms of responsibility and participation.

THROUGH THE LENS OF DEVELOPMENT

As stated in the “Laws or Principles of Social Development”, Social evolution is subconscious in the collective, and that all achievements in the society are collective, and “not individualistic.” As further stated, laws are essential in social development. However, although laws are of the essence, expressions (and thus interpretations) vary. Thus, differing opinions and perceptions about HB5043 will continue on as the legislative body will progress on its deliberation. Development, on the other hand, as described in the provisions of RH 5043, states that it is “a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects, that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy, and the marginalized” (Section 3. j).

Based on data and statistics on the official website of the World Bank (WB), the Philippines is presently classified as one the developing countries in the cluster of East Asia and the Pacific Region. It is important to note however, that in the website of the World Trade Organization (WTO) there was no definition for the term “developing countries”. Instead, it was stated that “members announce for themselves whether they are “developed” or “developing” countries.” As a developing country, it is imperative that the Philippines adapt laws and policies geared towards sustainable growth and a holistically empowered state, as such is presumably expected in agendas and objectives of developing countries. One of the possible options for the Philippines is to address the needs of the present without sacrificing the nation’s Constitution (which is especially designed with embedded sense of nationalism) and its people’s core and universal values. In lieu of such analytic developmental opinions, some might say that drastic measures are necessary to speed up growth and development for a developing country; others may opt to adapt a lower phasing and approach towards this goal due to equally essential considerations (cultural, ethical, etc.).

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS

HB 5043 has been commonly treated in separate perspectives- either as; a.) The “reproductive health bill” or, b.) as a means of “population control”. Based on the documents that I have examined related to this bill, this matter is always tackled as “either or”, never as “both”- I wasn’t able to find any document that presented it as “both” reproductive health bill and as a means of population control (as one, that is). As I see it, HB 5043 unifies the efforts of the Population Commission (POPCOM), the Department of Health (DepEd), and other government agencies in promoting universal health access towards development. (It is to be understood however, that even after the decentralization of the Philippine Government, the implementation of devolution along with deconcentration wasn’t fully implemented yet – specifically, Rural Health Officers are still operating under the umbrella of the Department of Health and NOT on the Local Government Units.)

The passage of this bill might just be a bridge that would synchronize all departmental projects and programs of different governmental agencies that would possibly result to more caring, more effective, and more efficient health service from the government. Thus, more than the value of individualistic perceptions about the bill’s transparency of purpose and implied hedonistic or even eugenistic agenda, allowing our individual judgment “using the veil of ignorance“, in addition to our deliberate and rational examination of the bill’s underlying presuppositions might enable us to see the essence of the bill in the light of its own reality. In the light of this thought, it is but imperative that HB 5043 be seen through the “veil of ignorance” which was deliberately discussed in the writings of John Rawls about “justice as fairness”, specifically its notion of which was further elaborated in the following excerpts from “A Theory of Justice”;

“..it is clear then, that I want to say that one conception of justice is more reasonable than another, or justifiable
with respect to it, it is rational persons in the initial situations would chose its principles over those of the other
for the role of justice. Conceptions of justice are to be ranked by their acceptability to persons so circumstance...”
– Rawls, 1971

What might be perceived at present as weaknesses or possible violations embedded in the bill with regards to ‘moral and/or religious” issues, etc., could, on the other hand, be possible means that entails different output- either that, or vice versa. Another vague area at present concerns the future implementing rules and regulations, if the bill will indeed become a law. That future phase would essentially be a definitive factor as to the success or failure of this initiative.

Lastly, I as a Filipino citizen have seen some momentous events that transpired in our country – the People Power Revolution for one. That event served as a catalyst, the first of its kind, which I consider to be a sort of “definitive moment” in the Philippines as a nation. These kinds – these definitive moments”, are “turning points” that would illicit positive changes if we, as one nation would be brave enough to try. HB 5043 might just as well be one of these “definitive moments” that could serve as a gateway for more opportunities and chances towards development- that is if we, Filipinos would “take that one shot when the opportunity arises”. The passage of this bill might just be a vital step for the realization of what most of us Filipinos long to happen – to enjoy a better quality of life.

Copyright: Leofina Jane G. Galleta
©2009leofinajanegalleta. All Rights Reserved.

IN SEARCH FOR A CURE…

*also posted @ iluko.com website.

(A simple Exploratory Analysis on the Political Economy of the Philippines

“What ails the Philippines? What’s keeping its progress within the “turtle’s route”? Is there a possible cure ?” These questions basically inspired me to write this article. I am suppose to be resting today, but I just can’t resist to make a little “detour” in order to take a closer look on several issues that presently affects the Philippines as a whole. I think it was because I was struck by this thought- the Philippines is suffering. I just can’t help seeing a picture of an abandoned, scarred soul succumbed in illnesses – always in pain- this happened while I was reading about Filipino diaspora – it was a heartbreaking thought.  This article seemed to, ‘wrote itself” after. I’ve chosen to focus on the following main points: the Philippines’ political exchange (in terms of the society’s political behavior), the existing quality of democracy in the Philippines, and its correlation to state effectiveness – reason being, I was  inspired by a passage in an article written by  Emmanuel S. De Dios, which states-

“Yet, the basic problem of the Philippine political economy remains: namely, the alienation of the vast majority of citizens from political life and their resulting, real powerlessness. Their massive and eager participation in periodic direct elections notwithstanding, many Filipinos continue to see politics as an abstract and distant affair, as a numinous experience, a form of entertainment or a cynical commercial exchange in the guise of civic function” (De Dios, E.S. “Local Politics and Local Economy”).

At present, the existence of disparaging political norms dominates the Philippine political arena. Widely viewed as a detrimental factor that hinders the economic growth and development of the country, even Filipino politicians themselves consider the prevailing political norms to be far from being helpful when it comes to the improvement of the country’s economic performance. The existence of situations such as “destructive politics” (a term used by the president herself) has been magnified by the sudden rise of propositions and grand initiatives (charter change, specifically) in response to the widely perceived detrimental political conduct in the Philippine politics.

Quality Democracy: Does it exist in the Philippines?

The Philippines is a nation governed by a democratic system of government. Democracy, being defined as “rule of the people”, is regarded as one of the goals of development and reform. In some circumstances, others perceive democracy to be of lesser importance compared to the other factors of development like higher income, equitable distribution, and longer life expectancy, among others. The writings of John Rawls, however, implies otherwise: “Civil liberties, including political rights, are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest” (Rawls 1971, “A Theory of Justice” p.3).In principle, democracy is not only a type of political regime but also a form of state governance. Taking the first distinction into consideration, it can be said that adoption of such form of government aided the Philippines to recover after it regained its freedom from the clout of Martial law in 1986. It is in the later distinction however, that I would dwell on further. An argument presented in the book “Political Institutions and Development: Failed Expectations and Renewed Hopes”- the Global Development Network series), is deemed relevant to the Philippines. The hypothesis is that, “democratization under poor traditions of law and order and increasing corruptions, where competitive elections are first introduced before the establishment of major civil rights (personal freedom and safety, property, contracts, fair trial in court, etc.), could lead to weak institutions and low quality democracy.” The institutional capacity of a state is determined by the efficiency of the government. Thus, it is understood that a certain threshold of civil rights (law and order) should be allowed to exist alongside political rights- that is, democracy.

Democracy comes with multiple facets of power. In Weberian sense, a state (or a nation) is presumed to be ineffective without power. The question then would be – “What kind of power would that be? Michael Mann described two distinct classifications of State Power. Despotic state power refers to the power “without routine negotiation with civil society groups” exercised by states elites, and measured by intrusiveness or extensiveness of state intervention. On the other hand, infrastructural state power refers to “the ability of the state to penetrate civil society and to implement logistically political decision throughout the realm…”.  It won’t be too hard to see that the Philippines continue to struggle on this. Thus, the issue of state effectiveness follow through – which is defined as “the state’s capacity to perform its core functions for the majority of its people”. Studies previously made identified quality of democracy as the key factor that is elemental to a successful implementation of democracy in a democratic form of government. In literature, it is stated that state effectiveness is largely dependent to the quality of democracy that exists in a particular country governed by a democratic government. The question then is,  “can we measure the quality of democracy? How?” The answer is yes. Several quantitative/qualitative measures have been used by different organizations to assess quality of democracy (Bertelsmann Transformation Index, for example). Theoretically, the quality of democracy differs from country to country due to other related factors – and thus, some democratic countries become successful in terms of growth and development, while others fail. A more fundamental idea about quality democracy was clearly stated by Adam Przeworski in his book, “Sustainable Democracy”:

“If a government cannot perform basic state functions no matter how democratic its form may be, the people of the country would not be able to benefit from it. In this sense, the issues pertaining to the state are logically prior to those concerning the political regime”.

When democratization gained prominence in the past century, several East Asian countries shifted to a democratic form of government from authoritarian rule. It is widely perceived that formal institutions in these countries are basically exogenous, especially during the early part of transitional years. Political leaders, like any other individual, exemplify the same manner of heterogeneity in different dimensions. Therefore, they tend to differ in choices and preferences even in terms of policies and modes of governance. Thus, heterogeneity of political actors is central to the analysis of optimal policy choices. At this point, the issue of governance logically fits into the picture. Governance, defined as” the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” clearly explicated the role of governance in speeding up the process of development. It is of the essence therefore, that a definitive view on the quality of governance be clearly established- significantly due to the fact that governance is considered as “public goods” in itself. Such was elucidated further by Joseph E. Stieglitz when he wrote- “one of the most important public goods is the management of the government”.Hence, the quality of governance matters. Good governance has become a global trend over the past years, particularly in the discourse and practice of development. Due to the continuing challenge of poverty and social disparities, good governance- with emphasis on capacity development of institutions, have been slowly recognized as a determining factor (among many others) towards the realization of an envisioned “capable state”-which, ideally must be able to enforce deliverance of services responsibly to its citizens, especially to the marginalized sector – that, has been the overarching goal of development. In the case of the Philippines, exogenous trends were indeed, major contributors to the country’s economy – though its progress was that of a “turtle’s phase”, so to speak.

If I may try to make a layman’s assumption- resulting effect of effectuated structural adjustments, competition policies as well as economic reforms (deregulation, privatization, etc.) may have been different if a strong political will “to implement” was correspondingly reinforced. To point out a particular case, the Philippines’ decentralization may have been a “real success” (or more successful”) if the implementing rules and regulations ensured that deconcentration and devolution be implemented instantaneously. It is just a simple application of logic and common sense to understand that a mandate to “govern” goes hand in hand with “a given power”. In a simple scenario- if I would ask Pedro to go and buy “pandesal”, I must give him money so he can buy pandesal. I would be totally nuts to expect Pedro to give me a sack of pandesal later, if I did not give him money to pay for it, in the first place. In other words, a mandate of responsibility should be coupled with a “given power” to fulfill- logically, that is. Thus, “lack of political will” (in any assigned implementing body) to attain successful implementation of rules and regulations, generally impedes the maximization of effects and benefits when it comes to laws and policies in the Philippines.

A Simple Analogy of the present Political Exchange in the Philippines

In previous election years, it was undeniable that manifestations of alarming behavioral patterns subsisted within the Philippine society at large– such may have been existed even in the past that slowly becoming more pronounced and more defined occurrences at late. I say this base on highly discussed “improprieties” in connection to previous electoral processes- which presumably, are signs of the continual deterioration of the quality of political exchange in the Philippines. Such alteration in people’s political behaviour is significantly related to political exchange. In my understanding, the adverse effects of social constraints brought about by struggles in the past that besieged the Philippines seem to manifest in the existing quality of political participation portrayed by the majority. Probably seen as a more serious kind than the “voter’s paradox” problem, it could be perceived as a widespread regarding closer to what De Dios described in his article, “Local Politics and Local Economy’ as “a manifestation of simple disinterest in the process altogether…”. Furthermore, it could be an embodiment of what De Dios considers as a “more serious problem“, when he wrote: “Voters may continually participate in the (electoral) process, but they may be persuaded somehow to select candidates based on purely private, self-regarding considerations” (De Dios, E.S., 2007, “Local Politics and Local Economy”). Political exchange – ideally fulfilled through a dynamic political participation between actors in a political system is another issue that besieged the Philippine political economy. Theoretically, the quality of political participation in societies, significantly reflect the strength or weakness of formal institutions. Failure in political exchange may possibly lead to serious repercussions in terms of systematic procedures and to a possible breakdown of the system itself. Political exchange could also be closely, although not directly, related and affected by political and social constraints. Thus, the question follows, “what kind of political exchange exists in the Philippines?”

In my observation, political behaviors of political aspirants/candidates, more often than not, are given more weight in the arena of public discussions. The Philippine media seem to put more interest in subjection of such to public scrutiny (of course, as they say, they are “public figures” after all- if not a more “juicy and interesting” topic to talk about – that would attract further readers or viewers and therefore, would generally affect “ratings” and “paid advertisement”.. my apology to the readers for this obvious personal bias). That, being a given, “what about the other side of the story?” That was just one particular end. What about the political behavior of the voting public? I don’t know if it was just another adverse effect of whatever, but it seems to me that sometimes, the voting public’s motivational agendas and political choices are usually tolerated, and sometimes justified, in public regarding at the expense of more “publicize exposures” courtesy of the “politicians”. It is imperative to note that even in political exchanges, “It always takes two to tango”. In this case, it is obvious that both ends feed on each other. In this regard, the unforgettable “Hello Garci” scandal that “rocked the boat” in the 2004 presidential elections was more than the issues of wiretapping and cheating- more so, it was a manifestation of the public’s growing indifference and disregard to their civic duties and functions which greatly affect their social and communal interests (history would remind us that electoral protests due to vote buying among others appears to be a regular occurrence after the most recent elections) of the society as a whole.

I am inclined to assume then, that vote-buying exists because there are individuals who are willing to sell their votes, there are selfishly motivated ‘public servants”, and the rule of law is not promptly applied. I must say to the voting public that poverty, social injustices or any other social ails should not become an excuse for the voting public to sell their rights (votes). The same must be said to politicians – influence, opportunities and access to resources, doesn’t permit any “public servant” to exploit such and/or use for personal gain. To be really blatant about it, preservation of individual character and integrity is a personal concern. A lawful mandate is not necessarily a prerogative to it. That is, if a sense of nationalism still does exist in the Philippine society’s realm of consciousness – a will to safeguard the very institutions and processes that are essential to the Philippines’ overall well being.

Conclusions:

At present, it is deemed practical for the Philippines to look first into the quality of existing democracy before jumping off to other proposed ”means and/methods of cure”, in the hope of eradicating constraints (political, social, etc) perceived as hindrances to the overall development of the country. As a personal opinion, before we need a Charter Change, we have to ensure that we won’t be choke by it.  Federalism, Parliamentalism or Presidentialism could not independently “cure the Philippine ailments”. Any grand initiative will not make any difference in the long run without prior establishment of a capable state characterize by a quality democracy, unified society, and a dynamic political exchange.

The widely perceived disparity concerning the formal institutions (political, governmental) and the Filipino citizen’s weakening affectation in terms of their political life is an evidence of deterioration in the Philippine’s political exchanges. Both ends, the voting public and politicians, must deliver the same integral quality of commitment towards the grand scheme of progress and development. Furthermore, ensuring the quality of the existing systems of governance as well as the effectiveness of governmental structures and the relevance of policies and procedures that affects public choices should become a priority at present, alongside majority responses and unified behavior of the citizen as a whole.

Any “expedition or search” must start from somewhere – beginning from that point, we may possibly find “the cure” to save the Philippines from total destruction. Attainment of such should become the “big goals” that every aspect of the Philippine society should aspire for, no matter how fragmented are the courses of action taken- in order to achieve a state of “development” that each Filipino so desire at the present times.

Copyright: Leofina Jane G. Galleta
©2009leofinajanegalleta. All Rights Reserved.

Eternity (Recaptured)

Note: This poem has been transferred.You can read the text of this poem’s original version “here.

Beyond and Beneath Emotional Pain…

One of the first important lessons I learned this year has something to do about getting hurt, and hurting someone – intentionally or not. This morning, I was reminded with that lesson when a good friend asked me something that triggered my thoughts to further explore this matter.

Sure thing, each one of us gets hurt more often than not, or possibly so. I am no exception to such feeling of vulnerability- could be human nature at play. [I could be hurting at this very moment, and struggling not to let it show, .]

That gesture of my friend touches me deeply, for this friend showed me such sensitivity and care that rarely happens nowadays. Of course, everyone says sorry all the time. But it rarely happens to me that one would apologize for the “possibility” of causing me pain…

”Who could possibly hurt us? What could possibly hurt us?”

My curious nature pondered on these questions, not only as a response to my friend’s gesture but more so, on the fact that I feel for people – for those that I consider as my friend(s), even for those who don’t think of me as such, and so I always end up hurting or getting hurt in the process… when I know that someone is hurting.

Sure, we might get hurt by external forces- from reactions or opinions we get, from “not so positive” perceptions of other people about us, from unsolicited opinions based on very limited knowledge of facts that other people may throw unto us- even if such are consequences of our own doings- like decisions and choices we’ve made, effects of the course of actions we’ve decided to take, trade-offs related to our choice of priorities, etc.- which in some cases, one might chose to look past on such realities and rather dwell on to thinking that such pain is caused by external factors. Yes indeed, for sometimes, it’s a lot easier for most of us to look on the “outside” rather than to examine matters from the inside first- which reminds me further, that responsibility requires honesty of dealing with our selves as well as with other people.

And so at times, we tend to look for something to blame- for something external to be our ticket towards the safety net of illusionary thoughts that could make us feel better. On the other hand, if one would chose to take such escape routes, it is possible that one would, at the same time, be eluding very important lessons in life- and the chance to know one’s self better.

Who could possibly hurt us? What could possibly hurt us? Quite possibly, most of us do not dwell much on questions like these especially when in the middle of emotional pain. Such painful feelings could possibly dominate everything else when one is overwhelmed with such emotional force. Quite predictably, immediate reactions would initially lean more on the notions of injustice, of unfair treatment, and of being a victim of others ’selfishness and insensitivity, and the likes of these “self-pity” modes of thoughts…

And so, ”Who could possibly hurt us?”

I came to realize that no one can hurt us more than we could possibly hurt ourselves… We get hurt because we allowed ourselves to feel that way.

I answered my friend with these lines… “if indeed, hypothetically, i did get hurt because of, or in anyway connected to, you, it’s not something that I would blame you with. I got hurt because I’ve chosen to react and to think in such a way that caused me pain…”

“What could possibly hurt us?”

We get hurt because our emotional responses are stronger than our capacity to trace the roots of each stimulus that affects our emotions- which hinders us to arrive at a certain degree of understanding on why or how something happened the way it did…

For me, “the antidote for this kind of pain is acceptance (of our shortcomings, weaknesses, etc.) and understanding (that we can’t control the effects of our actions, we can’t do everything in such a way that everybody will approve, we are not invincible)”.

To conclude, this realization fuelled my conviction- to be more sensitive, more conscious, and more vigilant with my actions, with how I react to other people.. I might hurt myself, or I might hurt others, unconsciously or otherwise…

All Rights Reserved. ©2009leofinajanegalleta

 

also posted @ iluko.com

Legacy…

My most valuable treasure… such undying words from ” Tatang Itok“, still alive in those fading, fragile pages that survived the times…

“Do not turn away from anything that challenges your faith; that is courage. Always look first within your self- outward – and you’ll find no reason why you should see another human being beneath or above the very earth that you are threading into…”

“Words are empty if not fulfilled by actions… make sure that your words are as good as your worth. Always, always make sure that you can stand up to what you believe to be right, without occupying an inch of space that is not rightfully yours..”

“Failures are not something to be afraid of. Each one has its own story to tell- a reality that you’ve created through your actions and choices… Just remember that if your goals aren’t met at your desired circumstance, it doesn’t mean that you’ve failed. You may need to learn the value of patience, humility, and hardwork through it- or even to know what failure means- which is not a failure in itself…”

“Peace is a rare commodity, specially the kind that resides in yourself…Far more valuable than any accolade or even brighter than the rhinestone glitters of praises… Strive to be wise- more than your desire to be somebody else…”

Drippingly Yours…

Dear Friends,

The past months were like a roller-coaster ride for me. Life is truly full of surprises, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow may have sounded parsimonious when he wrote “Into each life some rain must fall” because in my case, it was more like “when it rains, it pours”. This tumultuous ride seemed to be the pattern for me. Challenges come, like rain that pours, yet opportunities emerge as well, although some may have been missed.

Truth be told, I have this sometimes irrational mechanism when I am in a challenging circumstance: I hibernate from my circle of friends and colleagues. People who have known me would definitely roar in agreement. .

I have several reasons, but the common denominator is my respect for boundaries in my relationships. I respect other people’s private lives, as much as I value my privacy. There are moments that I willingly share with friends and my family; there are moments that I would rather share with strangers.

Some of you must have been aware of what I went through, some of you might have a slight inkling of what happened. Some of you communicated with me directly (through emails, phone calls, etc.); some of you might have got wind of “the matter” through groups and societies that I belong to.

Yet, some of you might not be aware of what happened to me, but each of you helped me in my lowest and most difficult moments by deferring to my self-imposed silence, whether by allowing me some breathing space, or by engaging me in some moments of spontaneous chatter.

There are times, when keeping my silence is a way to sustain my strength- yet there also are instances when I opt to ask for a helping hand. Either way, my actions aren’t reactions. They are choices I make.

As much as I can, I don’t want to impose on friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances, or strangers. I happen to consider that respect for others.

Several days ago, I found out that there were some personal websites to which my blog was linked (as a sub-site or something like it) without my permission. These ran counter to my view that my blog was meant to be my way of “planting seeds” for my advocacies and as a way of expressing my artistic nature (if indeed I have it), NEVER as my way to gain profit. I therefore felt violated and exploited when I realized the links were for the purpose of gaining traffic for some enterprising people’s monetized blogs. That was when I decided to make this blog private and, with a heavy heart, I deactivated the comment section.

I would love to go on and on (I miss blogging), but I have to finish a paper that is due for tomorrow—just one example of those myriad requirements for my survival in another milieu. I have to cut it here and continue next time.

I deeply appreciate the friendships and interactions I had while actively maintaining this site. Each and every one of you touched my life.

Leofina Jane G. Galleta

Tainted Senses

This poem has been transferred.

Copyrights: Leofina Jane G. Galleta
©2008leofinajanegalleta All Rights Reserved.

Share this Post

Friendship Explored

I often say that I prefer friendships more than romantic relationships. My reason is that, in friendships, there are no “breaking ups”. I might not get hurt because of separations. I was wrong.

Such contemplations led me to gather my thoughts on the essentials of friendship- what is my view on friendship, how to be a friend, and how to maintain a good friendship.

The word “best friend” is one thing that I try not to use when referring to my friends. It is because I don’t believe it to be fair. It opposes everything that I believe in when it comes to friendship. I find the word “best friend” to be a little self-serving, in some way or another. I maybe coming too strong, but this is my reality. For me, either one is a friend, or not. No if’s, no but’s.

I respect individuality. I always look at each person to be basically unique from the other. With this reason alone, I do not categorize my friends from “least to best”. Thus, I don’t use the word “best friend”. I love and care for my friends in different ways, based on my personal and individual relationship with each of them. The degree of closeness and level of connections in my interactions renders a vital and definitive factor in each friendship that I have.

I view friendship in the same way that I would look at a two-way street. For me, friendship is not more than a relationship between TWO individuals. How one treats the other defines that friendship. Most of the time, it does extend to a larger group. However, the depth of connection is never the same. That being said, I see a group of friends to be made up of many friendships. Each one is a friend to each part of the group, like intertwined links of friendships.

Friendship isn’t just about common grounds and interests. It is more than similarity of ideas and belief. It is beyond having fun in doing things together. Friendship is about honest relationships. It is about commitment and honesty. It is a gift of unity that naturally evolves with time as two people co-exist and adjust to their individual differences. Friendship is a life-long process. It is like growing old with the other. It is in this process that the friendship is strengthened and cultivated.

Each of us may have had encountered some “so-called friends” in our life. Most of the time, these friendships didn’t last. It is because of individual choices, just like in other kinds of relationships. One might have given up, even if the other keeps on trying. Thus, a friendship depends on individual maturity, willingness to commit, and open-mindness of both parties. Same with other kinds of relationships, there are endings in friendship. Friendship ends when one refuses to listen, when one refuses to communicate, when one refuses to understand.

Only a true friend can muster the courage to listen and understand based on the other’s perspectives. For me, a true friend choses to look beyond assumed mistakes committed by the other. Instead, a true friend knows how to validate assumptions and interpretations in a fair, just, and rational way. Hence, true friendship would last more than a lifetime when each “friend” knows how to be a “real friend” at all times.

Got any other idea about Friendship? Fellows, feel free to share your thoughts!

Copyright by: Leofina Jane G.Galleta
All Rights Reserved.©2008leofinajanegalleta

Beyond Words – (SPECKS)

Gentle Prints

This poem has been transferred.

Copyright by: Leofina Jane G.Galleta
All Rights Reserved.©2008leofinajanegalleta

Share this Post