Comments

1. JoeAm says:

   September 16, 2026 at 11:38 am

   Too much for my lazy mind to absorb. The concepts I did read in my scan are all sensible. Much of what is suggested is underway. Airport buildouts, for example, are in the budget. To me there are several key issues.

   1. The head of the Tourism agency should have tourism skills, and not be an ego-mad political appointee.
   2. LGUs are not all committed to, or appropriate, for tourism. Each component of tourism, say Medical Tourism, is only as good as LGUs and the hospitals they can commit to the effort.
   3. I’v never thought much of agri-tourism, versus beach, ocean, volcano, and waterfall tourism.
   4. Conventions are up to private interests, hotel operators, and the Philippines has good ones.
   5. Transportation makes or breaks tourism. It’s getting better, but it’s more con than pro. Maybe it will tip soon.

   I’d follow the 80/20 rule and invest heavily in the 20% of legitimate tourism destinations that will produce 80% of the traffic. I’d not build roads to farms, but make it easy to get to Mayon or Siargao. For examples, ferry services are not an integrated whole, but depend on individual operators. A mess. Yet they are fun AND useful.

   Reply
2. CV says:

   September 16, 2026 at 3:13 pm

   “For examples, ferry services are not an integrated whole, but depend on individual operators. A mess. Yet they are fun AND useful.” – JoeAm

   If you are retired and have all the time in the world. But if you on a strict time table, like most tourists, forget that!

   I agree with your 80/20 suggestion.

   Reply
   • JoeAm says:

     September 16, 2026 at 3:28 pm

     Righto.

     Reply
     • kasambahay says:

       September 17, 2026 at 9:40 am

       I have learned to be patient, there are always delays at airports, like the volcano that erupted in indonesia, and flights were delayed. lost baggage too, and the rise in security checks are all contributing factors. I think, it is same in other countries, there are bad weather, cyclones and flooding and flights are cancelled. airlines and airports have contigency plans, else we are stranded at airports with not a word from clueless airlines of what is going on. me? I just want to arrive at my destination in one piece, most of my fellow travelers feel the same, better be safe than sorry.

       transit passengers or those booked for connecting flights are given briefing, I think, airport and airlines staff try their best to be accommodating and not to malign their customers. if passengers missed their flight though no fault of theirs, there is always another flight coming. a missed flight is common occurrence.

       professional tourists know what to expect, they have traveled so many times that I find them the most patient of all passengers, taking things in stride, they seems to have always a plan b ready, in case plan a is scuppered. and they have all these modern gadget and gizmos that enable them to notify their acquaintances and work colleagues of the delay. and gee, they often use the delay to work on their laptops, check their emails, check the stock market, phone their clients and give instruction to their secretaries about what do in their absence. you rarely see them twiddling their thumbs in boredom.

       Reply
       • JoeAm says:

         September 17, 2026 at 10:28 am

         That’s an extraordinarily healthy perspective. Patience is one of the skills I’m working to develop. My wife has amazing patience. I let her deal with government agencies, LOL.

         Reply
         • kasambahay says:

           September 17, 2026 at 11:30 am

           I always travel with airpods, so I can listen to music and I also have a small pillow in case I got delayed at airports, and can have a few winks on the bench, noise doesnt bother me. incidentally, I hear the king of jordan listens to classical music like those of mozart and beethoven in order to relax.

           Reply
           • CV says:

             September 18, 2026 at 12:23 am

             “I just want to arrive at my destination in one piece. Most of my fellow travelers feel the same: better safe than sorry.” —Kasambahay

             But when discussing Philippine tourism, the target market should not be travelers who are satisfied simply to arrive safely. Many tourists from wealthier countries, who have money to spend abroad, expect more. They often have several destinations on a tight itinerary and limited time to accomplish what they want to do.

             If travel to or within a country seems unreliable—as the Philippines can sometimes appear—many potential visitors may remove it from their list. Their travel agents may even advise them to do so. For these tourists, friendly people, charm, and smiles are not enough to make up for delayed flights, uncertain schedules, poor connections, or inconvenient transport.

             If the main target is balikbayans, the situation may be different. They are familiar with the country, more forgiving of inefficiency, and often willing to accept inconveniences because of family ties and affection for the Philippines. But foreign tourists who are choosing among many possible destinations do not necessarily have that patience.

             Kasambahay says that “professional tourists know what to expect.” That is true. But travelers with experience may also know that, if their itinerary is crowded, the Philippines can be a risky choice because of possible delays and unreliable domestic travel.

             Many may therefore limit their visit to Manila instead of traveling to other parts of the country. The result is that they spend less time and money in provincial destinations and contribute less to the wider Philippine economy. If the country wants tourists to explore beyond Manila, it must offer transportation that is safe, dependable, efficient, and reasonably predictable.

             Reply
             • kasambahay says:

               September 18, 2026 at 9:38 am

               I am a very rude local to impatient tourists! I cannot stand them stomping and swearing and demanding they be served soonest possible. questions like what’s the point of having schedules when you pinoys cannot stick to them! is meet with scorn from me and I do my utmost to annoy them even more, lol! damn tourists should have seen what the catalans in spain do to unwelcomed tourists: shoot them with water pistol! too many tourists gawking and blocking the way, and speaking in their own language, noisy with no respect to local customs are best driven to bangins! the poor catalans cannot go to the market without being accosted by tourists, and not only buses are full of them but eating places as well, leaving catalans huffing and puffing. tourists bureau may like the higher number of tourists, not so the locals.

               seriously though, in my neck of the woods, we are so like catalans. if tourists cannot say please or thank you, we intentionally bump into them and knock them down, clumsy tourists! and we dont say sorry.

               Reply
               • CV says:

                 September 18, 2026 at 11:03 am

                 Thanks for your feedback, Kasambahay. I heard from a local Pinoy over there in the Philippines who loves to travel to Vietnam as a tourist that the government there tries to propagate a different attitude among the Vietnamese locals towards foreign tourists in their land.

                 He said he heard this vehicle going around the city streets making an announcement in Vietnamese. He asked a local what they were announcing. The local said they are telling the locals to be nice to the tourists.

                 I guess the leadership there has a different attitude towards nation building (or in this specific case tourism building) than we Pinoys.

                 Reply
                 • JoeAm says:

                   September 18, 2026 at 11:38 am

                   Good for Viet Nam. My own experience is that Filipinos are naturally gracious toward foreigners. The problem is more the dilapidated condition of local resorts and jumbled transportation. That said, there are plenty of four and five star resorts if people like to hang there and enjoy the pool, spas, and fine dining. Maybe take a day trip. My son went to Japan by himself and mastered trains and rental bikes to get around. No problem, got to Tokyo, Fuji and, Kyoto. He’d get scammed by crummy taxis here and struggle to get to different islands. But people would be friendly, even the taxi drivers scamming him.

                   Reply
                   • kasambahay says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 2:27 pm

                     true, we are gracious toward foreigners though we have deported some of them! undesirable ones like the dutch tourist who joined rally and then shove a policeman who was manning the barricade. we have also deported a russian tourist, a vlogger who was rude to filipinos, same as the estonia vlogger, both were deported after conviction, and they were both put on exclusion order for 3yrs.

                     most famous of our deportees were the beatles, for being rude to first lady imelda marcos.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 3:04 pm

                     LOL, Beatles. There are a lot of jerk foreigners here, I agree. Ugh. I’m not sure they are tourists, versus scoundrels using the Philippines for their foul deeds. Often with the help of Filipinos making money by helping them. Pogos for instance.

         • CV says:

           September 18, 2026 at 12:40 am

           JoeAm,

           I grew up in the Philippines and realized early that patience is a much needed virtue. Waiting seemed to be a favorite past time. You wait for a bus, wait in the bank, wait at a government office, wait in traffic, etc. etc. I learned to carry a Reader’s Digest with me to keep me entertained. No smart phones yet then.

           Reply
           • JoeAm says:

             September 18, 2026 at 6:26 am

             Ah, I always read the humor sections of the Digest. Good times! haha

             Reply
     • kasambahay says:

       September 17, 2026 at 9:58 am

       I am more worried about ferries that caught fire like the mv june aster off coron in palawan this month of september 2026. it could well be the worst ferry disaster we have in years with 76 dead and 8 still missing. nobody knows how the fire started though there are speculations that the fire may have been caused by an exploding lithium ion battery of an ebike. I think, maritime authorities ought to start giving new guidelines of what, and what cannot, be brought on board. and strict adherence of the number of passengers ferries can carry now that we have stronger and heaviers waves due to climate change. overloading a ferry compromise safety.

       Reply
       • JoeAm says:

         September 17, 2026 at 10:31 am

         Yes, my last ferry ride was on a large iron ship big enough to haul cars and trucks. We got a cabin that was so hard to locate, down this narrow corridor into that. I mused that it could be my coffin. Hospital green. It would sink like a lead stone.

         Reply
         • Joey Nguyen says:

           September 17, 2026 at 10:57 am

           Last year I took a ferry from Manila to Mindanao. It took nearly 3 days (it wasn’t a direct ferry) and cost about P2.5K.

           On my return trip I flew Cebu Pacific. It took less than 2 hours and cost about the same P2.5K.

           Domestic flights in the Philippines, pioneered by budget airlines like Cebu Pacific, are a godsend. Back in the late 1990s it took forever to get anywhere by ferry. Plus points for ferries are the higher weight allowances for cargo, or needing to transport a vehicle. Some Filipinos still trust ferries more than flying (afraid of airliner crashes), though flying is immensely safer. Everywhere small regional airports that started off as USAF or USN airbases or airstrips are being revitalized and modernized.

           Reply
           • kasambahay says:

             September 17, 2026 at 11:34 am

             when traveling on ferries, I loved to watch dolphins swimming along, dolphins are supposed to bring good luck.

             Reply
             • Joey Nguyen says:

               September 17, 2026 at 1:12 pm

               Have you ever gone between nearby islands by small bangka? I’ve traveled this way and love having the dolphins ride the bow of the bangka. A few times the dolphins were chasing barungoy (flying fish), which landed inside the boat, and the dolphins sharing ulam with us. Just amazing to see.

               Reply
               • kasambahay says:

                 September 18, 2026 at 9:15 am

                 speed boat yes, but small bangka, no. though I’ve been on a baroto or paraw, and I’d rather forget the experience. being very close to the water scares me.

                 Reply
           • CV says:

             September 18, 2026 at 12:37 am

             “Everywhere small regional airports that started off as USAF or USN airbases or airstrips are being revitalized and modernized.” – Joey N.

             Good news indeed. Now we just have to see if the government (i.e. elected leadership) can INTEGRATE airports with other elements of tourism. That is their duty to the people.

             Tourists have to get from the airports to their destinations like Boracay or Coron or Siargao, etc.….and those destinations have to be ready to receive them and treat them to a good time.

             Reply
             • Joey Nguyen says:

               September 18, 2026 at 7:10 am

               Certainly having better services is a civil servant’s duty to their constituents whether they are elected or part of the bureacratic service. Politicians are also people, and people respond to incentives.

               The way I see it, there are three types of Philippine politicians:
               1. The one who is satisfied with their NTA allotment and access to rents within their territory.
               2. The other one who sees potential economic benefits beyond the NTA allotment and rent access — economic benefits that translate into increased political benefits that help them/their allies get re-elected.
               3. The third type, the most common, who is a varying shade of the first and the second types.

               “Way back in the day” (for me anyway, since I’m middle aged), the first time I went to Puerto Princesa and Coron was in 1998. At that time both Puerto Princesa and Coron were somewhat known to those in Western and Central Visayas, since many Palaweños migrated to Cebu for work. I enjoy quiet, peaceful places away from the cities and other foreigners, so I greatly enjoyed beachcombing in Puerto Princesa and freediving/spearfishing in Coron. The foreigners I met in Palawan were college-aged tourists of the “eco-tourism” or “backpacker” type. I myself had backpacked across Western to Eastern Europe, Mainland Southeast Asia, and Africa around that time and in the following years. Puerto Princesa “became known” to the world when the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park caves were entered into the UNESCO World Heritage List at the end of 1999. Palawan remained my favorite place to “unwind” for about a decade. The local politicians remained as they were, following the old ways. It wasn’t until the place won a slot on the Seven Wonders of Nature online poll in the early in the 2010s rise of social media that Puerto Princesa became world famous and a great influx of tourists of all kinds poured in. Local Palaweño politicians, needing to increase public infrastructure to attract more tourists staying for longer who would spend more hard currency locally, responded to that economic incentive by doing just that. Cabana resorts, beachside resorts, restaurants, shopping centers, roads, ferry services and so on sprouted up at a rapid pace.

               I don’t particularly enjoy being around Western tourists, especially men, so I stopped going to Puerto Princesa as much and turned to Boracay. The White Beach of Boracay was already known through word of mouth in the backpacking world since the late 1960s and early 1970s, fueled by US servicemen who had visited Allan during that era. My dad went there during a few military rotations in the Philippines back in those days. Boracay became my new favorite place to go, and I much enjoyed staying with local families I rented rooms from. There was no formal resort infrastructure. Gradually, politicians in Aklan also noticed the economic incentives and built corresponding infrastructure in the 2010s. But recall my annoyance with Western tourists, which culminated in Boracay being closed down for rehabilitation in 2018 due to widespread littering by local businesses and environmental destruction by girl-chasing foreign passport bros.

               Friends in Cebu introduced me to Siargao in the late 2010s, which was already known by Cebuano-speaking locals. When I first went there Siargao was still a sleepy beachside town. Again I stayed in local accommodations, renting rooms from the locals and living as they did. There was some development in the 2010s, but the incentives were mostly geared towards serving an influx of locals. Sayak regional airport was upgraded, which coincided with Cebu Pacific’s rise as the Philippines’ premier budget domestic airline. The big change was the devastation from Bagyong Odette, the disaster recovery funds afterward which enabled Siargao to build into a world-class resort town after 2022. Siargao particularly leveraged social media well, first attracting people from Central Visayas and Mindanao, then global visitors. Nowadays Siargao is the new passport bro hotspot, evidenced all over social media. So I prefer not to go here too, even though Siargao’s tourism infrastructure is quite well-built up in the last few years.

               When presented with proper economic incentives that outweigh traditional NTA “farming” and rent-seeking, a rational human would respond accordingly. A lot of the original cities which formed the M4GG Coalition were at one time also corrupt and rent-seeking in nature, with bad infrastructure and bad governance, because that was the logical choice given the incentive structures available. Many of the original M4GG Coalition cities are also nearby PEZA locations, which changed the incentive calculus for mayors there, who were able to often break through local dynasties and elect leaders who are both technocratic and responsive to the people they serve. Despite the relative short time the good governance coalition existed, by their good example the M4GG Coalition generated a new set of incentives that other mayors noticed, the M4GG Coalition expanding greatly last year as new batches of mayors and municipalities pledged support to the M4GG principles.

               Anyway my point is that while yes, it is the politicians’ and government’s duty to the people to build infrastructure and bring in investments, often these things happen over time organically before the local politicians recognize the incentive at hand. People change according to changing incentives. So too do governance structures change when incentives are changed.

               Reply
               • CV says:

                 September 18, 2026 at 11:25 am

                  “So too do governance structures change when incentives are changed.” – Joey N.

                 Yes, people respond to incentives. But officials who design incentives also respond to incentives. And they should have to balance their responses in line with the duties of their public office.

                 The real question is whether the system rewards public service or rewards patronage, self-protection, and short-term political gain.

                 Still, incentives are not everything. Public officials have a duty to serve the people, and leaders with a strong sense of duty can do the right thing even when the incentives are weak or point in the other direction. They can also use their authority to build stronger rules, safeguards, and incentives for those who come after them. Without that sense of duty at the top, however, ‘changing incentives’ can simply become another way for those in power to protect themselves.”

                 Reply
                 • Joey Nguyen says:

                   September 18, 2026 at 11:34 am

                   What you say is correct in theory. Unfortunately it doesn’t reflect reality in even the most well-governed country. Morality is not the human default. Morality is another form of human-constructed incentive structure.

                   Reply
                   • CV says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 12:21 pm

                     “Unfortunately it doesn’t reflect reality in even the most well-governed country. Morality is not the human default. Morality is another form of human-constructed incentive structure.” – Joey N.

                     The Good Book teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In that sense, none of us is perfect. But there are still degrees of moral failure, and the difference in those degrees can matter greatly in public life.

                     Consider Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump in relation to the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. When Carter became president, he placed his interest in the family peanut business in a blind trust to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. He understood that a president should not use public office, directly or indirectly, for private gain.

                     Trump took a very different approach. He retained an interest in his business empire while serving as president, creating serious and continuing questions about whether foreign governments and others could patronize his properties in ways that benefited him personally. Many Americans were troubled not only by the possible constitutional issue, but also by the apparent lack of an effective remedy.

                     An American friend once gave me her explanation. She said, “We simply assumed that anyone elected president would have enough moral sense not to test the limits of the Emoluments Clause. We never imagined that someone like Donald Trump would come along.”

                     She is now in her late seventies and has long been active in civic and political affairs, though she worked in the private sector. In the 1960s, she was one of those college-campus protesters—one of those types, as she would probably say with a laugh.

                     I have Philippine examples as well.

                     My mother-in-law served two terms as mayor of a Philippine province after the fall of Marcos. She was an honest person, deeply sympathetic to the poor, and apparently unable—or unwilling—to play the usual political game. She came from a large political family, some members of which became fabulously wealthy as governors and congressmen, as often happens in Philippine politics.

                     But she did not become wealthy. She was deeply religious, attended Mass daily, and lived modestly. When she died, she was very poor.

                     She also had a brother-in-law who worked at the Bureau of Customs in Manila, an office long associated with opportunities for corruption. Yet he, too, was honest. He raised his family in a humble home and lived within his means. In the 1960s, he even converted his American car to run on diesel because diesel fuel was cheaper than gasoline at the time—when gasoline itself cost only around thirty centavos a liter.

                     His colleagues at Customs reportedly laughed at him. To them, his modest life showed that he was “not taking advantage” of his position, unlike many of his peers.

                     These examples do not prove that people are naturally moral. They show something more modest, but important: even within a flawed system, some people choose not to exploit the opportunities available to them. They may have weak incentives to remain honest, and they may even pay a price for it. But conscience, faith, character, and a sense of duty can still make a difference.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 12:46 pm

                     Hmm… the Good Book is also a system of incentives. All religions are a form of incentive structure. “I’ll treat you well, so that you treat me well.”

                     During Jimmy Carter’s time the US was far more racially homogenous, and by extension culturally homogenous, which makes creating a socially agreed upon incentive system easier. Even when I was in K-12 the US was still rather culturally homogenous. Non-WASP Whites had been racially assimilated, while most non-White minorities had also been culturally assimilated. People kept elements of their original culture, but also adopted American culture. “Hyphenated Americans.” Look around the US now. While cultural diversity is a good thing, American culture is no longer homogenous. A lot of current US problems have roots in cultural assimilation falling somewhere. Cultural homogeny also carries its own social incentives, which then enforce moral incentives. The rise of shamelessness, personified in Trump, is a breakdown of social incentives that lead to a lack of mooring to tie moral incentives to. One precedes the other.

                     Likewise, in the Philippines similar patterns exist. Perhaps during your mother-in-law’s time society and the moral structures that society enforced were still more homogenous *in her area.* But other provinces had other social and moral structures and incentives. In the isolation before modern mass internal migration, there was no need to reconcile differences between one area and the next. Nor would most Filipinos of that time even know that other practices and expectations existed.

                     In your example of your mother-in-law’s brother-in-law, while it might not be explicitly recognized, the middle class were more integrated into communities back then. Irineo has written about this. Community integration causes practices and expectations to collide then merge into a more widely accepted incentive system. Not being able to move as freely, due to transportion or cost, also requires people to submit to the social incentive structure otherwise they would be ostracized. Fear of social ostracization is otherwise known as “fear of shame,” which is a moral construct sometimes attached to religious systems created *after the fact,* but is in actuality rooted in the incentive structure accepted by a majority.

                     I’m not dismissing your examples, which are obviously valid personal experiences by the people you cited. I’m saying that your examples are examples of “results,” while I’m interested in the “root,” and how to change the “root incentives” so that we may have “different results.”

                   • CV says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 1:44 pm

                     I agree that looking for root causes and better incentives is a noble task. In fact, religious and secular reformers have been trying to address the roots of human wrongdoing for centuries. Christianity itself calls for an inner transformation—love of neighbor, humility, justice, and responsibility—not merely obedience to external rules.

                     But if experience teaches anything, it is that there is no simple worldwide formula that will produce moral people or honest government. The world contains different cultures, religions, interests, and political traditions. Trying to impose a single ‘root incentive system’ on everyone may be more fantasy than practical reform—and potentially dangerous if those in power decide they alone know the proper incentives.

                     The practical task is humbler: encourage duty and character, while building laws and institutions that make corruption harder, transparency normal, and abuse punishable. We should seek better incentives, certainly—but without pretending that incentives can replace conscience, or that we can engineer a morally perfect society.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 2:17 pm

                     When I use the modifier word “root,” I’m not implying that there is a universal singular root to everything — rather, I’m pointing out that every result (effect) has a original cause. Root Cause Analysis is a common analytical technique to study systems. In other words, cause-and-effect. Change the cause(s), the effect(s) also change.

                     Now how do we suppose “duty,” “character,” “conscience,” and “humility” develop? These are societal contructs which develop from an incentive structure and do not exist naturally — it develops from the social compact that must be agreed upon by those who participate. Okay, if one points out that some animals that have partial sentience also seem to have elements of “duty,” “character,” “conscience,” and “humility,” but those animals also have proto-societies to go along with their semi-sentience (at least at what humans would call a family grouping, the most basic form of a society much more primitive than a clan-based tribe).

                     I think it a nearly 130-year ongoing mistake for the relatively small Philippine middle class to generalize their own social expectations and thus incentive systems onto the Philippines as a whole. This generalization is made worse by the barest of attempts to teach others outside of the middle class *why* adhering to certain expectations and thus incentives are beneficial. Often, it seems to me that such middle class impositions are more of an order, rather than an explanation of what benefits can be gained by changing one’s understanding of how one interacts with the society-at-large. The Philippine middle class of old shrunk drastically in combination of those who were able to leave Martial Law, then further shrinking by those disillusioned that the expected EDSA reforms did not come fast enough (for the middle class). The new middle class of today that rose from OFW and BPO is quite different — and the lower classes no longer need to obey.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 3:10 pm

                     Love the parsing of the middle class. C/Ds though seem to obey dynasts and their henchmen, especially during elections.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 4:09 pm

                     Yes. And in the cities which were inaugural M4GG members, incentives for CDs changed through diffusion from nearby PEZA jobs which then enabled the very same voters to demand more from electeds once they had more economic power, the M4GG mayors who then won by operating within the new incentive structure rather than on old incentives the voters no longer wanted.

                   • CV says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 3:15 pm

                     Thanks, Joey.

                     I’m sure you are familiar with Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya ng Katipunan. I’ll paste it below. Perhaps we can discuss what elements from the Kartilya the lower classes (or any class for that matter in the Philippines) no longer need to obey:

                     KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN

                     The Teachings of the Katipunan

                     English translation of Emilio Jacinto’s guide for prospective members of the Katipunan

                     To Those Who Wish to Join This Association

                     Since all who wish to join this association must have a full understanding of its aims and teachings, these matters are made known to them so that they will not later regret their decision and so that they may willingly fulfill their duties.

                     The aim of this association is great and important: to unite the hearts and minds of all Filipinos, bound by a solemn oath, so that through unity they may remove the thick veil that blinds the mind and find the true path of enlightenment.

                     One of its foremost commandments is genuine love of one’s native land and wholehearted mutual aid among its people.

                     Poor or rich, ignorant or educated, all are equal here and true brothers and sisters.

                     These matters should be considered carefully, for true love of country and true mutual assistance cannot be achieved unless one reflects on the following teachings:

                     1. A life not devoted to a great and sacred cause is like a tree without shade—indeed, like a poisonous weed.

                     2. A good deed done for selfish gain, rather than from a sincere desire to do good, is not true goodness.

                     3. True piety is charity, love of one’s fellow human beings, and judging every act, deed, and word by true reason.

                     4. Whether one’s skin is dark or fair, all people are equal. One may surpass another in learning, wealth, or beauty, but never in essential human worth.

                     5. A person of noble character places honor before self-interest; a person of low character places self-interest before honor.

                     6. For a person of honor, one’s word is a solemn pledge.

                     7. Do not waste time. Lost wealth may be recovered, but time that has passed never returns.

                     8. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor, whether in court or in the field.

                     9. A prudent person is careful in speech and knows how to keep a necessary secret.

                     10. On the difficult path of life, a man guides his wife and children. If the guide leads toward wrongdoing, those he guides will also be led toward it.

                     11. Do not regard woman merely as an object of amusement, but as a companion and partner in life’s hardships. Her physical weakness should make you more considerate of her, and remind you of Kartilya ng Katipunan — English translation | Page 1 the mother who bore and raised you.

                     12. Do not do to the wife, children, brothers, sisters, or countrymen of another what you would not want done to your own wife, children, brothers, sisters, or countrymen.

                     13. Human dignity does not rest on being a ruler, having a sharp nose or fair complexion, being a priest, holding high office, or possessing wealth. The truly noble person, even if raised in the forest and knowing only his native tongue, is one of good character, integrity, honor, and dignity—one who neither submits to oppression nor oppresses others, and who knows how to love and serve the native land.

                     14. When these teachings have become part of your mind and life, the longed-for day of freedom will rise and shine. The tears shed, hearts that suffered, and lives lost for this cause will not have been wasted; their sacrifice will lead to the nation’s true liberty and well-being.

                     Translator’s note: This is a readable modern English rendering of the widely reproduced Tagalog text. The original was written in Tagalog in late-nineteenth-century orthography; wording and numbering may vary slightly among published transcriptions and translations.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 4:03 pm

                     Of course I am familiar with the Kartilya ng Katipunan. It is an idealistic Masonic-inspired document which if one reads it a second time, one realizes Katipunan initiates were self-selected by design. Not teaching the “why” there will be a “benefit” naturally made the Katipunan movement self-limiting rather than self-propagating, just like the preceding Propaganda movement.

                     Kindly accept the following AI summary:

                     Check critically, while highlighting what may be nationalist propaganda:

                     1. Of the Philippine population in 1898, what number and percentage were members of the Katipunan?
                     2. Were the masa supportive of the Katipunan’s idealistic objectives?
                     3. What were the Katipunan’s goals vs the goals of the masa?
                     4. What was the reaction to Katipunan attempts to instill in the masa revolutionary education?
                     5. During and after the Philippine-American War, which side did the masa support?

                     Answer:

                     1. Membership & Population (1898)

                     • The Reality: The Katipunan was officially dissolved by Emilio Aguinaldo in 1897. At its 1896 peak, it had 30,000–100,000 members—less than 1.5% of the 6.5–7 million population.
                     • The Propaganda: Nationalist history frames the revolution as a spontaneous, nationwide, and unified uprising, obscuring that the Katipunan was predominantly Tagalog, highly factionalized, and localized almost entirely to Central and Southern Luzon.

                     2. The Masa’s View of Katipunan Objectives

                     • The Reality: The masa (peasantry) interpreted the revolution through folk Catholicism and millenarianism. They fought for kalayaan—which meant spiritual bliss, brotherhood, and a return to a pre-colonial Edenic balance.
                     • The Propaganda: State narratives claim the masses fully grasped and fought for Western, bourgeois concepts of a secular constitutional republic and political liberty.

                     3. Elite Katipunan Goals vs. Masa Goals

                     • The Reality: Elite leaders sought to build a modern nation-state, draft a constitution, and replace Spanish administrators with local elites. The masa sought immediate economic relief (abolition of taxes and forced labor), land redistribution, and an apocalyptic leveling of the social order.
                     • The Propaganda: History textbooks collapse these distinct, often opposing class struggles into a single, unified vision for the First Philippine Republic.

                     4. Reaction to Revolutionary Education

                     • The Reality: Secular, Enlightenment-based teachings failed to penetrate the peasantry. The masa integrated the revolution into their existing folk-spiritual worldview, relying on anting-anting (amulets) for invulnerability and venerating figures like Rizal and Bonifacio as messiahs.
                     • The Propaganda: Narratives imply that secular moral codes, like Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya, successfully transformed the peasantry into disciplined, rational, civic-minded citizens.

                     5. Allegiances During the Philippine-American War

                     • The Reality: The conflict was sharply class-divided. The wealthy elite largely collaborated with the Americans early on to protect their property and status. Meanwhile, peasant millenarian groups waged insurgencies well into the 1910s against both the American colonizers and the collaborating Filipino elite.
                     • The Propaganda: The enduring myth presents a wholly united Filipino nation fighting a heroic, classless guerrilla resistance against American imperialism.

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 12:04 am

                     Thanks for the crash course on the Kartilya, Joey, compliments of AI.

                     Meanwhile, my suggestion remains and I repeat it here: “Perhaps we can discuss what elements from the Kartilya the lower classes (or any class for that matter in the Philippines) no longer need to obey:…” (context is this earlier statement of yours: “The new middle class of today that rose from OFW and BPO is quite different — and the lower classes no longer need to obey.”)

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 5:20 am

                     The Filipino Who No Longer Needs Permission

                     How the OFW, BPO worker and emerging middle class are changing the social meaning of the Kartilya ng Katipunan

                     By Karl M. Garcia

                     There is a provocative way to read the modern Filipino condition:

                     The Filipino has become increasingly difficult to command.

                     Not necessarily because Filipinos have become less patriotic, less moral, or less communal—but because millions of ordinary Filipinos now possess something that their ancestors had very little of in 1896:

                     economic agency outside traditional systems of authority.

                     The Overseas Filipino Worker can earn from Dubai, Tokyo, Singapore or Riyadh without depending on the local political boss for employment. The BPO worker in Cebu, Iloilo, Davao or Quezon City can serve a client in New York without asking a local landlord, patron or politician for permission. The online freelancer can sell a skill directly to a foreign customer. A young family can increasingly compare jobs, cities, employers and opportunities rather than simply accept whatever hierarchy happens to exist around them.

                     This does not mean that Filipinos have abandoned the values of Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya ng Katipunan.

                     Something more interesting has happened.

                     The basis on which people accept authority has changed.

                     The Kartilya was written for a revolutionary brotherhood fighting under colonial conditions. Its moral vocabulary emphasized purpose, reason, dignity, mutual obligation, courage, equality, sacrifice and defense of the oppressed. It was not simply a manual for obedience. Indeed, several of its teachings are remarkably hostile to inherited hierarchy.

                     Jacinto wrote that people may differ in knowledge, wealth and beauty, but not in their humanity. He urged members to defend the oppressed and oppose the oppressor. He taught that genuine goodness should not be performed merely for personal advantage.

                     The question for the 21st century, therefore, is not whether modern Filipinos have stopped following the Kartilya.

                     It is whether the social conditions that made its particular form of collective discipline necessary have changed.

                     And they have.

                     —

                     From obedience to choice

                     It would be misleading to describe the Kartilya as demanding “blind obedience.”

                     Its moral authority was supposed to come from katuwiran, puri, service and the dignity of the individual—not merely from rank.

                     That distinction matters.

                     The Katipunan needed organization because its members operated under a colonial state that could punish dissent, restrict mobility and control access to economic and political power. Collective discipline was therefore not simply a moral preference. It was part of the technology of resistance.

                     The modern Filipino lives in a radically different environment.

                     Not an equal one. Not necessarily a just one. But a more plural and economically connected one.

                     A worker can leave one employer for another. A nurse can work overseas. A programmer can work remotely. A call-center agent can serve an American company while living in Iloilo. A construction worker can compare opportunities abroad. A small entrepreneur can reach customers through digital platforms.

                     The individual has acquired exit.

                     And exit changes power.

                     A person who has no alternative must obey.

                     A person who can leave can negotiate.

                     This is one of the deepest social changes produced by globalization.

                     —

                     The new Filipino does not necessarily reject the nation. He negotiates with it.

                     Consider the OFW.

                     The Philippines had about 2.19 million overseas Filipino workers in 2024, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority, and those workers sent an estimated ₱262.2 billion in remittances during the survey period.

                     It is tempting to interpret migration simply as evidence of declining nationalism.

                     But that interpretation misses the more complicated reality.

                     The OFW often leaves the country precisely because of obligations to family.

                     The worker may sacrifice years away from children, parents, spouses and friends. The destination is foreign. The work may be difficult. The objective is frequently very Filipino: tuition, a house, medical expenses, family security, a better future.

                     The “great and sacred cause” has therefore not disappeared.

                     It has moved closer to home.

                     Jacinto’s first teaching says that a life not devoted to a great and sacred purpose is like a tree without shade.

                     The modern Filipino might answer:

                     My family is my great and sacred purpose.

                     That is not necessarily a rejection of civic morality.

                     It is a different scale of moral responsibility.

                     The revolutionary imagined the nation as family.

                     The modern worker often experiences the family as the nation.

                     —

                     The rise of practical individualism

                     The BPO economy illustrates another transformation.

                     The Philippine IT-BPM sector has grown into a major global services industry. IBPAP currently describes a workforce of about 1.9 million and roughly $40 billion in revenue, while emphasizing talent development, innovation and the movement toward higher-value services.

                     More broadly, the Philippine Statistics Authority estimated that the digital economy accounted for 9.8 percent of GDP and 10.39 million jobs in 2025.

                     This creates a different kind of Filipino worker.

                     He may never meet his customer.

                     He may never know the politician who represents the customer’s district.

                     He may work at 2 a.m. because his customer is in California.

                     His performance may be measured by a dashboard rather than by a local supervisor’s personal favor.

                     His career may depend more on English, technical competence, customer service, analytics, coding or specialized knowledge than on family connections.

                     That is a profound social shift.

                     It does not eliminate hierarchy.

                     It changes the hierarchy.

                     Competence becomes a passport.

                     —

                     What happens to puri when survival becomes expensive?

                     The Kartilya says that the person of elevated character puts puri—honor or dignity—ahead of personal gain.

                     That principle remains powerful.

                     But modern life creates situations in which the distinction between “honor” and “survival” is much less straightforward.

                     A worker accepts night shifts because the salary is higher.

                     A parent takes an overseas contract because the local wage cannot support the family.

                     A young graduate chooses a corporate job rather than an idealistic but poorly paid occupation.

                     A small entrepreneur navigates informal arrangements because formal compliance can be expensive and slow.

                     None of these automatically demonstrates moral decline.

                     They demonstrate constraint.

                     The danger is not that Filipinos have become pragmatic.

                     Pragmatism is often a survival skill.

                     The danger is when pragmatism becomes the only morality left—when anything profitable becomes acceptable, regardless of whether it harms another person.

                     That is where Jacinto remains surprisingly relevant.

                     His argument was not simply “sacrifice yourself.”

                     It was that one’s actions should be measured against katuwiran; that genuine goodness is not merely self-serving; that the oppressed should be defended; and that human worth cannot be reduced to wealth or status.

                     Those principles can survive globalization.

                     They simply have to operate inside it.

                     —

                     Equality has become more complicated

                     Perhaps the most interesting tension concerns equality.

                     The Kartilya explicitly declares that people may differ in knowledge, wealth and beauty but cannot differ in human worth.

                     Modern Filipinos formally accept this idea.

                     But they also live in a society where economic differences are visible everywhere.

                     A young BPO employee may earn more than a university graduate employed in government.

                     An OFW may return with purchasing power that transforms the family’s social position.

                     A digitally skilled worker can work for a foreign company from a provincial city.

                     At the same time, millions remain trapped in low-productivity employment, informal work and precarious livelihoods. In 2025, services accounted for 62.4 percent of Philippine employment, while agriculture still accounted for 20.7 percent.

                     The result is not simply “class consciousness.”

                     It is a growing awareness that social equality and economic equality are different things.

                     The modern Filipino may insist:

                     “I deserve the same dignity as you.”

                     But he may simultaneously say:

                     “I also want the income, education, house, technology and opportunities that you have.”

                     That is not necessarily envy.

                     It can be an expression of the very equality Jacinto imagined.

                     —

                     The real break is with dependency

                     Perhaps, then, the most important transformation is not individualism.

                     It is independence from gatekeepers.

                     The old Filipino social structure depended heavily on relationships of personal dependence: landowner and tenant, patron and client, employer and dependent, politician and constituent, powerful family and ordinary citizen.

                     Those relationships have not disappeared.

                     But globalization has created competing channels of opportunity.

                     The worker can earn internationally.

                     The student can learn globally.

                     The entrepreneur can sell digitally.

                     The professional can migrate.

                     The freelancer can work remotely.

                     The consumer can compare prices.

                     The citizen can access information outside the traditional institutions that once controlled knowledge.

                     This does not make the Filipino completely free.

                     But it makes him less captive to any single authority.

                     That is an enormous difference.

                     —

                     From kapatiran to networks

                     There is another way to understand this change.

                     The Katipunan was a brotherhood.

                     The modern Filipino increasingly lives in networks.

                     The distinction is important.

                     A brotherhood demands loyalty.

                     A network creates connections.

                     A brotherhood says:

                     You belong to us.

                     A network says:

                     You can connect with us.

                     The modern economy is built increasingly around networks of workers, suppliers, clients, platforms, professional associations, alumni, migrant communities and digital communities.

                     The Philippines itself has become deeply embedded in global networks of labor, services, trade, finance and information.

                     The challenge is not to force the network back into the structure of a brotherhood.

                     It is to make the network produce shared capability and civic responsibility.

                     —

                     What the Kartilya still gets right

                     This is why declaring the Kartilya obsolete would be a mistake.

                     Its most durable principles are precisely those that globalization needs.

                     Human dignity.

                     Equality before wealth and status.

                     Reason over arbitrary authority.

                     Concern for the oppressed.

                     Integrity.

                     Responsibility toward others.

                     Purpose beyond immediate gratification.

                     What has weakened is not necessarily the relevance of these principles.

                     What has weakened is the assumption that people must accept them because an institution, elder, priest, politician, employer or organization tells them to.

                     That is an important distinction.

                     The 21st-century Filipino increasingly wants to know:

                     Why should I follow you?

                     The answer can no longer simply be:

                     Because I am your superior.

                     It has to be:

                     Because what we are doing is reasonable, fair, competent and worth doing.

                     That is a much more demanding standard of leadership.

                     —

                     The Filipino who can leave must also learn to build

                     There is, however, a danger in celebrating individual economic freedom too much.

                     A society composed entirely of people optimizing their own families, careers and consumption eventually develops a collective-action problem.

                     Everybody wants better roads.

                     Nobody wants to pay for maintenance.

                     Everybody wants good schools.

                     Everybody wants someone else to reform them.

                     Everybody wants competent government.

                     Everybody wants someone else to enter public service.

                     Everybody wants a clean environment.

                     Everybody wants someone else to sacrifice.

                     This is where the old Kartilya becomes relevant again.

                     The lesson was never simply obedience.

                     It was that freedom without responsibility produces another kind of weakness.

                     The Philippines does not need to recreate the Katipunan.

                     It needs to recover the underlying civic idea that individual dignity and collective responsibility belong together.

                     The modern Filipino should be free to leave an employer.

                     Free to migrate.

                     Free to become an entrepreneur.

                     Free to work for a foreign company.

                     Free to pursue personal prosperity.

                     But the country must also create conditions in which those capabilities eventually circulate back into Philippine society.

                     The OFW can become an investor.

                     The BPO worker can become an entrepreneur.

                     The technician can become a trainer.

                     The engineer can return.

                     The migrant can build a house, a business or a school.

                     The digitally connected worker can create opportunities for people who never had the same access.

                     Mobility should become capability.

                     —

                     A new reading of Jacinto

                     Perhaps the question should therefore be turned around.

                     It is not:

                     “Why don’t Filipinos obey the Kartilya anymore?”

                     It is:

                     “How can the principles of the Kartilya survive in a society where Filipinos have more choices than ever before?”

                     That is a much more interesting question.

                     Jacinto wrote for people seeking freedom from a system in which their lives were constrained by inherited power.

                     Today’s Filipino is seeking freedom through mobility, skills, income, technology and global opportunity.

                     The historical circumstances are different.

                     The aspiration is not entirely different.

                     The challenge is to ensure that economic independence does not end with private consumption.

                     A worker who no longer needs a patron has gained something important.

                     A citizen who no longer fears a political boss has gained something important.

                     A professional who can earn globally has gained something important.

                     But the final achievement is greater:

                     a Filipino who has enough independence to choose freely—and enough civic confidence to use that freedom for something larger than himself.

                     That may be the modern meaning of the Kartilya.

                     Not obedience.

                     Not blind sacrifice.

                     Not nostalgia for 1896.

                     **Dignity with agency. Freedom with responsibility. And a country whose citizens increasingly participate in it because they choose to, rather than because they have no other choice.**

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 6:35 am

                     Two points rang my brain like a bell:

                     “That is not necessarily envy. It can be an expression of the very equality Jacinto imagined.”

                     “A Filipino who has enough independence to choose freely—and enough civic confidence to use that freedom for something larger than himself.”

                     In the end, it boils down to the character of the individual, and the individual character has a better shot at being “good” if he or she has essential needs for food, security, shelter, health, transportation, and education covered.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 6:43 am

                     Exactly!

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 7:17 am

                     Maslow’s heiraechy of goodness

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 7:53 am

                     “In the end, it boils down to the character of the individual, and the individual character has a better shot at being “good” if he or she has essential needs for food, security, shelter, health, transportation, and education covered.” – JoeAm

                     I disagree. The goal of many in the Philippines is to get into politics, because they feel that there the “kurakot” can begin. It doesn’t stop when the politician has “essential needs for food, security, health, transportation and education” are covered. It just keeps on going. That has been my observation.

                     Corrections welcome.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 9:19 am

                     I’d venture a guess that the percentage of Filipinos who think about getting into politics is akin to the percentage of young boys who think about getting to the NBA, and they then go off to do normal stuff for the rest of their lives.

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 10:11 am

                     Yes, I would venture to guess that too….but don’t lose sight of my original point: once they have sufficient “essentials,” they tend not to stop being corrupt, etc.

                     Earlier, Joey was talking about “root cause.” I submit that being poor is not necessarily a root cause of corruption and moral failure.

                     But you can consider that an opinion.

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 10:14 am

                     Thatis why the rich became richer and Robin Hood came out.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 12:04 pm

                     Oh, it’s an excellent point. If one has “poverty character”, it probably doesn’t change when you become “well off character”. Corruption in the Philippines does not come from the poor, but from the well off. If the poor become fixers or thieves, that’s not corruption, it’s getting by. Then it migrates to greed if they get money.

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 8:07 am

                     Thanks for your interest in the Kartilya, Karl, enough to write this comprehensive essay. I remember years ago when we still had yahoo groups, I mentioned the Kartilya to my Ateneo classmates. I only got a written reaction from one….and he happened to be the one who was probably the poorest in our class. I recall he was on a scholarship, which was rare in our high school.

                     He was in my homeroom for three years so I got to know him a little bit better than the most of other classmates. He was always a bit of a nerd but he was treated well and always made to feel welcome by the whole class, as far as I know. At least we were Christian enough to do that.

                     He was proud of our heroes, like Emilio Jacinto. He understood the words of Kartilya and I believe he practiced them as every good Atenean should. May he rest in peace.

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 9:59 am

                     May he RIP.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 6:41 am

                     Perhaps we can discuss what elements from the Kartilya the lower classes (or any class for that matter in the Philippines) no longer need to obey

                     Perhaps you are trying to apply something entirely different (the Kartilya) to the snippet of my comment. My comment was in plain English: the lower classes today increasingly do not need to obey elite commands or listen to elite opinions, and that is a good thing.

                     Forgive me for my lack of time again today, and for you reading pleasure, I’ve had AI rigorously fact check and structure a voice summary I dictated earlier:

                     ---

                     Upholding the Kartilya and other moral frameworks as a precondition for national progress serves as a powerful mechanism for structural deflection. By framing poverty, corruption, and underdevelopment as failures of individual character and civic discipline, modern Filipino elites shift the burden of national advancement onto the most marginalized.

                     This moralizing narrative achieves two strategic goals for the status quo: it absolves the elite of the responsibility to enact structural economic reforms, and it invalidates the political agency of the masa.

                     The Function of Moral Gatekeeping
                     When the elite blame a “lack of character” for the country’s woes, they conveniently ignore that the masa’s reliance on political dynasties and ayuda (patronage networks) is not a moral failing, but a pragmatic survival strategy in a deeply unequal society. Without economic security, a vote is often viewed as a commodity to be traded for immediate relief rather than an expression of democratic will.

                     By demanding moral perfection before economic advancement, the elite create an impossible prerequisite. It allows them to delay genuine wealth redistribution, land reform, and anti-dynasty legislation indefinitely, arguing that the system cannot be fixed until the “people are ready.”

                     The Education Paradox
                     Demanding adherence to documents such as the Kartilya while simultaneously underfunding secular, upwardly-mobile public education creates a rigged socio-economic game. Without access to quality education, the masa remain structurally trapped at the bottom of the labor market. The elite can then point to this lack of education to label the masses as bobotantes (dumb voters) whose choices legitimize the country’s dysfunction. The withholding of education ensures the masses remain dependent on the elite, while the demand for moral education allows the elite to maintain a position of unearned superiority.

                     Parallels Between Modern and Revolutionary Elites

                     The behavior of today’s moralizing elites is a direct continuation of the class dynamics established by the ilustrados and principalia during the Revolutionary period.

                     • Paternalism and Conditional Democracy:
                       • 1898: The educated elite hijacked the Katipunan and quickly marginalized peasant leaders (like Bonifacio), arguing that the masa were too superstitious, uneducated, and chaotic for self-rule. This justified the elite’s eventual collaboration with American colonizers, who promised a “tutelage” period to prepare Filipinos for democracy.
                       • Today: Modern elites view the masa through the same paternalistic lens—as unruly children easily bought by ayuda who need to be disciplined and morally educated before they can be trusted with true democratic power.
                     • Fear of Economic Upheaval:
                       • 1898: The revolutionary elite wanted political independence from Spain, but fiercely opposed the masa’s demands for the redistribution of friar lands. They wanted to inherit the colonial economy, not dismantle it.
                       • Today: Elites espouse “revolutionary” rhetoric and quote national heroes, but fiercely resist anti-dynasty laws, genuine agrarian reform, and living wage laws. In both eras, the elite favor cosmetic, top-down political changes that leave underlying economic monopolies intact.
                     • Monopolizing the Language of Patriotism:
                       • 1898: The ilustrados wrote the Malolos Constitution and declared themselves the voice of the nation, while entirely ignoring the peasant millenarian movements that were doing the actual fighting and dying.
                       • Today: The elite co-opt documents like the Kartilya to project patriotism and moral authority. They use the language of the revolution to scold the poor, completely divorcing the Kartilya’s moral teachings from its original context as a radical, anti-colonial call to arms meant to overthrow oppressive power structures.

                     In both 1898 and the present, the elite demand moral transformation from the poor to justify withholding the economic transformation that would actually threaten their grip on power.

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 10:33 am

                     “Upholding the Kartilya and other moral frameworks as a precondition for national progress serves as a powerful mechanism for structural deflection. By framing poverty, corruption, and underdevelopment as failures of individual character and civic discipline, modern Filipino elites shift the burden of national advancement onto the most marginalized.” – Joey N.

                     I find this statement of Joey’s strange. The Kartilya does not place the moral burden on the poor. It addresses all who would join the national cause, expressly including rich and poor, learned and unlearned, and it rejects the idea that wealth or status makes anyone superior. Moreover, it commands the defense of the oppressed. If elites cite it to scold the marginalized while exempting themselves and ignoring structural injustice, they are not applying the Kartilya consistently; they are truncating it.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 10:58 am

                     CV, you’ve just proved my point while at the same time misunderstanding it. Regardless of the merits of the Kartilya and other Ilustrado documents, a.) the people don’t care when their material conditions are still low and b.) certain elites immediately corrupted and used those documents towards their own agendas which did not align with actually helping anyone except for boosting their own sense of moral superiority.

                     People are not “virtuous” on their own. Virtue comes from recognizing that the rights and prerogatives of others need to be protected as it protects one’s own rights and prerogatives. If someone has nothing to protect and they are on the edge of survival, which Joe illustrated in the story of his fisherman friend, they care about nothing else than their own survival. Survival in the Philippines often means submitting to patronage networks in order to gain ayuda.

                     Increase people’s material condition so that they have something to protect, then they will naturally recognize the need to protect their gains, and in order to protect their own gains recognize the rights of their fellows. In any other country or nation, people don’t awaken to the need for rights and equality UNTIL they get “RICH” first (to paraphrase Francis). The Ilustrados and Katipuneros who developed high minded (and perhaps, fantastically reality-detached ) ideas were already economically secure and not needing to deal with surviving, therefore had were able to come up with utopian ideas. Why would the Philippines be a special case that is unique to the trajectory of basic human behavior, just because the Philippines is inhabited by Filipinos?

                     In any case, all this stuff happened nearly 130 years ago. Whatever merit it had at the time, is useless to the average Filipino today. How about we shift to finding practical and pragmatic ways to solve the problems of TODAY, rather than relitigate the fantasies of YESTERDAY?

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 11:23 am

                     “In any case, all this stuff happened nearly 130 years ago. Whatever merit it had at the time, is useless to the average Filipino today. How about we shift to finding practical and pragmatic ways to solve the problems of TODAY, rather than relitigate the fantasies of YESTERDAY?” – Joey N.

                     Yes, we are looking at the solution to the problem differently. I believe that we do not have the foundation on which to build the building. The foundation I am speaking of are the 14 points in the Kartilya….APPLIED TO ALL, the wealthy and elite as well as the poor and deprived. I don’t know what foundation you hope to build on.

                     So we can agree to disagree on that approach.                

                     Meanwhile, the Kartilya is only 130 years old and you declare it useless to the average Filipino today. The Ten Commandments are over 3,000 years old.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 12:20 pm

                     Great. According to the born again preachers who knock on my door, reciting the Bible without corresponding action is also an effective way to create a moral foundation. Reciting holy books, whether religious or civic, is even more effective when a tiny fraction of the population uses the holy book as a moral bludgeon on everyone else who doesn’t do exactly what they say. People learn from watching the actions of those who have authority, not by obeying the dictates of authority when those dictates are hypocritical. I’m sure if enough Filipinos read Revolutionary documents for long enough, eventually the Philippines will blossom into a rich and upright nation! Meanwhile, pragmatists are doing the real work even now. In other cases Filipinos, with new information learned from an increasingly interconnected world, are learning incrementally on their own. I’ll go with pragmatism that meets people where they are and teaches replicable change, not where ineffective idealism expect people to be.

                   • CV says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 12:40 pm

                     Joey, I think we may be closer in outlook than it appears. I am not arguing against pragmatism, incremental change, or meeting people where they are. Those are often the only practical ways reform ever begins.

                     My concern is only that pragmatism needs a firm direction and foundation. Incremental improvements should lead toward stronger habits and institutions—competence, honesty, accountability, equal treatment under the law, and a citizenry that expects more than patronage. Otherwise, “meeting people where they are” can become a comfortable way of leaving them there.

                     The old image is apt: one may build brick by brick, patiently and realistically, but one must still build on rock rather than sand. The rock is not abstract or ineffective idealism. It is the practical application of sound principles. Without it, reforms may look useful in calm weather but collapse when political pressure, corruption, or a change of leadership arrives.

                     So I would put it this way: pragmatism is the method; principled institutional change is the destination. We need both.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 5:11 am

                     I think we may be closer in outlook than it appears. I am not arguing against pragmatism, incremental change, or meeting people where they are. Those are often the only practical ways reform ever begins.

                     Of course you and I desire the same end result for the Philippines: For the Philippines to become a prosperous nation where all Filipinos are ensured equal opportunity within a system of fairness. The 1987 Constitution, beautifully written, is the latest document attesting to those aspirational goals, just like the Kartilya of nearly 130 years ago.

                     I am also not arguing against the need to build a durable foundation based on stronger habits and institutions; I have written about foundations before. However I will observe that one may watch models of habits and institutions elsewhere, as Filipinos often do, and develop a burning desire to have those habits and institutions seen in models possibly abroad, yet completely disregard the requirements of learning how to actually build those habits and institutions much less obtaining the tools to enable that building. We can see this habit of wanting to have the result but disregarding what is needed to create the result from many behaviors, such as purchasing infrastructure under the BOT scheme without actually bothering to learn how to replicate.

                     What is a government but a reflection of the people? In a democracy order to have better leaders, the people need to change too. Where there are “strong leaders” imposing change from above, that is called a dictatorship. In many ways Philippine leaders are quite responsive to the demands of the people. That’s how the patron-client system works in practice. So I choose to highlight examples from new ways of doing things, namely in the M4GG Coalition cities where the people there have satisfied some larger degree of basic needs and start demanding more of their local governments. Address the economic and class mobility needs, then everything else that proceeds has much more room to navigate.

                     The Relevance of Revolutionary Texts to D and E Classes Through Maslow’s Hierarchy
                     In practical terms, 19th-century revolutionary works like the Kartilya ng Katipunan, Bonifacio’s Decalogue, and Jacinto’s Liwanag at Dilim hold virtually zero daily relevance for modern Filipinos in the D (poor) and E (extremely poor) socioeconomic classes.

                     Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs provides the exact psychological framework for this disconnect. The D and E classes are fundamentally trapped at the base of Maslow’s pyramid: physiological needs (food, water, shelter) and safety needs (navigating inflation, contractual labor or endo, and lack of healthcare).

                     Conversely, the Kartilya and similar texts operate at the very peak of the hierarchy: esteem (honor, civic duty) and self-actualization (moral enlightenment, philosophical nation-building). Expecting populations in daily survival mode to prioritize Masonic-inspired, Enlightenment-era literature defies human psychology. When the urban and rural poor do interact with the legacy of Bonifacio or Jacinto, it is largely through superficial pop-culture symbols or localized folk veneration, not a critical reading of their literature.

                     Studies on Revolutionary Education and Economic Mobility
                     There are no credible economic or sociological studies suggesting that ideological, revolutionary, or civic-propaganda education increases the economic or class mobility of Filipinos. Development economics proves that upward mobility requires fulfilling foundational economic security (Maslow’s safety tier) before higher-level civic engagement can materialize.

                     Research from institutions like the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the World Bank consistently identifies the actual drivers of upward mobility for the Philippine D and E classes:

                     • Technical and Hard Skills: Proficiency in STEM, digital literacy, and English.
                     • Vocational Training: Programs like TESDA that provide immediate, certifiable skills for domestic and overseas employment.
                     • Access to Globalized Markets: Employment in the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector or as Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs).

                     While the Philippine educational system includes civic education (Araling Panlipunan) designed to instill patriotism through historical narratives, macroeconomic data shows this has no quantifiable impact on raising a family’s income bracket. Upward mobility in the Philippines is strictly tied to acquiring highly modernized, globally marketable human capital—not historical or moral enlightenment.

                     The Far-Left Critique and Its Inversion of Maslow’s Hierarchy
                     The only demographic that actively attempts to use revolutionary education as a tool for the masa is the far-left, specifically the Maoist National Democratic movement and the CPP-NPA. Their framework argues that studying revolutionary texts is necessary to awaken class consciousness, positing that ideological education is the prerequisite for a systemic overthrow, which will eventually result in economic equality.

                     This far-left approach suffers from extreme idealistic unreality because it attempts to invert Maslow’s Hierarchy:

                     • The Utopian Trap: It demands that the D and E classes prioritize peak self-actualization (ideological purity, class consciousness, and revolutionary struggle) while sacrificing the immediate, pragmatic fulfillment of physiological and safety needs (getting a corporate job, working abroad, or integrating into the global economy).
                     • Empirical Failure: Over 50 years of communist insurgency in the Philippines has empirically failed to uplift the economic standing of its base. Regions historically dominated by far-left revolutionary education and insurgent control remain consistently ranked among the poorest and most economically stagnant provinces. By prioritizing ideology over basic economic development, the movement effectively locks the masses at the bottom of the pyramid.
                     • Substitution of Wealth with Ideology: The far-left narrative often romanticizes poverty as a state of revolutionary purity. By telling the masa that systemic revolution is the only valid path to economic relief, it actively discourages participation in the modern, pragmatic avenues of socio-economic advancement that have successfully lifted millions of other Filipinos and Southeast Asians out of poverty.

                   • CV says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 12:48 pm

                     “The 1987 Constitution, beautifully written, is the latest document attesting to those aspirational goals, just like the Kartilya of nearly 130 years ago.” – Joey N.

                     Yes, but the Kartilya is not a Constitution. It is a primer…very brief, and establishes a code of conduct…It calls members of the Katipunan to behave in a certain way, not learn to behave a certain way. If one did not behave as the Kartilya dictates, one was presumably disciplined.

                     The 1987 Constitution is the nation’s binding legal charter, designed to create institutions, distribute and limit power, and protect enforceable rights. When establishing a nation, the Constitution is necessary, the Kartilya or Primer is not. But having the citizens (including and most especially the leadership or those with economic and/or political power) adhere to a code of conduct as detailed in the Kartilya WOULD HELP.

                     I submit that if you have citizens of poor moral character and integrity (especially those in leadership) as a foundation for any Constitution you create, IT WILL FAIL.

                     I am not saying that you can found a nation on a simple and short Kartilya. You can found a movement, yes….but not a nation. If the Katipunan had succeeded in its revolt against Spain, they would have had to make a Constitution.

                     “In practical terms, 19th-century revolutionary works like the Kartilya ng Katipunan, Bonifacio’s Decalogue, and Jacinto’s Liwanag at Dilim hold virtually zero daily relevance for modern Filipinos in the D (poor) and E (extremely poor) socioeconomic classes.” – Joey N.

                     I disagree. I submit that if even just 50 per cent of Filipino politicians adhered to the principles in the Kartilya while exercising their duties in government, it would have MASSIVE RELEVANCE for modern Filipinos in the D and E socio economic classes. I would love to debate that with you if you wish.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 1:21 pm

                     I submit that if you have citizens of poor moral character and integrity (especially those in leadership) as a foundation for any Constitution you create, IT WILL FAIL.

                     Certainly, as constitutions are not self-executing. The 1987 Constitution is one of the more comprehensive constitutions in the world but as the late Justice Scalia once observed of the 1977 Soviet Constitution, without accountability to the people the Soviet Constitution was what the US Framers would’ve called a ”parchment guarantee”.

                     One of the most powerful accountability tools the US Framers recognized was the power to actively monitor and critique their elected officials. I do not mean populist critique here, but rather an ability to prevent political knowledge from being monopolized by a ruling class. This is why the US Constitution explicitly names a Post Office in Article I, Section 8, and why the creation of the US Post Office was one of the first major Acts of the US Congress (in 1792). Later starting in the 1830s this mandate of information access was interpreted to include the right to public education, what the US Congress of the time called the Civic Requirement.

                     Paired forthwith was the US Constitutional mandate to the ”pursuit of happiness,” which was understood at the time to mean the ability to own private property. In order to own property one must have the economic means to do so. So since the very start, the US also included continual economic uplift as a central requirement.

                     The various Philippine requirements, being partially based on the US Constitution since the beginning, also have these requirements. The difference is that there was never a full effort to enable such requirements beyond the words on the parchment. In fact during various periods there was an active effort to slow down or even prevent Filipinos from having the necessary tools to hold the government accountable.

                     I disagree. I submit that if even just 50 per cent of Filipino politicians adhered to the principles in the Kartilya while exercising their duties in government, it would have MASSIVE RELEVANCE for modern Filipinos in the D and E socio economic classes. I would love to debate that with you if you wish.

                     Well, you’d be arguing against decades of established development studies, UN reports, and even official Philippine Government PIDS studies — a losing proposition I would gather.

                     The hard truth is that one can poll random Filipinos on this question and a mere fraction would respond that the Kartilya or other high-minded documents matter. Most would probably not even know what the Kartilya is, and no amount of drilling the Araling Panlipunan (or its ancestor “civic education” propaganda narratives) would change that. When one does not even know what ulam one’s family will eat tomorrow, it’s hard to fault them for not giving a damn about the Kartilya or other out of touch high-minded stuff.

                     Is it not also immoral to expect Filipinos to adhere to some high-minded principles that do not make their lives materially better, rather than figuring out ways for them to increase their material conditions so that once they are no longer in a state of constant survival they have the mental bandwidth to care about government accountability? Notice that Filipinos, even those undereducated and under-equipped towards the higher principles, instantly recognize how the flood control scandal impacts negatively their survival and thus demanded accountability.

                     I often find that those in the AB class do not recognize (not through any personal malice) the struggle of those below them. Even some Cs don’t recognize the same for those even further below. If one were to spend a substantial amount of time around DEs, what is needed is immediately apparent. Numerous studies and histories have pointed out that back in your day, the middle class of old that clamored for change were those who already climbed out of survival, while today those who clamor the loudest are those in the new middle class enabled by OFW and BPO.

                   • CV says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 2:01 pm

                     Joey,

                     I think you have answered a different question from the one I posed. I did not argue that most Filipinos today know, revere, or would cite the Kartilya in a poll. Nor did I claim that the document itself is a substitute for development policy.

                     My point was counterfactual: if even half of those exercising political power genuinely acted by such principles as honor over personal gain, keeping one’s word, equality, defending the oppressed, and refusing oppression, it WOULD PROFOUNDLY AFFECT governance and that would impact all classes, including the D and E. It would mean less self-dealing and patronage, fairer delivery of public services, and greater protection for citizens without wealth or connections—precisely what the people in the D and E classes desperately need.

                     Development studies on institutions, corruption, accountability, and state capacity would seem more likely to support that proposition than disprove it. Whether an ordinary voter can name the Kartilya is beside the point; people can benefit from ethical government without knowing the historical source of the ethics.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 2:12 pm

                     As I said, leaders are a reflection of the electorate, so the electorate would need to change first. Anyway there has been nearly 130 years of a certain slice of Filipinos who push for high-mindedness over practicality, which has never worked in the Philippines or anywhere, so I’m not sure why continuing to put high-mindedness as a precondition helps any Filipino. Such preconditionality expects those who are already on the verge of survival to suffer immediate negative consequences for some nebulous abstraction. Principles are what humans create to enforce what is already gained. Doing it the other way around is just an exercise of fantasy to exert moral superiority — moral superiority which may satisfy the already privileged but does nothing for those without. Walk among the most disadvantaged Filipinos as I regularly have for a day and it becomes quickly apparent what is needed, and in which order.

                   • CV says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 2:56 pm

                     I think we are talking past each other because my original point has repeatedly been recast into something I did not say.

                     I did not argue that poor Filipinos should wait for moral enlightenment before receiving practical help, nor that quoting the Kartilya is a development program. My point is that if even half of Filipino politicians genuinely exercised public office according to principles such as integrity, honor over personal gain, keeping one’s word, equal respect for persons, and concern for the oppressed, it would have major practical consequences for people in the D and E classes.

                     It would affect whether public money is stolen or spent on clinics, schools, roads, flood control, housing, and livelihood programs; whether social assistance goes to people who need it or to political allies; whether procurement is honest or padded; whether an ordinary citizen receives fair treatment or must rely on a politician’s favor. These are not nebulous abstractions to a family struggling to survive. They determine whether assistance actually arrives.

                     You often speak of incentives, and I agree that incentives matter. But that is precisely why the conduct of leaders matters. Politicians, contractors, local officials, brokers, and voters all respond to the incentives created by the political system. If public office provides rewards for patronage, dynastic succession, vote buying, favoritism, impunity, and self-enrichment, then those behaviors predictably persist. But if leaders—and the institutions they control—make integrity, competence, transparency, fair service delivery, and accountability the expected standard, the incentives begin to change as well.

                     Ethical conduct and practical reform are therefore not opposites. Ethical conduct in office becomes practical when it is reflected in budgets, appointments, procurement, enforcement, audits, social-program targeting, and the everyday delivery of public services. A politician who refuses to divert funds, appoints qualified people, enforces rules equally, and does not distribute aid by political allegiance is not indulging in moral superiority. He or she is changing the incentives facing everyone below and around government.

                     I also do not accept that the general population must change first before leadership can change. That makes political influence a one-way street, as though leaders merely mirror voters. Voters matter, certainly, but they do not choose in a vacuum. In the Philippines, dynastic advantage, money, name recognition, local machinery, patronage networks, family ties, uneven information, and immediate economic insecurity influence the choices available to them. Research on Philippine politics finds that family networks can facilitate clientelistic exchange, while dynastic politicians can enjoy electoral advantages not necessarily tied to strong performance in office.

                     A poor voter’s acceptance of cash, relief goods, a job referral, or a personal favor from a politician may be a rational response to immediate need and to the incentives of a clientelist system. It does not prove that the voter admires corruption or freely prefers inferior government. If the only dependable source of help is a local political “fixer,” it is understandable that people will deal with that “fixer.”

                     That is why leadership can help change the electorate’s incentives and expectations. When public services become reliable and universally accessible, citizens become less dependent on personal political favors. When aid is allocated fairly, a voter has less reason to treat an election as the only opportunity to secure an immediate benefit. When contracts are honestly awarded and completed, when officials are punished for graft, and when the law applies to well-connected families as well as ordinary citizens, voters have a stronger basis for judging candidates by performance rather than kinship, celebrity, or short-term handouts.

                     The word “first” is therefore doing too much work in your argument. Yes, citizens must ultimately demand and defend better government. But leaders, institutions, and citizens can change together. Indeed, leaders already control many of the incentives under which ordinary citizens must make political choices. They are not passive reflections of the electorate; they help create the environment in which the electorate operates.

                     Nor is this a moral precondition imposed on the poor. It is an obligation imposed on those who already possess public authority and control public resources. The Philippine Constitution states that public office is a public trust and requires public officers to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

                     My claim, then, is not “morality before bread.” It is that better moral conduct by those in authority, combined with institutional reforms that reward it and penalize its opposite, changes incentives throughout the system. That is one important way to ensure that bread, medicine, education, housing, livelihoods, and protection reach ordinary Filipinos rather than being captured by political patrons, contractors, and the well-connected.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 3:21 pm

                     I agree with the desired result of each of your points. What I don’t agree with is that somehow leaders will be, unprompted and without changed incentives, suddenly virtuous. The reason why there is rampant corruption (mainly at the LGU level, often through a Congress-LGU pipeline controlled by particular dynasties) is precisely because the current incentives, accepted by the voters, allow that corruption. No amount of high-minded principles will change corrupt behavior and bad governance unless the underlying incentive structure changes.

                     Let’s also not infantilize the Filipino electorate, removing agency from them and treating them as wards to be tutored. I assure you every Filipino when he/she votes for a corrupt dynasty candidate knows exactly what’s going on — it is part of the patron-client expectation. The backlash to the flood control scandal is not an example of anti-corruption sentiment but rather anger that the patron’s side of the patron-client expectation was broken. Instead let’s look for ways for Filipinos to realize and exercise their individual and collective agency towards a better Philippines, mainly enabled by practical reforms that provide concrete relief rather than abstraction, which eventually includes electing better leaders. Future leaders will respond accordingly to changed incentives that transform the political calculus away from a patron-client relationship.

                     I hope you will have more faith in the Philippines and that the Filipino operates within a system of rational choices, even if those choices seem alien to the small privileged middle class and liberal-minded elites. Work on changing the set of choices a Filipino needs to navigate in order to obtain different results. Those choices are largely informed by material needs, which for most Filipinos still exist at the edge of survival. As the saying goes: “doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.”

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 3:02 pm

                     The term high mindedness is interesting. It suggests a morally obnoxious person, of which I see few in Philippine politics ( leadership). Alan Cayetano is one. Leni Robredo is moral but exercises it through deeds, not preaching. I’d say most of today’s leaders are pragmatists, but flawed in their reading of the situation, or incompetent. Or corrupt.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 3:39 pm

                     “High-minded” has two meanings:

                     Principled: Guided by honesty, ethics, and fairness.

                     Idealistic: Focused on grand, noble, or theoretical ideals rather than practical or base concerns.

                     CV is arguing for the first meaning as an eventuality and I agree with that, though I disagree how to get there. The second meaning is also not inherently wrong, until it sacrifices what can be done now on the altar of abstraction.

                     A morally obnoxious person may pretend to be high-minded but is instead sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, and acts like a hypocrite. Cayetano is an example of this type of person for sure.

                     I’d like to think (actually I know) that most Filipinos, even the poorest of the poor, believe in high-mindedness on principle. But as you pointed out in your other comment about your fisherman friend, when one is struggling with surviving, one does not have time for such abstractions when they do not know what’s for dinner tomorrow.

                     M4GG which Leni Robredo is part of, and was partially inspired by her and her late husband’s moral example, is one of the more hopeful developments I’ve seen in the Philippines. M4GG mayors are also reacting to a different incentive structure, one that rewards competence in creating jobs and services for their constituents rather than simply handing out ayuda. It is very encouraging that many more mayors, as a reaction to the flood control scandal, signed onto the M4GG Coalition. The M4GG Coalition started in late 2023 with about 100 mayors and LGU executives, and now is over 200 strong.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 20, 2026 at 3:46 pm

                     Ah, thank you. Makes good sense. Good news on M4GG doubling.

                   • CV says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 4:34 am

                     “M4GG mayors are also reacting to a different incentive structure, one that rewards competence in creating jobs and services for their constituents rather than simply handing out ayuda.” – Joey N.

                     M4GG mayors are not merely reacting to a different incentive structure. Through coalition-building, public commitments, peer learning, and collective demands for transparency, they are trying to create and reinforce a different political incentive structure within the powers provided by the Local Government Code. They are doing what I have said elected leadership ought to be doing – their duties of elected office, i.e. serving their constituents responsibly.

                     Joey once asked which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Or in this case, who brings change…the mayors or the constituents? Looks to me like it is the mayors.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 6:15 am

                     Joey once asked which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Or in this case, who brings change…the mayors or the constituents? Looks to me like it is the mayors.

                     Lordy. While we share the same desired result and I appreciate this discussion, sometimes your penchant for trying to shoehorn your existing beliefs is a bit exhausting. But I think perhaps the way you approach Philippines issues with a preference for top-down self-actualization may be no fault of your own but a product of the time and expectations you grew up in that have not been able to be updated with actual self observation in person. Times have changed CV.

                   • CV says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 7:08 am

                     “But I think perhaps the way you approach Philippines issues with a preference for top-down self-actualization may be no fault of your own but a product of the time and expectations you grew up in that have not been able to be updated with actual self observation in person” – Joey N.

                     I think you may be becoming exhausted because the bottom-up interpretation you support is harder to sustain. You point to M4GG as evidence, but its very name is revealing: Mayors for Good Governance, not Constituents for Good Government. It is an initiative led by reform-minded local executives. Constituents may reward, support, or eventually reinforce it, but they did not originate it. That clearly supports my position about the importance about the role of leadership.

                     Now the name of Mayors for Good Governance is indeed my observation from California. If I go to the Philippines tomorrow, I will not find the name to be different.

                     Having said that, I believe that the jury is still out on the M4GG. I don’t believe that there is enough clear evidence that their stated intentions have produced the results intended. Corrections welcome.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 7:23 am

                     I think your heart in the right place, but you don’t know the fuller picture and don’t seem to have a willingness to learn it. Playing the semantics game to fit one’s biases is pilosopo by the way, so let’s not do that. At this point you’ve argued with me (who has actual experience), argued with AI (which we seem to increasingly use here as a retort, to our shared detriment), argued with actual studies that are backed with real data (from the UN, US, PH PIDS, PH PSA). Great thing is that today in the Philippines people are no longer living in the same limitations your generation was subjected to unjustly and unfairly even at the height of the Third Republic and can expand their thinking to suit changed circumstances.

                   • CV says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 7:42 am

                     Thanks, Joey, but again you do not address my simple argument: Mayors for Good Government, not Constituents for Good Government. The M4GG is one of your favorite mantras and yet it makes my point clearly.

                     I believe we can conclude with that. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 7:49 am

                     As I pointed out, your renaming exercise is an exercise of semantics. Semantics don’t help any Filipino. Focus on the change of intent of those leaders which is a reaction to changing constituent demands. Then figure out how those demands can be replicated to other constituencies.

                   • CV says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 9:16 am

                     “As I pointed out, your renaming exercise is an exercise of semantics.” – Joey N.

                     I did not rename M4GG. As the name points out, the impetus of change are the mayors and other leaders in the communities, not the constituents. It is as plain as day.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 9:57 am

                     Good to see literalism here.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 9:17 am

                     Mayors sought to serve citizens better. There is no either/or. Per Gemini.
                     
                     Mayors for Good Governance (M4GG) was established in August 2023 by a group of local chief executives and leaders led by founding convenors including Benjamin Magalong (Baguio City), Joy Belmonte (Quezon City), Marcy Teodoro (Marikina), Sitti Hataman (Isabela, Basilan), Felipe Antonio Remollo (Dumaguete), and Rommel Arnado (Kauswagan), with support from other key mayors like Vico Sotto (Pasig).

                     Why It Was Started

                     Tp fight systemic corruption: The founders launched the movement because they believed corruption had become deeply entrenched and normalized across the political spectrum, including within national and local government systems.

                     To transcend political divisions: The coalition was formed to unite incumbent local officials across different political affiliations under a shared commitment to ethical leadership, transparency, and public service over personal or political interests.

                     To champion accountability: The group was created to demand responsible management of public funds, promote integrity in local infrastructure and governance, and encourage citizens to actively hold public officials accountable.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 9:57 am

                     No one changes without changed incentives. It’s the other way around. Those mayors are reacting to changed incentives and expectations of their constituents. Which is a good thing.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 11:25 am

                     But they’re also reacting to charges of corruption levied against other LGUs and have the moral character to say “enough”. Arguing one or the other is like saying eggs can exist without chickens and chickens can exist without eggs. It’s interactive, not one operating independent of the other. Change can come from anywhere.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 11:42 am

                     But they’re also reacting to charges of corruption levied against other LGUs and have the moral character to say “enough”.

                     This is an example of how the constituent demands changed the political incentives. So you are essentially saying what I’m saying but with different words. However on the impetus, the egg always exists before the chicken, because there have been many breeds of fowl which preceded the chicken, but there had always been eggs. And so the same, politicians respond to constituents when constituents change. A lot of corruption in the Philippines is because constituents are fine with the existing system. In some areas constituents are starting to demand more, because the constituents understanding of what they want changed. Isn’t that a good thing? My point is let’s not infantilize Filipinos. They are capable of rational decision making when new sets of available choices are placed in front of them.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 11:57 am

                     there had always been eggs

                     and if you go back in evolution, they used to be dinosaur eggs – before birds evolved into what they are now.

                     so I guess in the Philippines, some of the eggs are still hatching raptors not chickens.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 2:08 am

                     so I guess in the Philippines, some of the eggs are still hatching raptors not chickens.

                     Yes, for the most part it seems. Though it is encouraging that municipalities that developed a larger (new) middle class through OFW and BPO seem to be following historical parallels to the early clamoring of the Third Republic (old) middle class in demanding more of their political leaders. I’m not very familiar with communities with large concentrations of seafarers such as Biliran as the seafarers I know in Cebu and Mindanao seem to be content with building a nice house(s) for their family (which is good as well).

                     Time will tell if this new middle class a.) has more patience to sustain their demands within the civic framework beyond a generation and b.) be more accepting of additional Filipinos rising into the middle class without feeling threatened.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 2:12 pm

                     I’m with your point totally.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 11:54 am

                     There is a pattern with a lot of M4GG cities – they tend to have a strong middle class.

                     – Naga City: the administrative center of the Bikol region since Spanish times, possibly even before. Church, universities etc.

                     (Everything around Naga City is still solid Villafuerte country. Albay used to be Salceda country, Sorsogon IS definitely still solid Escudero country..

                     ..though my impression of Salceda is trapo nationally, but he was good leader in Albay itself, applying his bank manager background to stuff like disaster recovery)

                     – Quezon City: THE most middle class part of Metro Manila for a long time – two universities, two TV networks, a lot of government offices

                     – Pasig City: from what I heard got richer due to BPO

                     – Baguio City: based on what I have seen about the music scene there as well as how Kennon Road is now, the former summer capital for US colonial officials..

                     ..is now a place where a lot of moneyed people live, and the businesses to serve them

                     (I also read what Joey wrote about the tourist places and how they moved up, following the money, so I guess there is a virtuous cycle that M4GG is helping sustain)

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 1:19 pm

                     just to add some stuff about my old home turf QC based on history, own knowledge plus some recent updates:

                     1) places like Balara or Krus na Ligas existed long before even the idea of Balintawak City that was renamed Quezon City later

                     Bonifacio retreated uphill to Balara for a while. The Balara filtration plant for water was built in 1935.

                     2) One should not ignore the role of Camps Crame and Aguinaldo (the latter was once Camp Murphy in McArthur’s days)

                     Cops/constabulary and military are (conservative) middle class.

                     Sonny’s father building a house in the “Murphy” district of Cubao made sense as he was one of the first on McArthur’s PT (torpedo) boats.

                     3) the housing projects that built homes outside of already swelling Manila after WW2.

                     Project 4 was middle middle class, Project 7 was lower middle class and Project 6 was upper middle class in my youth IIRC.

                     4) subdivisions built on the then still ample land from the 1970s onwards

                     I personally saw how Tierra Bella and Tierra Pura rose on the other side of Commonwealth facing UP as I biked to that area at times.

                     Everything around Commonwealth Avenue all the way up to Fairview rose in those days – the areas now to be connected via the new MRT-7.

                     5) more recent condo and mall developments

                     The area between Agham Road (Pisay) and EDSA was talahib grass up to the mid-1970s, a slum later, it is now fully malls and offices

                     There was a pretty scary slum between SM North and Frisco even in the 1990s, all condos now from what I gather.

                     ——————————-

                     so in sum, Quezon City has a very middle class constituency, one the Mayor Joy Belmonte can please with bike paths and the like..

                     ..meanwhile Makati when it still had the Embos in Jejomar Binay’s time had a mostly poor constituency he had to please.

                     not up to date on how it is now that Makati has lost the Embos to Taguig, is it the Cayetanos now catering to the poor folk / voters there?

                     SIDE NOTE: Embo once meant Enlisted Men’s Barrio and was housing for those who worked at Camp McKinley, later Camp Bonifacio. A different path than the QC projects..

                     ..hmm I wonder if the one Ilokano in Germany we knew who had a house in one of the Embos (and was an Erap voter in 1998 IIRC) somehow got it via military in the family..

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:19 am

                     There is a pattern with a lot of M4GG cities – they tend to have a strong middle class.

                     Yes, many developmental economists and scientists have observed that a rising middle class’ increased economic power is what agitates for changing the social contract status quo — that is to say when people rely less on political handouts and pay more taxes, they start transitioning from passive subjects to active stakeholders within the system of state. Modernization Theory (Classical Development Theory, Lipset), Developmental State Model, Credible Commitment Theory (Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu) to name a few make this observation.

                     In Southeast Asia, the Philippines in particular, various forms of patronage systems are quite entrenched which some other developmental economists and historians attribute to the old decentralized mandala system of strong local control. Even in the Champa Empire, which rivaled Srivijaya and Majapahit in terms of military and economic power as well as reach of its trading network, the Champa rajah of rajahs was more akin to a much more powerful pre-Hispanic Philippine paramount datu — all the power of of the Champa king was not enough to break the patronage networks below him, where lower Champa rajahs had great leeway within their localities. The mandala system of the Philippines was much weaker than that of Champa, Srivijaya, Majapahit and a lot of patronage politics today have historical echoes of that system.

                     Developmental economists and political scientists generally agree that rising economic power changes the social contract. When citizens rely less on state handouts and contribute more via taxes, they transition from passive subjects to active stakeholders.
                     In East Asia, this economic leverage successfully forced states toward high bureaucratic capability and, in many cases, democracy. In Southeast Asia, the transition is ongoing, with a growing middle class continuously battling deeply entrenched patronage systems to secure the transparent governance necessary for the next phase of economic growth.

                     In Malaysia and particularly Indonesia, while a lot of progress has been made, there are still strong patronage networks. Development literature I’ve read directly attribute those countries’ Middle Income Trap to the entrenchment of patronage networks that figured out the value of low-cost manufacturing that fits within the patronage system but resist broader good governance initiatives that shift power to institutional bureaucracy that enables moving up the value chain since that would reduce the power of patrons. Still, many lessons to learn from both Malaysia and Indonesia.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:20 am

                     Whoops, missed a blockquote

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 2:14 pm

                     Ah, good point. Money influences moral demands.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 12:12 am

                     I think one of the good influences of M4GG can be to show to the skeptics who say “you can’t eat good governance” that you will get to eat better with it.

                     though I’m still skeptical when I see those Pinoys in Europe for instance who live in well-governed places but vote for the exact opposite at home. Or maybe they still need to see with their own eyes that something similar to what they have here can be accomplished by and with Filipinos at the helm.

                   • CV says:

                     September 21, 2026 at 10:41 pm

                     “It’s interactive, not one operating independent of the other.” – JoeAm

                     True…but one is in the driver’s seat, and one is the passenger. The driver has greater influence over where the vehicle goes.

                     And JoeAm mentions “moral character to say ‘enough’.” Guess what happens when the passenger says “go this way” and the driver does not have the moral character to say “enough” and chooses another way! There is a reason we have leaders. They are expected to lead. That is a duty.

                     Back in the day we talked about agency and the need to give the people agency. Now Joey says the people can just go out and get agency as in the case of the M4GG cities. Another option is for leaders to give the people agency. The easier route is the latter. As they say in business – “There are two ways to get ahead – by pushing and by getting pulled ahead. Whenever possible, use pull.”

                     Meanwhile, the jury is still out on results of M4GG. So far we have mostly pledges. We’ll have to wait and see what results emerge.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 12:09 am

                     Meanwhile, the jury is still out on results of M4GG. So far we have mostly pledges.

                     I guess Joey will have to fill us in on what they have accomplished AS A GROUP – as I am not following things closely enough to know the deal.

                     We’ll have to wait and see what results emerge.

                     in their respective towns, I am aware of the results of Mayor Joy Belmonte of Quezon City as well as those of Vico Sotto of Pasig City.

                     those of Mayor Leni Robredo of Naga City, whose husband was one of the pioneers of good governance as a mayor, are even more widely known.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:59 am

                     M4GG as a group haven’t accomplished that much yet beyond their regular duties within their municipalities — it is a new grouping after all (since late 2023).

                     I do find it interesting that by joining M4GG mayors are opening themselves up to increased scrutiny by their constituents by publicly stating their principles in the M4GG Manifesto. Something that doesn’t happen that often from my observation of Philippine political dynamics at a local level.

                     I spent a lot of time on my state of Philippine electrification modernization analysis (posted a few articles back), so when I have time I’ll revisit the M4GG in a deep dive analysis that was started with my Leni Robredo “No Saviors” brief analysis. Been quite busy nowadays with the startup, and preparing for another trip to Ukraine (and possibly Philippines) after the US November midterms where I will be volunteering in the polls.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 4:00 am

                     I spent a lot of time on my state of Philippine electrification modernization analysis (posted a few articles back)

                     https://joeam.com/2026/09/11/parsing-some-pax-silica-objections/#comment-510267 – yes this one – I read it but didn’t have time to comment, though it is technically very comprehensive and Karl should probably be the one to take up the governance aspects, which you identified as the main issues from what I understood. Below BTW is an older article on energy in the Philippines with a quite interesting discussion – one of the ideas was to build a nuclear plant on Palawan because no earthquakes but of course how to get the electricity to the rest of the country from there:

                     Why the Philippines should add nuclear power to its energy portfolio

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 4:18 am

                     There have been large advancements in Small Modular Reactors (SMR) in the last decade. I believe that is something the Philippines is looking at as well. Though SMR technology is still in relative infancy so probably not the best choice to pilot something on the frontier — might be better to see how SMR technology pans out first in Western countries.

                     In my electrification modernization analysis, I identified something that already has organic private development in Palawan: solar battery-backed microgrids. I’m a futurist like Karl so naturally I’m inclined towards decentralized renewables (in an ideal state), though each system requires the appropriate solution applied. Further in my analysis, I was able to identify possible solutions for each region of the Philippines that leverage what is available. A comprehensive solution would include a mix tailored to each region’s strengths.

                     Yes, the analysis is a bit technical and heavy, especially the Research Compendium, though I’ve included an essay for laymen that breaks things down in an easier to understand narrative form:

                     https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/78fe39be-532c-4270-8705-30dd54e0ce69

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 1:01 am

                     You are twisting the plain meaning of my exhaustive explanations again. When you do this to fit your biases, which is often, it is very irritating. Why do I even bother to explain things to you, who has been gone for 46 years yet thinks what you knew back then is authoritative?

                   • CV says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:09 am

                     “You are twisting the plain meaning of my exhaustive explanations again. When you do this to fit your biases, which is often, it is very irritating.” – Joey N.

                     I am not trying to attribute a position to you that you did not hold. As you have likely noted, my style is to quote your words so we can identify the exact point at issue. If I have misunderstood you, I would suggest that you identify the specific sentence of mine that misstates your view, quote the relevant words of yours, and state your intended meaning. I find that more helpful in genuine honest discussion rather than jumping to ad hominem accusations.

                     On the larger issue, being abroad for many years does not invalidate an argument. If you believe I have relied on outdated information or misunderstood present conditions, please identify the particular fact or inference and provide the current evidence. I will gladly correct a factual error. But residence, by itself, does not settle the question.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:40 am

                     Thanks for acknowledging that you may have misunderstood me. It would help to prevent this regular occurrence by not having your own biases color other people’s words so much — let your own words and ideas stand on their own. We have invited you to do so, yet you insist otherwise. Also, on ad hominem, if you could please refrain from using that as a shield since you are the most fond of ad hominem here. On my comment about your understanding being years out of date, I’ll stand on my assertion. Yes, residence or regular visitation is not a requirement, but listening to actual Filipino experience today is. The diaspora has much to offer still, but moralizing from afar doesn’t help Filipinos or the Philippines.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 6:56 am

                     “So far we have mostly pledges.” Where do you draw that conclusion from? I believe it to be inaccurate as ALL acts following a commitment to good governance are transparent and in good faith, and mayors of Pasig City and Quezon City have been operating under those standards for years, and others, too, I suspect. Leni Robredo is not making pledges. She’s changing the field. Doubling the number of mayors signed on is huge. It’s not promises. It’s a way of operating.

                   • CV says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 10:55 am

                     JoeAm,

                     My position is that M4GG is principally an initiative of leadership, not of the constituency. Its central principles—transparency, accountability, competent administration, citizen participation, and service to the public rather than to political patrons—were already being practiced by certain local leaders before M4GG was formed. I would include, among others, the mayors of Baguio, Quezon City, Pasig, and Naga. There may be others.

                     As for the other mayors who have joined, I do not know their individual records well enough to judge them. So when I refer to “pledges,” I mean their public commitments to govern according to the standards and principles M4GG has laid out. That is not meant to belittle the organization or dismiss those commitments. It simply recognizes the difference between a leader with an established, observable record of good governance and one who has now undertaken to follow that model.

                     I think one important purpose of M4GG is a recognition that there is strength in numbers. By organizing themselves, mayors who value integrity and competent public service make good governance more visible, more credible, and perhaps less politically isolating. They can encourage one another, share workable practices, and raise the political and reputational cost of corruption and opaque government.

                     But the original impetus, as I see it, comes from the leaders themselves. They are choosing to do what elected officials ought to do: govern honestly, responsibly, and for the benefit of their constituents—rather than follow the familiar habits of traditional politicians, and, regrettably, many leaders in the private sector as well.

                     Constituencies certainly matter. Their expectations, votes, participation, and willingness to hold officials accountable are indispensable in any participatory democracy. But public demand alone did not create M4GG. Leaders chose to organize it, define its standards, and give reform-minded governance a collective voice. That, to me, is the important relatively recent development—finally.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 11:12 am

                     Yes, Filipinos are infants that are only fit to be ordered and governed! God forbid smart leaders who want to survive changing political environments respond to evolving constituent demands! But you wouldn’t know that since you have been gone from the Philippines LONGER THAN I HAVE BEEN ALIVE.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 2:06 pm

                     As your last paragraph acknowledges, there is interaction with constituents and you’d have to interview the mayors to know exactly what motivated each to make a public commitment to good governance. It could be as simple as being competent and confident. Without question the movement would expand if voters made clear it’s what they want. Your “pledges” statement suggested to me that you believe they are just giving lip service to their commitment. I doubt it.

                   • CV says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 2:59 pm

                     JoeAm,

                     “As your last paragraph acknowledges, there is interaction with constituents, and you’d have to interview the mayors to know exactly what motivated each to make a public commitment to good governance. It could be as simple as being competent and confident.” —JoeAm

                     Exactly. In practical terms, it may not matter greatly what initially motivates individual mayors or other community leaders. What matters is whether they do what they publicly commit themselves to do.

                     Even before M4GG, elected officials had a basic duty to serve the people honestly and competently. Historically, however, too many Philippine politicians have failed to meet that duty, instead treating public office as a means of personal, family, or political advantage.

                     Whatever their individual motivations, officials who subscribe to the M4GG manifesto are making an additional and public commitment to perform their responsibilities according to its standards. That is worthwhile. It gives citizens a clearer basis on which to judge them.

                     “Your ‘pledges’ statement suggested to me that you believe they are just giving lip service to their commitment. I doubt it.” —JoeAm

                     I do not know why you would infer that. The word pledge is commonly used in the United States without implying insincerity. In international affairs, for example, nations may pledge assistance after a natural disaster. Some fulfill those pledges fully, some only partly, and some fail to follow through. The word simply describes a stated commitment; it does not determine whether it will be honored.

                     Politicians make campaign promises—also, in effect, pledges. Too often those promises turn out to be empty rhetoric. But there is no reason to presume that this is true of the mayors joining M4GG. Nor is there sufficient evidence yet to pronounce every signatory a proven practitioner of good governance. Time, transparency, and measurable performance will tell.

                     As Irineo notes, many of the cities whose leaders have joined M4GG have sizable middle-class populations. That should strengthen the participatory side of democracy. A more informed and economically independent citizenry is generally better positioned to demand information, monitor public spending and projects, criticize failures, and hold leaders accountable for the commitments they have made under the M4GG manifesto.

                     My understanding is also that M4GG’s signatories are taking steps to make public accountability more practical—for example, by promoting transparency, citizen participation, and mechanisms through which residents can raise concerns about public projects. If those mechanisms are used openly and lead to real corrective action, then M4GG will be more than an admirable statement of principles: it will be a meaningful way of governing.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 3:09 pm

                     Good that you see they are doing more than pledges.

                   • CV says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 3:50 am

                     “Good that you see they are doing more than pledges.” – JoeAm

                     This is how Joey puts it:

                     “M4GG as a group haven’t accomplished that much yet beyond their regular duties within their municipalities — it is a new grouping after all (since late 2023).”

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 7:00 am

                     Yes, eggs exist. So do chickens. Chickens can be motivated by incentives. Eggs cannot. Life’s not binary. What’s your point? I’m afraid I’ve lost it.

                   • CV says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 7:54 am

                     “What’s your point? I’m afraid I’ve lost it.” – JoeAm

                     My point is that the DRIVING force behind M4GG is the mayors and leaders in the community, not the constituency.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 8:18 am

                     Once again, you are totally missing my point. M4GG mayors and local executives are RESPONDING to CHANGING INCENTIVES within their relationship with their constituency due to CONSTITUENT PRESSURE. That alone is a fresh change from the usual of Philippine politics. I don’t know why you continue to argue around your preferred semantics and definitions, neither of which helps the Philippines.

                     I’ve also noticed the shift in your argumentation from the your original INSERTION of “duty” then the Kartilya on top of my short and plain reporting on the facts about how tourist areas refurbished airports and transportation infrastructure to respond to changes incentives (wanting to earn tourism dollars). Then you’ve led us on a 4-day discussion, at every turn trying to bend the discussion to your biases (that Filipino people apparently are infants with no agency and thus require dictatorial leadership). I played along the first 3 days. You exhausted me by the 4th.

                     Why don’t you just come out and say you want the Philippines to have a “good” dictator, like you used to last year when you first arrived and kept on pushing LKY and the Singapore model (which you like other diaspora who has the Singapore model hilariously misunderstand). Your comments always have a borderline view that Filipinos are people to be ordered, infantilized, perhaps too stupid as well to make rational choices within the options they are presented with.

                     Do you consider yourself superior to other Filipinos? Why is it that “foreigners” like Joe, Paul, and I can live among and interact with Filipinos while appreciating their potential? I have no idea how many diaspora Filipinos, especially Filipino Americans, hold such a view after so many decades of separation. You are not the first formerly Third Republic middle class Fil-Am who has this paternalistic LOW view of your homeland. I personally know too many that I’ve concluded it must be the way of thinking from back then. It is odious and insulting. Masking it in clever-sounding words doesn’t change that.

                   • CV says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 11:05 am

                     “Once again, you are totally missing my point.” – Joey N.

                     And, once again, you are totally missing mine.

                     ’nuff said. 🙂

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 11:08 am

                     Then explain your point.

                   • CV says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 3:20 am

                     “Then explain your point.” – Joey N.

                     Like I said, Joey, ’nuff said. If you did not get it in 4 days, you will never get it.

                     I compliment our leadership in M4GG for exercising leadership, and you interpret it as me saying the Filipino people need dictators. hehehe

                     That conclusion of yours says a lot about where your heart is in this discussion.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 4:00 am

                     You post drivel and expect to be praised as the smartest in the room. Over a year of derailing discussions and never once contributing anything of value.

                   • CV says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 4:09 am

                     “You post drivel and expect to be praised as the smartest in the room. Over a year of derailing discussions and never once contributing anything of value.” – Joey N.

                     Copy and paste your response to Gemini, Joey, and ask it if is an ad hominem. I did. 🙂

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 4:51 am

                     Yes, yes, that was an ad hominem, one based on your demonstrated behavior and one you deserve 🙂

                     You know what? The only interesting things you’ve ever contributed were your occasional personal stories, which I appreciate and find to be an interesting window into the past. You recalling these rare stories is not the problem. The problem is you are stuck in the past and refuse to look to the future, while thinking your ideas are definitive while at the same time not actually sharing any ideas of your own.

                     Fil-Ams like you remind me of South Vietnamese veterans who in their old age sit around babbling about the past, theorizing about how the Communist Party of Vietnam may be overthrown — my dad, who was a commando and fought most of his engagements above the 17th Parallel was drawn into such groups of useless preening old men until I told him to knock it off.

                     Fil-Ams like you remind me of Persian Pahlavists who want to bring back the Iranian monarchy at the expense of what the Iranian people today want — Zan, Zendegi, Azadi (Woman, Life, Freedom). Iranians in Iran fighting for democracy were murdered by the Islamic Regime by the tens of thousands, as recently as January-February of this year, yet all the Pahlavists can think of is how they can get back in power with themselves at the top. They think, 47 years separated since 1979, that they know best for Iranians.

                     Fil-Ams like you remind me of the Cuban Exile Movement, many of whom were able to carry their wealth with them when they abandoned Cuba after the communist revolution, who to this day cynically try to agitate for US Government intervention while not supporting democratic voices within the homeland they claim to love and care for.

                     Fil-Ams like you remind me of Nicaraguan Contras who fled to the US from the Maoist Sandinistas, who continually press for a return of a “good dictatorship” that alienates very real internal democratic opposition to Sandinista rule. Ignoring moderate voices that could be worked with in order to bring about actual change.

                     Fil-Ams like you remind me of the Venezuelan diaspora, who claim to want to restore democracy in Venezuela, but when given the chance dismiss the Venezuelan opposition in favor of revolutionary dictatorship “but the right way.” Well, look how their agitation turned out when Maduro was removed and another dictator was slotted in.

                     Fil-Ams like you ignore the actual needs, wants, and dreams of Filipinos. Fil-Ams like you have never talked to a Filipino of today from a place of equality, only from a position of superiority. For Fil-Ams like you, separation in distance and decades develops fantasist insularity where your once youthful viewpoints blur into maximalism. Fil-Ams like you are the type who, after spending many decades abroad, don’t seem to fit in or assimilate — you still refer to yourself as a “Filipino” and have a hard time recognizing that non-Whites can be Americans too (one of your first replies here). Fil-Ams like you want a system where you are again at the top, just like it was in the old Philippines.

                     We all here, myself the most, have invited you to share your ideas. Yet all you can do is act like this forum’s “Socrates” — WHO APPOINTED YOU? You don’t even understand the whole point of the Socratic Method, where Socrates himself despite being the teacher entered into the discussion “knowing nothing.” You resist civil discussion and desire to impose your biases upon others. I can only conclude you behave this way because you think yourself better than all of us here. You are a rabblerouser. You are a fantasist. You are anti-Filipino. You don’t care about the Philippines. You only care about a FANTASY version of the Philippines where your class is once again at the top of the pyramid. Well guess what, in today’s Philippines DEs no longer obey people like you. They don’t care about the babbling of diaspora old men who contribute nothing, not even good ideas and only criticism. And that is to the betterment of the Philippines, without the likes of you.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 5:12 am

                     Unlike these other diaspora group fantasists whose countries are still ruled by dictators, the Filipino diaspora has always been able to go back and effectuate real, positive change, pretty much immediately after 1986. Filipino-Americans among them being the most privileged of all Filipino diaspora populations, being able to live in freedom in the richest country in the history of humanity. But fantasists like you continue to insist on maximalism that has no basis in the lived reality of the Filipino today (and probably not back then either), because the goal was never to make the Philippines better for the Filipino, but to maintain moral superiority from afar. When I see the suffering of the Filipino poor who are just trying to navigate life hoping for better opportunities, it makes me even more angry about Fil-Ams like you.

                   • CV says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 5:21 am

                     Thanks, Joey. Perhaps you should ask Gemini again about this long post of yours whether it is an ad hominem. (This time I didn’t even bother to check as it is obvious.)

                     Then reflect on this statement of yours:

                     “Also, on ad hominem, if you could please refrain from using that as a shield since you are the most fond of ad hominem here.”

                     Thanks also for reminding us that ad hominems are used as a shield. I agree with you on that. We learned about it in principles of debate.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 5:23 am

                     😂

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 6:45 am

                     Ask Gemini about nitpicking and what on earth is a “nit”

                   • CV says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 7:24 am

                     I’m at your service, Karl:

                     >>A “nit” is literally the egg of a parasitic louse (head lice). They are microscopic, oval-shaped, and sticky—attaching themselves firmly to individual strands of hair near the scalp.

                     Because they are so small and stubbornly attached, removing them requires meticulously going through hair strand by strand with a fine-toothed comb to pick each one out.

                     That literal chore gives us the figurative phrase nitpicking:What Nitpicking Means Today

                     Figuratively, nitpicking means giving excessive attention to tiny, trivial details or faults—often at the expense of seeing the bigger picture. When someone is “nitpicking,” they are focusing on minor errors, typos, or minor flaws that don’t actually affect the main outcome or point being made.Core Distinctions

                     • Constructive Feedback vs. Nitpicking: Constructive feedback points out meaningful errors that impact quality or correctness. Nitpicking focuses on trivialities (like arguing over a single comma placement in an informal draft or pointing out a slight, irrelevant mispronunciation).
                     • The “Nitpicker”: A person who habitually searches for minor flaws, often coming across as pedantic, overly fussy, or hypercritical.<<

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 7:38 am

                     Literally suyudin ang mga lisa.

                   • CV says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 7:26 am

                     One thing I can do for you, Karl, is get an example of what you may think is nitpicking and we can ask Gemini what it thinks.

                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 7:37 am

                     Classic!

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 8:49 am

                     The shameless can’t be shamed. Such is the diaspora Filipino who moralizes from the safety of distance, avoiding even a modicum of personal responsibility to the country he claims to love. Impotent. Bitter. Unhelpful.

                   • CV says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 10:07 am

                     Actually I would be ashamed if the primary rule of the blog discussions is that the subject be about the Philippines and I repeatedly violated that rule. Hence I avoid doing that. It is a good rule.

                     It is a good rule because a lot of people easily violate it w/o realizing it.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 10:24 am

                     You do not get to make the rules here, nor go you get to enforce “rules” you make up as you go along — Joe defines the rules here. Your constant forcing others who operate in good faith to play along with your games is tiring. You have contributed nothing of value since you arrived in early 2025, only polemics unmoored from reality.

                     I must caution you that online discussions are forever. Already, your past comment history is easily searchable by me. As are the comments of every other regular commenter. So I’m asking you again: engage in good faith, provide reasonable grounding for your theory, or shut up.

                   • CV says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 10:44 am

                     “You do not get to make the rules here, nor go you get to enforce “rules” you make up as you go along — Joe defines the rules here.” – Joey N.

                     Yes, I know that. To be clear, what I was stating is that I follow the rule regarding topic of discussion be about the Philippines and that I would be ashamed if I did not. (And I did not make up that rule) I said that to point out that I do have shame which disproves your claim that I do not have shame.

                     I did not try to get anyone else to follow the rule. I was just speaking for myself.

                     This talk about me has gone on too long, so I will try to make this my last comment on the subject.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 11:28 am

                     Great. If you can follow what you said here, there would be no issue. The goal is a better Philippines by whatever means necessary within what is available now — chiefly pragmatic means that do not require undue suffering of the poorest Filipino simply to satisfy perfection. Is not the goal of us made of flesh to continually seek to approach the perfection of the Creator, even if man could never reach there? Only God is perfect. Man is not. We must work with imperfection if we would strive to be better. One cannot push the boundary of progress without winning within the system first. I am glad to tell you that there are younger Filipinos who are doing just that. Even if progress may seem slow there are appreciable amounts of it, increasing at a quickening pace.

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 4:01 pm

                     One cannot push the boundary of progress without winning within the system first. I am glad to tell you that there are younger Filipinos who are doing just that. Even if progress may seem slow there are appreciable amounts of it, increasing at a quickening pace.

                     https://joeam.com/2026/09/16/philippine-tourism/#comment-510568 I summarized parts of the comments in this subthread in the link below and opened a new subthread as well to frame what I would call the “morality versus agency” discussion that started here a bit better, with some observations from my personal knowledge which of course is that of someone abroad.

                     Indeed I do see increasing agency among younger migrants coming here and probably that reflects what is happening back home, but maybe we can continue in that subthread as this highly nested sub-sub-subthread has become nearly unreadable, even comically unreadable in some parts, for those who read the webpage.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 25, 2026 at 6:20 am

                     Thanks Irineo. Yes, the main webpage’s comment section is unreadable after a few nested comments. I think the comment plugin is an older one, and there are newer comment plugins that display in more of a Jetpack style.

                   • CV says:

                     September 24, 2026 at 10:19 am

                     “Classic!” – Karl G.

                     Exactly. Notice that I did not ask Gemini for a definition of ad hominem. I asked it if a certain post was an ad hominem. In effect, I got a third party opinion.

                   • CV says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 5:47 am

                     “The problem is you are stuck in the past …” – Joey

                     Thanks again, Joey. I plugged this post of yours into Gemini and asked if it constituted whining. I got a very educational response. You should check it out. It might make you laugh even as it made me laugh. It gave me a refreshing review of logical fallacies in argument and debate.

                     I won’t paste it here because it has nothing to do with the Philippines.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 23, 2026 at 6:28 am

                     😂

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 22, 2026 at 8:55 am

                     Ok. Thanks.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 4:28 pm

                     The problem is that words like need and honor are circumstantial. A rich person and a poor person have different contexts. Honor to a poor person might be to subsist. I’m reminded of my fisherman friend in Mindanao who used a small gage net to help feed his family while helping turn the bay to desert. His response when I asked was, “Do they want me to become a thief?” The well-to do might point out to him that maybe having seven kids did not help much. Well, he follows the dictates of the Catholic Church, so who defines need and honor here?

                     Charity is easier if you have money. Still, the rich make their calculations, risk assessments I suppose, will my stocks hold value, and what about inflation? So circumstances change need and even honor.

                     The definition of selfish is variable as well.

                     I know there are good people under the dictates laid out who are kind, generous, and thoughtful. There are lots and lots of good people. They follow the spirit of those dictates as they calculate the definitions, as circumstances change.

                     Many Filipinos lack the foundational elements to live up to the guidelines. That’s why there’s a confessional I suppose. Schools here paste the slogans here and there but can’t change people’s rotten home life or wealth.

                     My moral framework was founded on parental strictness, school, boy scouts, political (state) propaganda, church, and figuring things out. When a society is racist and you marry across races you have a different weight of public opinion (honor) to deal with (number 4). When a government declares a war honorable and you go see it waged first hand, you can easily conclude that it is not.

                     Context is king.

                   • CV says:

                     September 18, 2026 at 11:52 pm

                     “The problem is that words like need and honor are circumstantial. Context is king.” — JoeAm

                     Yes, that is precisely the problem—and what lawyers often capitalize on to make their living! Hehehe.

                     The Good Book suggests how the God of the Israelites addressed that dilemma: the circumstantial nature of words such as need and honor, and the central importance of context. The Israelites were instructed to establish judges to apply the law fairly to particular cases. Problem solved—or at least partly solved.

                     “Many Filipinos lack the foundational elements to live up to the guidelines.” — JoeAm

                     Yes, that is very true. But many Filipinos do possess those foundational elements. The challenge is to identify them, enable them to rise, and ensure that they become leaders in their communities.

                   • JoeAm says:

                     September 19, 2026 at 6:27 am

                     Yes, agree.

3. Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

   September 23, 2026 at 7:30 pm

   OT and not: some older articles about ethics and the Philippines:

   The Philippine Church of Moral Courage | The Society of Honor by Joe America

   President Quezon’s 1939 “Code of Citizenship and Ethics”, and the Philippines today | The Society of Honor by Joe America

   “The Rizal Robredo Index” | The Society of Honor by Joe America

   the topic has already been discussed to exhaustion over several years here..

   Reply
   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

     September 23, 2026 at 7:39 pm

     plus of course in the Quezon article, Karl made a full quote of Mabini’s decalogue:

     =”THE TRUE DECALOGUE”=

     =By APOLINARIO MABINI=

     First. Thou shalt love God and thy honor above all things: God as the
     fountain of all truth, of all justice and of all activity; and thy
     honor, the only power which will oblige thee to be faithful, just and
     industrious.

     Second. Thou shalt worship God in the form which thy conscience may
     deem most righteous and worthy: for in thy conscience, which condemns
     thy evil deeds and praises thy good ones, speaks thy God.

     Third. Thou shalt cultivate the special gifts which God has granted
     thee, working and studying according to thy ability, never leaving the
     path of righteousness and justice, in order to attain thy own
     perfection, by means whereof thou shalt contribute to the progress of
     humanity; thus; thou shalt fulfill the mission to which God has
     appointed thee in this life and by so doing, thou shalt be honored,
     and being honored, thou shalt glorify thy God.

     Fourth. Thou shalt love thy country after God and thy honor and more
     than thyself: for she is the only Paradise which God has given thee in
     this life, the only patrimony of thy race, the only inheritance of thy
     ancestors and the only hope of thy posterity; because of her, thou
     hast life, love and interests, happiness, honor and God.

     Fifth. Thou shalt strive for the happiness of thy country before thy
     own, making of her the kingdom of reason, of justice and of labor: for
     if she be happy, thou, together with thy family, shalt likewise be
     happy.

     Sixth. Thou shalt strive for the independence of thy country: for only
     thou canst have any real interest in her advancement and exaltation,
     because her independence constitutes thy own liberty; her advancement,
     thy perfection; and her exaltation, thy own glory and immortality.

     Seventh. Thou shalt not recognize in thy country the authority of any
     person who has not been elected by thee and thy countrymen; for
     authority emanates from God, and as God speaks in the conscience of
     every man, the person designated and proclaimed by the conscience of a
     whole people is the only one who can use true authority.

     Eighth. Thou shalt strive for a Republic and never for a monarchy in
     thy country: for the latter exalts one or several families and founds
     a dynasty; the former makes a people noble and worthy through reason,
     great through liberty, and prosperous and brilliant through labor.

     Ninth. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: for God has imposed
     upon him, as well as upon thee, the obligation to help thee and not to
     do unto thee what he would not have thee do unto him; but if thy
     neighbor, failing in this sacred duty, attempt against thy life, thy
     liberty and thy interests, then thou shalt destroy and annihilate him
     for the supreme law of self-preservation prevails.

     Tenth. Thou shalt consider thy countryman more than thy neighbor; thou
     shalt see him thy friend, thy brother or at least thy comrade, with
     whom thou art bound by one fate, by the same joys and sorrows and by
     common aspirations and interests.

     Therefore, as long as national frontiers subsist, raised and
     maintained by the selfishness of race and of family, with thy
     countryman alone shalt thou unite in a perfect solidarity of purpose
     and interest, in order to have force, not only to resist the common
     enemy but also to attain all the aims of human life.

     of course in the 2022 Church of Moral Courage article, I was a bit jaded and wrote this comment:

     We can start by agreeing on some basics. What do we start with?

     I suggest that our first premise be that we don’t eat people. Any objections?

     Whether we eat dogs or cats we can send to a subcommittee for discussion.

     though in fairness, the Moral Recovery Program of 1986 was closer to Filipino culture than anything before it – but that iteration also failed..

     https://ourhappyschool.com/esp-values-education/moral-recovery-program-building-people-building-nation-patricia-licuanan

     Reply
     • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

       September 24, 2026 at 3:53 pm

       just for completeness, adding CV’s quote of the Kartilya: https://joeam.com/2026/09/16/philippine-tourism/#comment-510405, Joey’s answer to that comment: https://joeam.com/2026/09/16/philippine-tourism/#comment-510406 as well as Karl’s answer https://joeam.com/2026/09/16/philippine-tourism/#comment-510413 to add to the public morality discussion, because I will add my impressions as well based on observation.

       – the generation of sonny and Edgar Lores, fully raised in the Third Republic (sonny was born in 1943) sounded a bit like the classmates of my father in his Albay High School Yearbook to me, with lofty aspirations, though sonny was able to give me an idea of how the (I think now mostly lost) aspirations of the Third Republic were, as most of us who migrate are in some ways “time capsules” of the time we left and sonny left in 1968 – by BOAT.. https://joeam.com/2018/05/16/the-new-visayas-playground-of-the-pacific/#comment-251568

       (it isn’t completely avoidable to be time capsules, though we who leave have to avoid becoming anachronistic, though I found it very interesting how the first gen of Filipino migrants to Germany had so OBVIOUSLY left in the late 1960s or early 1970s, so clearly visible to the 17 year old me who came in 1982)

       – the first gen of Filipino migrants to Germany – nurses and their spouses, kids often came later when they decided to settle for good – were also a time capsule of the Third Republic, but my impression was that they were more like they were reciting what they were told in school. The difference to the likes of sonny and Edgar was that the two are/were like those who understood their “Bible studies” (applied to the secular morals of the Republic) while the others were literalists, some serious about it, some not

       – the 1.5 Gen of Filipino migrants in the 1980s were a bit more doubtful of the lofty stuff, having seen how it was corrupted, the jury is out whether it was in the late part of the 3rd Republic, whether it was always a sham as Jerrold Tarrog’s new Quezon movie suggests, or in the 4th Republic aka Marcos Sr.’s time – the era of Estelito Mendoza type lawyering (think Sal Panelo prototypes) as well as the rebellious urban youth called “jeprox” based on Quezon City projects, both cynics but in different ways

       – the 2nd Gen of Filipino migrants, the brides to Germans as well as the TNTs of the late 1980s and early 1990s, were “praktikal”, meaning expedient as survival came first to them. “Kapwa” meaning fellow-people definitely mattered to some extent, but many of these people came from D classes not from the C class like the 1st gen, they were different.

       – fast forward to the scant impressions I have of the present immigrant generation, partly having seen some at Pinoy events (which I rarely attend if ever) and partly by having seen vlogs of nurses coming here – male, female and married couples – for the Triple Win program. BTW Sokor used to send nurses to Germany as well in the early 1970s, no more now of course. In any case the new gen is VERY different from the 1970s generation of nurses, I shall elaborate:

       first of all, they are far more aware of the world than the first gen, also thanks to the Internet, and they are required to learn German up to Level A (basic speech and writing) BEFORE they go to Germany, and required to finish the B level (everyday speech and writing at a passable level, a level which I BTW only half-reached in Spanish as por and para defeated me) – so THEY ARE FAR LESS LOST THAN THE MEMORABLE FIRST BATCH WERE.

       second to that, the first batch relied more heavily on patronage. The first major associations here were run by the Filipina wife of a German nursing recruiter and by the Filipina widow of a German former SVD priest who was a social worker for Filipinos – so basically people who could help the helpless navigate what was a maze for them. The present batch publishes blogs and creates vlogs informing their fellow newcomers on how to navigate life and work in Germany.

       third, the present batch does not seem to isolate themselves as much from the host society as the old batch. Of course it does help that online has created a global lingo within the younger generations and nearly every German under 40 somehow speaks English nowadays – a German speaking useful English in the 1970s-1980s was a rarity. The ones organizing Filipino events are less the associations of old (centralized at first, decentralized from the mid-1980s onwards) which were forms of datuship abroad, more on local biz (food etc), though there are condo sales agents around that seem “sus” as the young would say. P.S. the era when ABS-CBN’s TFC still was migrant’s major gateway to home, the 1990s and noughties, maybe even the early 2010s, is mostly over as well and probably social media is the reason.

       SO MAYBE what Joey said about DEs developing more agency in the modern world is also parallel to what I have observed about the mostly C migrants to Germany. From the first gen who parroted what they were taught, believing it or not, to the 1.5 and 2nd gen who were more cynical to “praktikal” to those who now have their own view of the world less easily influenced (mostly, but I guess most of the Hague budots crowd are older while the new batch might mostly listen to Ben & Ben) by those who want to tell them their way is right. P.P.S. I have the impression that the newest gen of migrants are skeptical of ALL political directions in the Philippines. They are able to figure out the world at the level of getting around – almost at a par with the kids of the 2nd Gen or the grandkids of the 1st Gen raised here – but don’t seem to have the bandwidth to deal with politics YET.

       Reply
       • Joey Nguyen says:

         September 25, 2026 at 2:38 pm

         Thanks for this summary Irineo.

         My own experience with the Philippines led me to almost immediately exit elite/upper/upper-middle class circles the moment I stepped outside the Batangas compound against the caution and order of the auntie in 1998. By the early 2000s, unless visiting old friends, I was spending time almost exclusively with Class DE, both urban and provincial rural.

         Growing up in the 1980s-1990s my view of the Philippines was shaped by relatives of friends whose families were either anti-Martial Law expatriates leaving before EDSA or the EDSA-disillusioned who left shortly after People Power in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Both painted a rosy picture of a Philippines that I imagined was, according to them, “basically a version of the US,” but Filipino and perhaps a bit rustic. My dad and his officer friends, who mingled mostly with US, Filipino, South Korean, and Australian military officers, also had the same view of their Philippine military rotations in the 1960s and early 1970s.

         So imagine my shock when I ventured outside of the compound back in 1998 and found informal settlements of barong-barongs literally a few steps away from the compound gates secluded from view, as if something dirty and to be ashamed of, but obviously there. Later I visited Smokey Mountain in Tondo, in the place that’s now called Happyland — the name itself allegedly is a corruption of hapilan meaning “garbage dump” in a Visayan dialect. I would later spend high school summers doing Catholic charities work in and around places like Smokey Mountain and Happyland.

         The marked insularity of the elite class did not get lost on me. Nor was the curiosity that the striving middle class, who did interface regularly with the masa, sought to “cram in behind the walls” then shut the gates behind them as soon as they could afford to do so socio-economically. They really did build themselves a “version of the US,” modern and at times more resplendent than many places in the actual US.

         “Outside the walls,” the masa have no choice but to operate within the limited options they are afforded, called “morally deficient” and bobotante, but in reality the masa are in fact making quite tactically shrewd rational choices with the choices they have. Oftentimes the rational decision leads the masa to navigate the patron-clientalist system in order to fulfill immediate needs (employment, ayuda during calamity, and so on). Many opportunities in the Philippines are gatekept by all manner of ways: who can grant a clearance, who can provide a job, who can give a referral, who can access which place and when.

         Then there is the Filipino Bypass, which has been observed by more serious sociologists and historians before. Being helped by a patron to navigate gatekeepers is a bypass. So is more mundane lamgangan behavior like aggressive driving or queue-cutting when others wait patiently. But the OFW phenomenon was also originally a bypass to gain income to support one’s family before it was official policy. The seafarers that the Philippines is so proud of today also developed organically as a bypass. One of the principle legs of the Philippine economy, the BPO industry, grew as an independent and market-driven bypass before settling into the PEZA SEZ’s the industry occupies today. The Filipino Bypass is a way to break through a system that is rife with gatekeepers.

         Locking the masa into a patron-client relationship is also a form of gatekeeping as well as being monopolizing power over those who lack choices. But presently lacking more desirable choices does not mean one does not lack agency. The agency was always there. Economic power and the power to choose just means that one has a greater degree of agency over another who lacks such powers of choice. Too often I find many of the elite and middle class to be moralizers. The elite and the professional middle class are the gatekeepers under the patron-client system, yet regularly cast the masa as somehow morally deficient in a world built to serve a tiny slice of the population, in which they largely “hold the keys.”

         It can be said that the introduction of the Internet, chiefly in social media and mobile phones in the Philippines starting with Facebook and cheap Android handsets, had many bad and lasting effects. Social media brought about Duterte and his ilk. Pinoy social media often veers into toxicity, elevating what used to be petty barangay disputes to a sometimes national level with no captain to intervene. But the Internet also unlocked more avenues for Class DE than ever before. No longer did one need to first find a backer or get introduced to one in order to get a job. One could read or watch testimonials shared by others to “find a way.” No longer did one need to be constrained to local patronage or the whims of the local dynast.

         Escaping the patron-client system used to mean finding a better patron — a politician who could get one a referral, a relative or acquaintance who had already gone abroad to vouch for oneself, a local dynast whose help is contingent on their goodwill — it was just the mediating patron who is replaced. The Internet, however unevenly and coming with the cost of social cohesion, thinned out gatekeepers and how much mediation is required. An online seller can reach buyers directly through Facebook Marketplaces instead of needing a market stall assigned by the barangay official. A helper can read reviews for numerous recruitment agencies instead of trusting kumares who vouch for their preferred agency (and getting their kickback). A prospective BPO worker can watch mock interviews on YouTube and read tips on Instagram then apply directly to the employer all without needing a referral. All this might seem rather unexciting to elite agitators who demand perfection or nothing at all, but across DEs more and more are able to obtain direct access to employment and economic independence free of any utang na loob owed to a patron — not only in increased choices, but also with the tools and capacity to act on newly available choices.

         The new opportunities opening up to DEs is another version of the bypass: not just simply having more choices, but better options that no longer route through a gatekeeper’s goodwill. I think it’s less about the elite disorderly masa framing that is to be ashamed of and given top-down management, than a story of how dependency to a patron is not the default choice when independence is offered. When I first stepped outside the compound gate in 1998, I had not yet understood the whole point of building walls and gates, nor do I think most in the elite and middle class do either beyond “security concerns,” but surely the masa understand quite well why there is a wall and why there is a gate. Given the choice, DEs will bypass and the Philippines will be better for it.

         Reply
         • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

           September 25, 2026 at 5:54 pm

           a lot of the bypasses are historically documented, like Juan Tamad being a hero for evading Spanish colonial forced labor, and as some have pointed out one of the roots of corrupt local officials being loved might be from the time when principalia that cheated on tax remissions to the Spanish crown and redistributed it to their own people were seen as local heroes, even if I have not yet found the examples from Bikol and Pampanga mentioned, except obscure references to Bikolano 18th century principalia defying Nueva Caceres (Naga).

           In any case there is a straight line from those principalia of old to Bong Revilla being cheered by the masses, dancing budots in defiance of the pork barrel charges against him – even if that is most probably misdirected in this day and age, probably the suspicion and hatred of elite gatekeepers is so big that it still works, unfortunately.

           Filipinos who don’t obey rules in the Philippines usually do so abroad, so the bypass is of course against a system seen as unfair.

           It can be said that the introduction of the Internet, chiefly in social media and mobile phones in the Philippines starting with Facebook and cheap Android handsets, had many bad and lasting effects.

           Basically what I called The National Village..

           The Internet, however unevenly and coming with the cost of social cohesion, thinned out gatekeepers and how much mediation is required.

           in general one of its main effects has been disintermediation. For instance there are hardly any travel agencies left in Germany nowadays, but not because of less travel..

           When I first stepped outside the compound gate in 1998, I had not yet understood the whole point of building walls and gates, nor do I think most in the elite and middle class do either beyond “security concerns,”

           MLQ3 told me on X when I still was there that the real reason for the likes of Forbes Park after WW2 was safety from the Huks. His perspective – his grandfather’s brother and father murdered by bandits posing as Katipuneros, his grandmother, aunt and uncle (Felipe Buencamino) murdered by the Huks – may have shaped that view and that of some other elite Filipinos.

           Probably the dynamic goes both ways. I recall that the murder of Oliver Ang of Pisay in 1996 in Quezon City by two slum kids sparked panic in the middle class.

           https://opinion.inquirer.net/24947/the-original-%E2%80%98hamog%E2%80%99-boys

           My segment of the middle class still rode jeepneys and walked through Cubao etc. independently in the late 1970s / early 1980s (of course I was not one of the rich kids who WERE already then driven to school and fetched from there by their family’s drivers) – sometimes even “daring” to walk along Recto Avenue (but knowing that everything after Avenida Rizal was too much for us even if a lot of us had balisongs) but what I gather is that society grew even more apart from the mid-1990s onwards with Oliver Ang as an example parents used to warn their kids..

           P.S. https://joeam.com/2026/09/25/what-would-an-anti-dynasty-law-actually-change/#comment-510579 maybe the gatekeeping and the bypasses are both caused by the lack of real institutions in thhe Philippines AND also prevent them from having a solid foundation.. I might yet write an article asking these questions.

           Reply
           • Joey Nguyen says:

             September 26, 2026 at 6:12 pm

             a lot of the bypasses are historically documented, like Juan Tamad being a hero for evading Spanish colonial forced labor, and as some have pointed out one of the roots of corrupt local officials being loved might be from the time when principalia that cheated on tax remissions to the Spanish crown and redistributed it to their own people were seen as local heroes

             During the Spanish period it wasn’t just bypassing behavior by characters like the fictional Juan Tamad or the more real cases of principalía acting as Indio “Robin Hoods.” The Spanish Philippines was itself a colonial backwater governed by another crown colony (Nueva España — Spanish Mexico), where rules and laws were often mere suggestions, enforced only when enforcement benefited the enforcer. The Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade, for one, was notoriously rife with corruption. Until trade liberalized in the mid-19th century, cargo quotas ran directionally unequal — initially the quota was 500,000 pesos per year for goods shipped from Acapulco to Manila against 250,000 pesos from Manila back the other way. Merchants regularly bribed ship captains to falsify boletas (shipping-space tickets), declaring the holds full while leaving room for smuggled cargo — enough that Madrid started sending royal veedores (cargo inspectors) overseen by visitadores (overseers or general inspectors) to Acapulco as early as 1636, about 70 years after the conquest (https://www.history21.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Silk-Trade-4.1-Reading-4-The-Manila-Galleon-Trade.pdf).

             straight line from those principalia of old to Bong Revilla being cheered by the masses, dancing budots in defiance of the pork barrel charges against him

             Gathering large numbers of supporters (genuine or paid) to overpower proceedings may have an even older, native root. Reconstructions of pre-Hispanic society (by scholars like Junker, and in Chinese merchant accounts) suggest it was common practice for a challenged datu to muster supporters and assert dominance over a rival: a straightforward “might makes right.” It’s almost laughable when this collides with places that actually have functioning institutions: the same tactic, tried in front of The Hague to intimidate the ICC, simply doesn’t land. What worked against Marcos Sr. at EDSA, and again against Estrada at EDSA II, doesn’t work where institutions are strong. I haven’t settled on how strong post-EDSA institutions still were by the time the EDSA III counter-revolution failed, but faith in institutions surely matters as much as their actual strength. The EDSA-disillusioned had already started emigrating from the late 1980s into the 1990s — the cohort of my Fil-Am classmates’ parents and grandparents — but evidently enough believers in the post-EDSA order remained in 2001.

             probably the suspicion and hatred of elite gatekeepers is so big that it still works, unfortunately.

             The sentiment cuts both ways. Elites moralize down at the masa from their “ivory towers” — a substitute for the real, privilege-surrendering progress they’d rather not make — while DE resentment answers back with its own “moral nationalism” against the elites (Kusaka). A mutual, destructive moralization on both sides — though I’d note the DEs have a strong position of grievance, given they’re 90-93% of the population.

             Filipinos who don’t obey rules in the Philippines usually do so abroad, so the bypass is of course against a system seen as unfair.

             Yes — this is also a function of social and cultural empathy. Japan’s streets aren’t spotless because the Japanese are innately clean, nor because anti-littering is heavily policed — it’s a mutual recognition that littering inconveniences others, sort of like social empathy versus personal empathy, and, more to the point, that others’ littering could inconvenience oneself. The enforcement mechanism is social: a person caught littering is quietly catalogued as anti-social and avoided, and that social cost does the enforcing. The US, also relatively litter-free, ran on a similar mix when I was a kid — social accountability from cultural homogeneity (no longer racial, but still real) layered onto enforcement by authority. Now that homogeneity is diluting under a fresh wave of immigration that assimilation hasn’t caught up to yet, the balance has shifted more fully onto enforcement by authority.

             Basically what I called The National Village..

             In the Philippines, enforcement by authority is inconsistent, but enforcement by social pressure isn’t — it’s just confined to relational space, working best where the degrees of separation are few and breaking down as they grow. As you noted, Irineo, in your classic article, “The National Village” has a hard time scaling, because Filipinos keep applying what works at the small scale to expectations at the large one — national politics included. This may also explain what some sociologists call the optimism gap: in the Philippines context it is roughly, “my (corrupt) local dynast did right by my family, so they deserve another chance, while those national trapos are irredeemably corrupt and need to be voted out.”

             MLQ3 told me on X when I still was there that the real reason for the likes of Forbes Park after WW2 was safety from the Huks. His perspective – his grandfather’s brother and father murdered by bandits posing as Katipuneros, his grandmother, aunt and uncle (Felipe Buencamino) murdered by the Huks – may have shaped that view and that of some other elite Filipinos.

             AFAIK the Huks credibly threatened Manila only once, in the 1950 coup attempt, so the memory of elites and upper-middle-class figures like MLQIII may already have been colored by their own biases by that point. I checked again, and the ambush that killed former First Lady Quezon — the single most prominent elite-proximate Huk atrocity, and the one closest to MLQIII’s own family — happened nowhere near Manila at all: it was on the Bongabon-Baler road, deep in what was then the Nueva Ecija hinterlands, a distance that probably felt world away from where Forbes Park would later rise from the swamps near the Pasig River. The rise of postwar elite secured subdivisions was probably more real estate developer marketing than a rational response to a security threat, since even a machine gun-armed elite subdivision wouldn’t have stood a chance against an actual rebel force. But the security panic that shaped Forbes Park and the subsequent subdivisions that followed — and the security theater built around it as assurance — likely hardened elites against what they saw as a threat from the “lawless” masa, while the resulting loss of cross-class contact you wrote about that still existed in Balara around UP in the 1970s created its own masa anti-elite resentment in turn.

             Probably the dynamic goes both ways. I recall that the murder of Oliver Ang of Pisay in 1996 in Quezon City by two slum kids sparked panic in the middle class.

             I often find the Filipino middle class emulating not just Western (American) elites, but Philippine ones too, borrowing the same moral panics as justification. Just as the Philippine elite engaged in a kind of isomorphic mimicry, building new copies of the Intramuros, the Third Republic middle class, once it rose high enough economically, built its own versions of what they aspired to in the elites. But security theater’s function isn’t really about security. Guards performatively waving mirrors under car undercarriages (to “look for bombs”), or HOA guards enforcing an ID policy at the gates, are really just another type of socio-economic gatekeeper — of which Philippine society has many. The gatekeeper’s real job isn’t stopping terrorism or crime; it’s filtering out Filipinos deemed “undesirable” from affluent spaces — panhandlers, the unwashed, street vendors, general “rabble,” or even DEs headed to work inside the subdivision who failed to announce who’d vouched for them from the inside.

             My segment of the middle class still rode jeepneys and walked through Cubao etc. independently in the late 1970s / early 1980s (of course I was not one of the rich kids who WERE already then driven to school and fetched from there by their family’s drivers) – sometimes even “daring” to walk along Recto Avenue (but knowing that everything after Avenida Rizal was too much for us even if a lot of us had balisongs) but what I gather is that society grew even more apart from the mid-1990s onwards with Oliver Ang as an example parents used to warn their kids..

             Yes — by the time I arrived in 1998, I’d quickly noticed what I now call the “Two Philippines.” DEs who are deferential to their elite or upper middle-class employers face to face will curse that same class under their breath the moment they’ve walked away, and openly at home. There’s real value in rigid social cohesion, but the same rigidity also doesn’t let those lower in the hierarchy rise.

             Interestingly newer elite spaces like BGC are “open,” like American ones are, with no physical walls or gates — but they have invisible ones instead, something the moral panic over the geng-geng kids (who were mostly just looking for public space to hang out and make TikToks) made plain to DEs but not to elites. I found the difference in how Filipinos on socmed reacted to the geng-geng “panic” depending on their social class (elite/middle class vs masa) to be highly illuminating. Things can even turn nasty fast in the Philippines: even “open-minded” elites, like my best friend, a Hong Kong-based professional, pivot quickly to intense top-down moralizing the moment their affluent spaces and rituals are pierced (of which I always remind her on).

             maybe the gatekeeping and the bypasses are both caused by the lack of real institutions in thhe Philippines AND also prevent them from having a solid foundation.. I might yet write an article asking these questions.

             Something you may find interesting: Spanish Philippine bureaucracy had its own buffer for exactly this, obedezco pero no cumplo (or, “I obey, but I do not comply”). Local colonial officials used it to quietly shelve liberal decrees from Madrid — orders reining in the encomiendas from abusing polos y servicios, the forced-labor system behind public works like anti-pirate fortifications, for instance. It also covered the slow-walking of parish secularization, where enforcing (liberal-period) Madrid’s wishes risked violence between the religious orders’ supporters (the principalía) and the rising colonial middle class backing Indio secular priests.

             Bypassing and gatekeeping may look like opposite reactions to weak institutions, but if one thinks about it they’re really the same reaction from different directions. Obedezco pero no cumplo, which still exists today, is the official’s version of bypassing — a local elite (now dynast) routing around a metropole (Madrid, now “replaced” by Manila) he judged out of touch, the same move an OFW or a call-center hire makes routing around a gatekeeping system judged rigged against them. The principalía who skimmed the tax remittance and redistributed it locally were doing both at once: bypassing the Madrid, and gatekeeping their own little patronage economy from it. One can make a rough throughline to the same behavior today between some LGU executives and Manila. Bypassing and gatekeeping have never really been separate behaviors here so much as two ends of the same patron-client “rope”.

             The “rope” hasn’t changed shape, just its material. “The Filipino Bypass” today, in my estimation, runs through patron-assisted navigation, lamangan, and, once formalized, the OFW, seafarer, and BPO pipelines. The rise of mobile data, social media, and cheap Android mobile phones added another bypass, knocking down mediation layers and eventually routing around a patron altogether. Perhaps it is the same bet Juan Tamad and galleon boleta smugglers made: that “finding a way” around the system, outwitting the system, beats fighting it. Elite gatekeeping, from Forbes Park’s perimeter walls and gates to BGC’s invisible one, is in ways a mirror image of the bypass: that building a private substitute for public order beats paying the political price of sharing it. Both are exercising exit rather than working towards voice (Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Hirschman). Maybe that can explain why a solid Philippine foundation never hardened — exit, taken often enough by both sides, lets society keep deferring the consensus-forming argument that real institution-building would require. The masa bypass because gatekeeping implicitly tells them the system was never built for them; elites gatekeep because bypass behavior creates the feeling that the system can’t be trusted to hold. In the end, maybe the whole problem is that both are correct in isolation but clash in proximity.

             Reply
             • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

               September 26, 2026 at 10:27 pm

               “The National Village” has a hard time scaling, because Filipinos keep applying what works at the small scale to expectations at the large one — national politics included.

               It also has a hard time scaling because as its sequel “Widening Philippine Horizons” maintains, the kind of direct evidence based on observation which is the counter-check to tsismis and other stuff at small-community level is lacking in the National Village for the “less educated” while those who are “more educated” are often not truly educated in a modern, Enlightened way, echoing Rizalian observations – though I would probably rewrite my ideas completely if I ever found time or motivation to do so.

               Widening Philippine Horizons

               exit, taken often enough by both sides, lets society keep deferring the consensus-forming argument that real institution-building would require.

               yes, one could also see the retreat of those with means behind gated communities, into private schools and malls as a form of exit from a common space.

               BTW, one of the most successful policies that Munich has when it comes to urbanity is that they try as much as possible to mix different social classes. You mentioned Hegel in the HOA discussion, but I also observed that policy makes different groups still see each other as people, didn’t know Hegel had said something similar way back..

               Reply
               • Joey Nguyen says:

                 September 28, 2026 at 6:08 pm

                 the kind of direct evidence based on observation which is the counter-check to tsismis and other stuff at small-community level is lacking in the National Village for the “less educated”

                 Chismis is useful at times as a neighborhood-level information network, but it’s probably less useful once the target of rumor no longer has an ability to counter the levied allegations. I’ve always been astounded by how it’s not uncommon for Filipinos to know intricate gossip about people they don’t even know personally about stuff that doesn’t affect them at all, like who cares?

                 while those who are “more educated” are often not truly educated in a modern, Enlightened way, echoing Rizalian observations

                 Another common behavior is what psychologists call the backfire effect — the cognitive bias where presenting someone with facts that contradict their beliefs causes them to increasingly strengthen their original stance the more additional facts are introduced. Then they start looking to “prove” their beliefs by seeking confirmation bias and support from their in-group. This type of behavior is rare in Western settings, especially where people in disagreement are forced to face who the disagree with directly face-to-face, but occurs frequently in the Philippines from my observation. Almost like a religion where only faith is required, but also weird since Catholicism absolutely champions science and reason since the time of Augustine in the 4th century (the Galileo incident is actually an outlier, and the perception that the Catholic Church is anti-reason was partially pushed by Protestant propaganda during the Wars of Religion).

                 BTW, one of the most successful policies that Munich has when it comes to urbanity is that they try as much as possible to mix different social classes. You mentioned Hegel in the HOA discussion, but I also observed that policy makes different groups still see each other as people, didn’t know Hegel had said something similar way back..

                 Something interesting to explore is whether or not the “actual” political system of the Philippines is one of paramount datu and constituent datus as reconstructed by Scott, Junker, and Jocano. For example the 1987 Constitution (Article X, Section 4) explicitly gives the President a supervisory, not controlling, role over LGUs, which was further weakened in a way by the Mandanas-Garcia ruling. So just like the pre-Hispanic paramount datu, higher up political positions only have the power of inducement, not the power to command, those below them. And the pre-Hispanic paramount datu (where the position existed) was not particularly strong compared to let’s say the power a Cham raja of rajas or a Srivijaya and Majapahit maharaja held over the lower raja/datu. Something like this while not being wrong (since it is part of the culture) may be the major contributing reason why dropping Western systems without modification on top of the existing culture hasn’t worked out for nearly 130 years. If one reads through Katipunan writings again, basically they just copied Western ideas and changed stuff to fit more Tagalog terms while not really bothering to adapt the foreign ideas however useful to Philippine realities. A crucial part in making imported technology (including political and economic technology) work is to… actually make sure it works with what already exists…

                 Reply
                 • Joey Nguyen says:

                   September 28, 2026 at 6:12 pm

                   P.S. it does seem to me that near the end of Rizal’s life his writings started reflecting a realization that good ideas from abroad need to be first adapted to the Philippines, and Filipinos would need to be willingly educated in that adaptation. While Katipunan writings seem to be more from top-down, almost dictatorial viewpoint of “you will change because we are right and we said so.” Well the Katipunan also used Rizal as a token figurehead when convenient and ignored Rizal’s exhortations when inconvenient.

                   Reply
                   • Karl Garcia says:

                     September 28, 2026 at 8:06 pm

                     Thanks good points

                   • Irineo B. R. Salazar says:

                     September 28, 2026 at 10:05 pm

                     The Katipunan was a mix of many influences, with many of its members carrying anting-anting etc., and Bonifacio visiting the alleged cave of Bernardo Carpio to somehow connect to that folk legacy. Dr. Xiao Chua who wrote a book about Bonifacio AND did his Ph.D. on the devotees of the Black Nazarene in Quiapo did postulate that the kapatiran practiced by most of the Katipunan was more like that of the Black Nazarene devotees.

                     As for Rizal, I see the Noli as a uncannily predicting the partial failure of pure reformism a la PNoy, the El Fili and Simoun as somehow foreshadowing Duterte – and Dapitan as the prototype for Angat Buhay, hands-on work with the people, Padre Florentino’s “suffer and work” exhortation to Simoun at the end of El Fili in practice.

                   • Joey Nguyen says:

                     September 29, 2026 at 3:41 am

                     The Katipunan was a mix of many influences, with many of its members carrying anting-anting etc., and Bonifacio visiting the alleged cave of Bernardo Carpio to somehow connect to that folk legacy. Dr. Xiao Chua who wrote a book about Bonifacio AND did his Ph.D. on the devotees of the Black Nazarene in Quiapo did postulate that the kapatiran practiced by most of the Katipunan was more like that of the Black Nazarene devotees.

                     Probably one can say that Katipunan Magdalo faction’s ideology ultimately “won” once the US takeover gave it room to survive. I find it interesting that the former Katipunan chose to elevate the more masa elements of the Magdiwang faction, such as the iconic bolo-wielding Katipunero and anting-anting. Perhaps another example of how elites absorbed the superficial “vocabulary” without changing the underlying beliefs.

                     As for Rizal, I see the Noli as a uncannily predicting the partial failure of pure reformism a la PNoy, the El Fili and Simoun as somehow foreshadowing Duterte – and Dapitan as the prototype for Angat Buhay, hands-on work with the people, Padre Florentino’s “suffer and work” exhortation to Simoun at the end of El Fili in practice.

                     I’m not personally familiar with Cory Aquino but a decade-and-a-half out from PNoy’s presidency, I do wonder if the failures of reform during that time was also due to the liberal elite and educated middle class expectation that the liberal order they enclaved for themselves would be able to be expanded without adaptation. And despite some being “liberal-coded,” I witnessed many who jumped over to Dutertismo. I guess in the end what they wanted was a dictator, but their own dictator, just like what the older cohort thought Marcos Sr. would would bring Singaporean-style “benevolent dictatorship,” completely misunderstanding that LKY was continually democratically elected and was never a dictator.

                     Perhaps the true failures of the small slice of liberal elites is the expectation of a precinct-ward-district-province hierarchy inherited from the Spanish while rural places still operated on the old barangay model. I sense that Leni Robredo through Angat Buhay AND Marcos Jr. are more realistic and realize the need to re-engage the barangay-based relationship network architecture, which might end up more successful, and ultimately more durable.

         • JoeAm says:

           September 26, 2026 at 6:42 am

           This short piece is brilliant. What a clear, concise, totally accurate view of things (in my view) ranging from 1980 to today. Gatekeepers and bypasses. Then and now.

           Reply
           • Joey Nguyen says:

             September 26, 2026 at 6:19 pm

             Thanks Joe. I have only very rarely stayed in hotel accommodations when in the Philippines. One can learn a lot from DEs (and I would add, have a more interesting time as well).

             Reply