Snap
by Conrado de Quiros
11/10/2005
MANING Almario had an interesting letter the other day in our Letters section. He takes exception to Ignacio Bunye's statement that "corruption cannot be solved with just the snap of the fingers as it is deeply rooted in our culture." The dictionary, says Almario, defines culture as "the behavior, pattern, arts, beliefs, institutions and all other products of human work and thought, especially as expressed in one particular community or period." What patterns of thought, behavior, etc. in this country sanction corruption? "Name one!" he demands.
Corruption, Almario says, is no more endemic to this country than indolence is, a charge the friars levied on Filipinos, which Jose Rizal refuted thoroughly. To suggest the Filipino is naturally corrupt is to heap as much abuse on him as his colonizers did. "Bunye's blaming Filipino 'culture' for corruption is a variation of GMA's [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's] blaming the 'system' for her 'lapse in judgment.'" In fact, says Almario, if corruption is rife in this country, "blame the lack of moral leadership in the present political and elite circles."
I sympathize completely with Almario when he says Bunye's exculpation of corruption under Arroyo as the product of a flawed national culture is exactly the same thing as Arroyo's exculpation of her conduct in the last elections as the product of a warped political system. It may be true that the political system is warped, but some leaders contribute to it more than others, some leaders warp it more than others. There is such a thing as personal greed, and some are more insatiable than others. Not every Filipino craves the presidency so much she would lie, cheat and steal to have it.
True, corruption in this country cannot be solved with just the snap of the fingers. But it can be spread like bird flu with just that. Mr. and Mrs. Pidal have been snapping their fingers all this time, not least during the 2004 elections, a fact that former Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin is perfectly willing to attest to, and monies have been disappearing all over the place.
But while I sympathize with Almario, I have to say, too, that it is true our culture has something to do with corruption. Almario asks us to name one Filipino pattern of thought or behavior that sanctions corruption. I will name three.
The first is getting by through connections. That is true, of course, in other countries: connections help you get places. But it takes inordinate form here, often completely replacing talent or even fitness as the prime criterion for being hired. My favorite example of this, one that is largely unseen, is the way we choose the godparents of our children. Rarely do we get honest and poor (the two almost always go together in this country) folk to stand as sponsors to our children's baptism or wedding. Almost invariably we choose rich and crooked (the two almost always go together in this country, too) people to do so. Or at least we do not inquire too closely about the sources of their substance. The reason being that we want our kids, or indeed ourselves, to have a "konek," someone who will help employ them or bail us out in times of trouble. I keep saying it: While we revile corruption publicly, we embrace it privately.
The second is that we do not have any real concept of taxes. This is a theory I've set out in a number of columns. We do have much revulsion for thieves. That is shown in the derisive term "kawatan," or far more dramatically in the fate that befalls pickpockets when they are caught in Cubao or Quiapo. We do not show the same revulsion for thieves in high places because we do not really consider them thieves. We do not consider them thieves because we do not consider the money they seize as ours. The way we tacitly, if not formally, see it, taxes are not our money, they are their money. Taxes are the gratuity, or "balato," we give our leaders. No one really seriously expects it to come back. If they give us part of it back in road repair and basketball courts, great. If not, well, it is to be expected.
The pickpocket who is caught in Cubao and Quiapo gets to live only by the skin of his teeth, the looter who is caught in Malacañang and Congress gets only to sponsor Charter change.
And finally we do have a pattern of thought and behavior that hugely abets corruption, if not sanctions it. Which is that most of us want to live in America: The Filipino Dream, as I've always said, is also the Filipino Tragedy. What is unique to Philippine corruption, which you do not find in its neighbors, is that Filipino crooks like to sink their loot in Swiss banks and/or properties in California. Suharto stole more than Ferdinand Marcos -- $35 billion as against $15 billion -- but he kept it in Indonesia. Marcos stashed it abroad. Today, Jakarta has an airport with nice facilities, we have Naia and nasty hustlers.
That's what makes it so easy for the elite in this country, political and economic, to steal, and Almario is right about them setting a horrendous example. They do not particularly care what happens to the country because at the end of the day, when the country sinks to the bottom of the Pacific, they won't be around. They will be sipping wine in Napa Valley.
True enough, none of this will disappear overnight. Indeed, true enough, most of this will not disappear even after Arroyo goes. That doesn't mean Arroyo shouldn't go. As I said Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales argued that changing Arroyo won't solve all our problems, it won't, but it sure as hell will solve a great many of them. Leadership counts for a great deal, too. Good example is the greatest teacher there is, bad example is the greatest corruptor there is. Haven't you noticed that the people around Arroyo have now become uniformly arrogant?
Vice has been known to spread more quickly than virtue