The Fuss of Apologizing

It was during the month of October that the old conflict between the Aquinos and Marcoses surfaced boldly. President Pinoy answers the media that the Marcoses should apologize the Filipino people for the atrocities they committed during the dictator's regime. And the young Senator Bongbong also answers the media that being elected in various positions like his mother into congress and his sister as governor of their province is an indication of vindication. That means that people have already moved on as what the young senator claim. First, I am puzzled why this thing has to be an issue again as we approach the 2016 election. Let me give some simple analysis to their claims, and then conclude with my opinion.

The president is suggesting the Marcoses should issue an apology to the victims of human rights under the latter's watch. Does he mean that all the Marcoses belong to the first family should do so? Senator Miriam Santiago has already said that she did not see the young Marcos killing or raping or violating the penal code. She also recalled that that time of former president's reign, the young Marcos was still very young. She should mean that he did not have any hand in political ruling and decision making. Bongbong emphatically says that what wrong did he make to make him pay for the things he did not do so. What i see here is that the father's wrongdoing is not his. The wrongdoings of other people cannot be passed on to his children.

In morality by Glenn, the imputability lies on the doer of a thing. If the doer did something wrong, he is imputed by his act and he is to be blame. And the young Marcos and Senator Miriam have the same point. But why Pinoy is insisting that they, the Marcoses, should issue an apology? If we follow the point of the president, I think, even the children of the children of the dictator should do so who had stayed in Malacañan.  It is for eternity that they would carry the burden to apologize the people, as if they all inherit the original sin of the doer.

How about treating the election to power as vindication? Again the statement of the young Marcos is ambiguous. Some would deal the statement as the three Marcoses - the senator, congresswoman and the governor. Vindication is applied only to the senator because those who voted him are Filipinos coming from the whole country while the other two are from their own populace. This can be compared to arroyo's ascendancy to power as congresswoman after being labeled as the unpopular president mired by accusations of graft, corruption, plunder, etc.

To sum up with my opinion, the young senator has nothing to do with his father's wrongdoings. If the president says that the people would not allow another Marcos to sit in the palace, it would be the decision of the Filipino people to decide. If he is elected, then that would be another vindication.

Being Someone

Why I am writing this piece of opinion? It is to show to others that being employed with particular job prescription (or identity) like being a professor or government employee is better than being a businessman.

A good friend of mine was sharing this simple but profound thought about the importance of identity. This happens in the midst of our petty business talk. Both of us are regular employees, earning minimum wage. But our situation is compensated with passive income offered to us by a very good friend of ours who is into business. Our friend is very successful in his career as businessman.

But what transpired in our conversation is his realization. My friend said that being employed is totally different from someone who engaged in business alone. His thought became clear when he made a distinction between a businessman and being employed as worker. He used me as an example - wherever I go, I will be easily identified by anybody else as an instructor of a certain university without identifying me with money. In short even though i am without money, I still am called an instructor. It is because money is not the defining factor of my being a teacher. But a businessman is not the case. He is identified as such with money. If a businessman has no more money, he cannot be called anymore as such.

Thanks for the thought, my friend.