> red-tagging? or misplaced rebuttals?
IS THIS HOW THIS CONCERN SHOULD BE SEEN? given the situation, it was stated that ms. pricia abella was visited for a "pagpapangaral", which means a casual advice-giving. however, in the eyes of someone outside of internal turmoil concerns, it would seem like a blatant oppression of expressing one's ideals.
allow me to give a conceptual analysis of an outsider's perspective: there is nothing wrong with the subject of concern that lead to ms. abella's summons, she is only presenting her ideas as a student running for a position in leadership--she had to be strong given the controversies and issues surrounding the partylist she is in. it is an open ideology, and it is her right to think like so. it is her way to present her iron-clad mindset in order to protect her fellow students and future constituents from being called out by the governmental forces for the alleged retaliation to authority, standing with the fact that it is our right to use our freedom of speech in all forms.
now that it is out of the way, let's delve deeper and reconstruct the mindset of those who are inside the authority's business in layman's terms: the group/s that ms. abella is/are in have shady (?) backgrounds. to think that she is a candidate to lead the student masses is alarming, not only due to them being affiliated/allied with groups with objectives beyond common knowledge, but also having students join a movement just because it is "right" or it is for the greater or common good without having their own, unbiased criticisms and decisions. it is the duty of the authority to uphold superficial integrity and honor to an extent, and it is being breached. we ought to impart the intel that we have so that we could prevent more dispute within the authority and the constituents. it is our duty to control, not to command (yet they can't seem to grasp the difference, but that's another story) the people of concern. this is our sworn duty, this is our stand. we are to talk about it in order to negotiate and meet in the middle.
however, the stigma of the matters between the authority and the civilians are at play, the principles are always colliding with one another, ideals clashing against ideals. As long as that is not settled, the cycle of the rise and fall of these warring factions will never end—the legitimate government will never snuff out the perfectly distributed triumvirate pawns completely, just as the triumvirate itself will stay out of the legitimate government's grasp due to the blind spots that their archenemy have strategically placed.
in the light of settling things, settling is not the right term, but rather a generalization for trashing unnecessary things and coming to an agreement that both parties have now a united thought. i wouldn't say settled because in my understanding, saying that things are "settled" would mean that a certain topic or discussion will be dropped, never to be discussed again. humans have this innate characteristic of uniqueness, no matter how similar they seem. that is how they are referred to as individuals, with the pretense of having individuality. thus, things will never be completely settled due to certain things that will still have connections to the supposedly "settled" matter because each human has their own way of perceiving things. one might be done with the topic and is capable of setting it aside without seeing another matter as a causal result of the past discussion, the other might see it as a remnant of the latter.
going back to ms. abella's case, it is a definitive example of that stigma in action. i'm not insinuating that it's not wrong, nor it is right; in my opinion, nothing is ever perfectly right or wrong, only reason—it is more like something that had to be seen in a wider scope. they have their respective reasons, and it really isn't what you think. it goes beyond that—why did she say things that expresses her disagreement with the legitimate government's ideals and principles? why did the legitimate authority approach her for a talk? those questions must be posed in order for these two sides of the same coin to at least meet in the middle. after all, they are humans who can create and present reasons before they came to be in their respective positions in the state. with that being said, it's true enough that it seems to be quite hard to understand when you've got a predetermined set of principles, and that is exactly why a utopian concept of a state will never be attained.
as long as these factions stay in the cage of their own principles despite being "open" for negotiations, the cycle of dispute that has been spun for almost half a century will never stop spinning—as long as the scions of these respective factions stay within the binds of their invisible chains, as long as they see meeting in the middle and setting aside morals from politics as a form of betrayal, the notion of attaining utopia must be forgotten.
articles coming soon:
> csg's miting de avance 2021
> principles of command and control
> the philippine "triumvirate"
