'There’s a flip side to this: “Don’t expect to be loved any longer by the one you’re no longer with.”'
'There’s a flip side to this: “Don’t expect to be loved any longer by the one you’re no longer with.”'
The above song lyric, from the great CSN&Y band, was originally directed at folks torn between two lovers, one of whom is either far away or in the past. It ought to resonate especially loudly with the many, many philandering Filipino husbands who seem to think that faithful monogamy is just a suggestion and not a Divine commandment.
Today the lyric comes up in the context, again, of a beloved who’s no longer available, whether geographically or historically. But now I’m talking about Filipinos living and working overseas, and the deep divide between those who’re abroad permanently or just temporarily—as well as between those who can be found in the West and those who aren’t—with respect to their feelings and entitlements regarding the motherland.
This came to my mind after news came out about the so-called Magnitsky law and how it was allegedly invoked by US Senators Durban and Leahy—within the language of no less than the US budget act for next year—in order to deny US entry to Philippine government officials who might be linked by “credible information” to the alleged persecution of detained Philippine Senator de Lima.
The qualifier “alleged” is emphasized in both cases above. As to the “persecution” of de Lima, that no longer applies when our Supreme Court no less already voted in favor of her detention, by a 9-5 majority. One may quibble about the speediness of her trial, but not about a SC-sanctioned detention—unless one happens to be a know-it-all Fil-Am (but more on that later).
As to the two US senators’ actions, I came across a FB post by the redoubtable UA&P law professor Jemy Gatdula, who said he has scoured the entire US budget act of 2019—all 700-plus pages of it—and found no specific reference to De Lima’s case, let alone the levying of sanctions around it. If he’s right, one may quibble about the failure of government lawyers to read the document too themselves before shooting their mouths off. But, as above, that’s another story, too.
* * *
It’s well known that overseas Filipinos are a big reason for Duterte’s popularity ever since he took office in 2016—a popularity that reached 87 percent this month, practically unheard-of for any president after his or her halfway point in office.
But the dynamics behind his numbers abroad are more interesting. The President is popular among the OFWs—people who are abroad only temporarily, who expect to come back home sooner or later, and who cannot—or will not—irrevocably sever their umbilical cord. Most of them are found in the Middle East and nearby Asian neighbors, and to a lesser extent in Europe and other parts.
To such OFWs, their host country will always be different from their homeland, which is where their families—their raison d’etre for being—still live. These are folks who still wear their Filipino identity matter-of-factly. For them, Duterte is still “their” president because he is in fact that—by legal definition, by filial domicile, by unabandoned allegiances and shared values.
On the other side of the divide are the permanent immigrants and the holders of non-Philippine passports, especially those in the United States. These folks have already brought over their families to build a whole new home in another country. Their allegiances have shifted, their values are changing, their children will no longer be like them. And that is the way it should be, as CSN&Y remind us: Love the one you’re with.
But what’s distressing about many of them is the unspoken habit they’ve adopted of looking down on the Philippines just because they’ve moved to a superior country (and in strictly material terms, that’s true indeed). Because they’re demonstrably better off, they think this entitles them to administer advice to a foreign country half the world away. And because they still look like the natives of that foreign country, they even claim the benefit of the doubt as to the sincerity of their intentions.
These are the folks who’re cheering that the Magnitsky Law may now exclude from the US even the venerable justices of our Supreme Court who voted against De Lima. They’re rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Duterte somehow being “brought to justice” someday before unelected foreign courts. And if you talk to them about his popularity, they roll their eyes at the thought: What else would you expect from a benighted people like us?
Yes, as CSN&Y remind us, love the one you’re with. But there’s a flip side to that: Don’t expect to be loved any longer by the one you’re no longer with.
* * *
The daily Gospels during this Christmas season continue to build upon the Nativity narrative of December 24-25. Last Sunday and Monday we were told about the flight from Egypt of the Holy Family and their return to Nazareth, where Luke tells us that “the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him” (Lk 2: 40).
Today we are presented with an entirely different view of Jesus by John, the most mystical of the four Gospel writers. In the luminous opening to his book (Jn 1: 1-18), we are reminded, not of Christ’s human history, but of His Divine origin and nature:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God…What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Writing later in a short treatise (1 Jn 2: 18-21), the same John in the first Mass reading talks a bit more about that darkness and its personification: “Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.”
By those standards, we can indeed find many antichrists among us today, some better-known than others. Is it at all possible to find—as I asked last week—common ground with them, no matter how small, in order to build together a better secular world, while still managing to abide by the strictures of our faith? That, I’m afraid, is the challenge we’re presented with.
Happy New Year to everyone!
Readers can write me at gbolivar1952@yahoo.com.