Sports: Islanders The Original 'Azkals'

Islanders: the original 'Azkals' 

THE GAME OF MY LIFE By Bill Velasco (The Philippine Star) 

  

Long before the Philippines had a football team the country could rally around, there was a bunch of intrepid young men who were thrown together, then cast into the first of international competitions they weren’t really prepared for. But they acquitted themselves incredibly well in a team sport just discovered by an adoring public, and made a name for themselves and their country internationally.

In 1934, organizers of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games held a meeting to discuss the rules for the new sport to be played as part of Adolph Hitler’s display of Aryan might. Though the rules were vastly different from the game we recognize today, this was basketball in its nascent form, and the Philippines was sending a team.

At the time, there were only two basketball courts in the territory now known as Metro Manila, the more popular one at the Manila YMCA, where a mall now stands. The sport of choice for the affluent was baseball, also introduced in schools by American educators. The less fortunate ran track. Though basketball was originally considered an effeminate sport by Filipinos, it was starting to catch on among young men who played it in the streets. In fact, Olympic team member Jacinto Ciria Cruz, known then as “Jumping Jack”, was so enamored of the sport that even when his father hid all his pants to keep him from leaving the house, he simply pulled down his sleeveless undershirt, and used a safety pin to hold its ends together between his legs so he could play.

A 26-year old lawyer named Ambrosio Padilla, two years retired from the game primarily for lack of competition and the need to pursue his career, was recalled to captain the team. In two interviews with this writer in 1987 and 1988, he recounted the first Philippine Olympic basketball team’s achievements in vivid detail more than 40 years later.

“At first, we really didn’t know each other that well,” admitted the former senator and Philippine Olympic Committee president in those conversations. “We had our differences in background and upbringing, but we were also excited to play in the Olympics.”

The first major hurdle our team faced was getting to the Olympics on time. Remember, there were no commercial flights in the days leading up to World War II. The players spent three weeks onboard a ship just to get to Paris. They endured seasickness, the lack of rice, boredom, loneliness and their primary piece of equipment – a basketball – falling into the ocean. There was still no television and for long stretches, not even radio broadcasts or even newspapers.

“But that was how we got to know one another,” Padilla explained. “There was nothing else to do except talk. And we were all dying to play.”

The ordeal wasn’t over. From Paris, the squad spent one more week crammed into tiny compartments on a train to Berlin. Needless to say, by the time they arrived at the Games, they were ready to run roughshod over anyone standing in their way.

There were many historical touchstones in Berlin. James Naismith, the father of the game of basketball, was there, his signature on the players’ ID badges. Adi Dassler was still hand-making shoes for German athletes in the infancy of his global brand, adidas. And of course, Hitler had hired the best filmmakers in the world to document what he thought would be his greatest triumph, though he would be embarrassed by the four gold medals won in record-breaking fashion by Jesse Owens.

Then something strange happened. In the days when the game was being played on dirt, had no shot clock, and where every basket resulted in a jumpball, this platoon of handsome, mysterious young men from a small archipelago started grabbing attention. German teen-agers swooned and handed them scented love letters begging for clandestine rendezvous. The wealthy were inviting them to parties. People were putting down their newspapers because our boys played a faster game. And they were nudging other events out of sports page headlines. They were christened “The Islanders” from the Philippine Islands. Though scores rarely surpassed the high teens in those days, the Filipinos’ games became events, complete with their own mobs of shrieking blonde or brunette fans who didn’t understand any language the player spoke.

“I think people were surprised by us, by how well we played,” Padilla remembered, recounting the scores of every game The Islanders played. “People wanted to meet us. It was a great experience.”

Sadly, the unblemished record would be tainted by two unfair decisions made on the spot by tournament organizers. First, the US, which did not attend the organizational meeting two years earlier, had twice as many players as allowed, including four over the 6’2” height limit. One of them was a 6’8” All-American named Joe Fortenberry, who was also allowed to play. With the numerous jumpball situations, this provided an unfair advantage for the Americans.

Secondly, the schedule as originally envisioned was too long. Desperate to find a way to shorten the tournament midstream, organizers decided that from that point onwards, each team that suffered a loss would be demoted to the consolation bracket, and would not be able to medal. As luck would have it, The Islanders’ next opponent was the US, whose size was overwhelming. It was a standard practice for to hold onto the ball for as long as possible once they had built any kind of lead.

Despite suffering just that loss, the Philippines was relegated to fifth place and watched as the United States thrashed Canada in a rain-soaked, muddy gold-medal game. Though they still faced the prospect of a month-long return journey home, The Islanders held their heads high. They not only proved they could beat the world at this new game, they also captured the hearts and imaginations of spectators from around the world.

http://www.philstar.com/SportsArticle.aspx?articleId=704951&publicationSubCategoryId=69

Social Reflections: The Lure of Authoritarian Rule

        In 39th anniversary of the proclamation of Martian Law (no one in the media report it with importance), I will post an article by Inquirer columnist and sociologist Randolf David. His take on why we succumb to Martial Law easily is still relevant today. I saw this lack of discipline too when I applied for my NBI clearance (I waited from 6 AM to 3PM). Is it the lack of discipline of the mass or the other way around. Or is it the both the elites and mass lack discipline. My analysis is that we were caught in a situation where taking martial law is the best option to solve our problem. We paid dearly for it as our LEADERS LACK DISCIPLINE ALSO. The lure of authoritarian rule depends on the vigilance of the citizens and maybe their wisdom. Wise and vigilant leaders would not allow megalomaniacs to rule them with impunity. It leaves to be scene here just like getting that NBI Clearance.

The lure of authoritarian rule

By: Randy David

Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 21, 2011

          At one of the medical missions organized by my brother Bishop Pablo David for the Aeta and indigent folks of a remote barrio in Bataan, I saw in a graphic way the different stages in which social order in our society is stuck. Young and middle-aged people jostled against one another to have their names listed at the registration desk.  Their inability to fall in line, wait for their turn, and observe simple rules defined their general behavior. At the outermost lane, a handful of senior citizens watched indifferently as they stayed in the lane reserved for them.  Quietly huddled in a corner, away from the bedlam, were about a dozen Aetas, kept close to one another by their leader, a woman, who spoke for the whole group.

      Thirty-nine years ago, Ferdinand Marcos pointed precisely to the prevailing disorder and lack of discipline in Philippine society to justify the imposition of martial law.  Proclamation 1081 highlighted the alleged existence of a Left-Right conspiracy of “communists and oligarchs” against the Republic in order to establish the legal ground for emergency rule.  But, it wasn’t this that moved a large segment of the Filipino public to view the inception of authoritarian rule in a positive light so much as the sense that the nation had lost its way and needed a strongman to lead it back to the right path.

          The draconian measures that Marcos ordered under martial rule had the instant effect of creating a sense of predictability and safety in the streets.  The imposition of a curfew curtailed all night life.  It brought families back together for evening meals.  The ban on all kinds of weapons and military visibility everywhere reduced crime overnight. Government offices became more attentive to the public. The police showed a renewed devotion to their tasks and vigorously went after dealers and peddlers of illicit drugs.  Of course, the nation lived in fear, but people gradually accepted restrictions in their daily life as a condition for the order and calm that replaced the rallies and bombings of the preceding period.

The regime popularized the mantra of discipline as a prerequisite to development. This went hand in hand with the enhancement of national pride through programs aimed at inculcating an appreciation of the country’s official history.  Buildings meant to showcase Filipino culture and talent were constructed one after the other, with the objective of projecting the return of the Filipino nation to the world stage.

In this, Marcos was echoing trends that had already taken root in most of Asia—in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea.  In September 1972, the Philippines stood alone as a dysfunctional democracy in a region that was witnessing the success of a model of repressive developmentalism enforced by dictators and technocrats.

          Marcos was particularly impressed by South Korea’s Park Chunghee, a stern leader who led an ascetic life. Taking his cue from Park’s strategic program to nurture a Korean national bourgeoisie under the wings of a strong state, Marcos chose close associates like Eduardo Cojuangco, Roberto Benedicto and Herminio Disini and gave them special treatment.  In South Korea they were known as the “chaebol”—state-sponsored business groups that spearheaded Korean industrialization.  In the Philippines, they earned the disdainful label “crony capitalists.”

          Marcos’ experiment ended in failure.  Unlike Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chunghee, who managed to preserve the image of a clean and willful leader, Marcos went down in history as the corrupt head of an insatiable kleptocracy made up of cronies, generals and kinsmen.  His “New Society” was buffeted by the phenomenal increase in the price of imported petroleum products and the decline in the prices of sugar and coconut oil, the country’s primary exports.  Rising interest rates in financial markets abroad and massive defaults by developing countries made it difficult for the regime to service its growing indebtedness.  Marcos’ own health faltered, creating uncertainty about his political successor.

          I think it is simplistic to view martial law as having been driven merely by one man’s selfish attempt to install himself as president for life.  The motive was certainly there.  But it does not explain why intelligent and sensible individuals like the historian and educator Onofre D. Corpuz, the economist Gerardo Sicat, the financial expert Cesar Virata, the intelligence analyst Alejandro Melchor, and many other technocrats like them, joined his Cabinet.  They could indeed have been seduced by power, but it is also likely that they believed in the experiment’s promise and potential.

         At the core of this belief might have been the perception that Philippine society had been held back too long by a feudal class that kept a fatal grip on the country’s political and economic life.  That class had been the main cause of the country’s backwardness and the people’s poverty. Its old way of ruling no longer commanded the loyalty of the young generation. This generation however had not fully internalized the rules of a modern society.  The expectation was that authoritarian rule would not only end feudalism, it would also forestall chaos in the transition to modernity.

          Such has been the promise of authoritarianism.  Its appeal to reformers remains so long as the many fail to see any good reason to fall in line, wait for their turn, respect the rights of others, and refrain from demanding undue exemption from the rules.

public.lives@gmail.com

Megalomaniac

The First Philippine Dictator: Manuel "El Presidente" Quezon

          Tomorrow, we will remember the late President Marcos' declaration of Martial Law which began a new era in the Philippine politics (political historians will agree that it is an important period in Philippine history). A nation known for being resilient then in democracy (most Third World countries then are succumbing to dictatorship either from the leftist or rightist elements) finally was caught in this worldwide trend that was called as the Second Reverse Wave of Democracy. How we got into this despite the fact that we have a democratic regime planted by the Americans three decades earlier? For some experts, it is quite perplexing how the country got in to this. Yet if we look at the events before that martial law, we see clear view of our society. Are we really a democratic nation before? Does our society and culture have what Almond and Verba called the "civic culture" that is conducive to democratic development? Lande, an eminent Philippine scholar, might agree but only to the point that democratic values was based more on the seemingly equal relationship of the padrino and the masa. We are but not in the modern sense. I agree that we have some semblance of  a democracy because we play its games such as popular elections but not its values such as citizenship, cooperation and civility. And this was manifest by the political leadership of the most important politician before martial law, the first president of the 1935 Constitution, Manuel L. Quezon. He is the Philippines's first real dictator (Emilio Aguinaldo used to be called as such but in reality he is weak) as shown by his behaviors. It is not clear if Marcos look at him during his youth. What is common from both of this two is their charisma that dominated Philippine politics in their time.

The Gentleman from Tayabas

         It is maybe we are not that democratic at all. In fact we are more conducive for the emergence of pinuno and lider who wield are great leaders. The problem is if that leaders became obsessed with power like Marcos and his predecessor, Manuel Quezon, the FIRST FILIPINO DICTATOR. Manuel Quezon, the gentleman from a middle class family in Baler, Tayabas (now in Aurora which is named after his wife while Tayabas is changed to Quezon in his honor) was breed in the only university then, the University of Santo Tomas. He is known as the "Father of the National Language" even if he didn't speak Tagalog (the core of the   lingua franca Filipino). Probably also, he is the most famous heroes after Rizal because a province, city, some buildings and streets were named after him. And he is in the twento-peso bill. But because of history, his corruption (not in taking in people's money but in power of controlling people) is buried. A new image is created for him, one which is better. He didn't live that long as Marcos (he died of a disease in New York during World War II) for time to expose his true character. Only the good things of him remains and his families don't enter politics (unlike Marcos children). That alone gave him that good memories for him.

Why he is the First DICTATOR?

1) He always wants to be the only star in Philippine politics. When his rival Osmena was getting the limelight for getting the independence bill from the US, he stepped in. In fact, the Tydings-Mcduffie law that give us independence law from America was a copycat of the works of Osmena. Quezon wants to receive credit first and no other else.

2)He removed persons he didn't like.The removal of an American Governor-General is a doing of his machinations because that person disapproved of Quezon's tendency to be a dictator. He also removed the Americans in the colonial bureaucracy with Filipinos who supported him. He once quipped, "I would rather see the Philippines run like hell by Filipinos than run like heaven by the Americans. Spoils system in the Philippines is planted because of him. 

3) He amended (and tried to) the 1935 Constitution a numerous times. Before Marcos, there was someone who tried to bend the constitution for his interest. In fact, one could argue that he had lived, he might lift the term limits or change the charter just for him to rule perpetually. I don't know if Quezon had influence on Marcos but let's note that Marcos' thesis, "The Constitutional Dictatorship" (a treatise on a dictator who derived legitimacy through a charter) was written when Quezon is in power. When he is dying, he refused Quezon to be an Acting Presidency.

4) He created a one-party state. Together with rival Osmena, they created the Nacionalista Party. There are other parties then as well but Nacionalista always won the elections in big margins making them the ONLY STRONG PARTY and the Philippines A ONE PARTY STATE (before Singapore, Malaysia and Japan adapted it). After his death, his party would splinter and created a new one, the Liberal Party. His party reflects the party system in the Philippines (even today), where parties revolve around a strongman and will flounder after his demise (remember Lakas, Puwersa ng Masa etc).

5) He tamed the local elites. Knowing the awesome power of the local elites in making or breaking the chances of national politicians, he enacted measures to control them. He amended the constitution to allow senators to be elected nationally, not regionally. He knows that as a group, the local politicians are strong. But when weakened and fragmented, they become weak and is easily controlled by the president. His style on local government is similar to what contemporary politicians still do today.

His Legacy to a Young Nation and to the FUTURE

           The greatest legacy of Quezon his the national language. By the stroke of the pen, he created a national language Filipino. He also proved that Filipinos could rule itself (even if it is bad). With compassion to the poor and the middle class, he bought the Tambobong and Diliman estate of the wealthy Tuazon family to serve as a residential area for the middle class and some government offices. Those two estates is now Quezon City. He also shows that our leaders could be a model for development and a source of inspiration. He lead the nation during World War II. Probably we need his iron hands to lead us during those dark days of the war. His leadership is needed when the Commonwealth is laying the foundation of the bureaucracy by building bureaucracies, factories, roads, hospitals and a national army. Problem is, our current leaders only see the corrupt, personalistic side of Quezon. Quezon, despite his tendency to be authoritarian, also look at the Filipino people. He knows the masa is still not ready for democracy and need guidance. He started the first agrarian reform program in Philippine history (a popular myth is that he freed his tenants and gave them land). Its a good thing his son and grandsons didn't enter politics. Instead, they became journalist. His legacy still leaves. A piece of history is good but let's use the good side it for us to apply and not the bad one.