FAILED INDOCTRINATION
I am republishing a letter I wrote and submitted to a national broadsheet about my thoughts on an incident during a Senate investigation (I forgot what the issue was all about). It is about my thoughts concerning the Honor Code and were as follows:
The “all right” issue may be trivial to a lot of citizens, including the distinguished alumnus of the PMA who said that is only confined within the cadet corps in Baguio. However, it somehow bothers me as an alumnus of the Academy, class of 1955, that there are some misconceptions as to the applicability of the Honor Code. There are two of them that I would like to take up.
A news item mentioned that some alumni insisted that an “all right” can only be asked by an upperclassman to an underclassman. This is a wrong notion since in the Academy, even a plebe or freshman on guard duty, can challenge any upperclassman an “all right”. In fact, an “all right” challenge is only given during official inspections or investigations. It is not trivialized by using it for informal or personal curiosities. Or in “fishing expeditions” to uncover misdemeanors. As explained quite lengthily by [then] Defense Secretary Reyes during the Question Hour of September 3, the “all right” is used to check on the behavior of cadets usually during Call to Quarters when they are supposed to be in their rooms and studying. However, during critical situations, particularly when an incident of hazing is discovered, the tactical officers do not hesitate to challenge the suspects with an “all right”. The usual question was “did you touch the plebe?” The response to the “all right” must be an unequivocal “yes” or “no” and no quibbling is allowed in the process. I recall [the late] Mr. Romeo Solis, who became a top official of the Budget Commission who was dismissed because he responded truthfully, although his only action was tapping the hazed plebe (who later became Gen. Thomas Manlongat) on the stomach with a pair of empty cotton hop gloves.
The other misconception is the one declared by [then] Senator Biazon when he said that the “all right” is confined only among cadets. I find this declaration as somewhat strange. We spent four years in the Academy and brainwashed every day of our stay in adhering to a Code of Honor, that we are to be always truthful and not to take advantage of another, only to realize that, in the case of [then] Senator Biazon, the indoctrination we underwent is supposed to end as soon as we leave the fences of the Philippine Military Academy! And to think that the purpose of any education is supposed to last us for a lifetime even if any particular subject is merely taken up for a semester or so. It grieves me to think that the Honor Code failed to sink in the moral consciousness of some alumni, when the PMA training is designed to inculcate the principles of “courage, loyalty, integrity.” If so, what a waste of four years under close government tutelage and care.
My own classmate, Brig Gen Alquiza, in his rejoinder to our letter in a national broadsheet, disagrees with our position that it was appropriate for Senator Lacson to challenge Secretary Reyes. Alqui failed to get the implication in Senator Lacson’s action which is to give a clear message to all PMAyers about the real essence of the problem. It is not altogether correct that Senator Lacson trivialized the “all right” when he asked it; he was under immense, albeit, desperate pressure to elicit the truth. Thus, confronted with another PMAyer in the person of Secretary Reyes, Senator Lacson has to demonstrate to all PMA alumni that the matter demands unequivocal answers. He did not have to be reminded that Secretary Reyes was still under oath, but to our perception the latter tended to be equivocal in his responses. He wanted a definite “yes” or “no” to his question. Being under oath is not a deterrent to quibbling, but an “all right” is. Senator Lacson was not playing to the other non-PMA senators and observers he knows will not understand his action; he was addressing the issue to his co-alumni who want to listen and comprehend.
I believe that an alumnus who has the courage to throw a challenge of “all right” during critical situations even if he makes himself vulnerable to the same challenge has assimilated the ideals of the Honor Code. He must have accepted the Honor Code to govern his behavior in life.
September 5, 2001
Perhaps I should add how the Honor Code was observed during my time. Behavior under the Code was such that one may commit all types of misbehavior, but once caught he must respond truthfully to the All Right challenge. The Honor Code, in practice, does not prevent the commission of criminal acts, but once confronted the miscreant must accept the penalty for the offense. A PMAyer, conditioned by the Honor Code, cannot hide behind the defense against “self-incrimination”. He is duty-bound to answer.
I am sure the late Angelo Reyes had grasped the essence of the Honor Code and, in committing suicide, perpetually avoided being challenged the All Right by the alumni in the Senate, or even in the House of Representatives. I, however, doubt if all PMAyers share the same value as the late Angie Reyes. Congressman Biazon had exposed himself way back in 2001 as one who believed that the Honor Code does not cover his life after the Academy. Only the future, as well, will reveal if Senators Honasan and Trillanes still uphold the Honor Code in their lives.
By the way, only alumni who believe in the Honor Code can confront other co-alumni the All Right challenge. Non-alumni cannot expect any useful response; it becomes a trivial question and may be answered in so many trivial ways. The non-alumni challengers may be ignored since they have not shared the same pasts and training of the alumni. On the other hand, alumni non-believers will just ignore the challenge as not worthy of any appropriate response and claim, like Biazon, as being trivial.
I believe the system ought not to be observed this way. Even non-alumni may demand the truth from PMAyers.
As practiced and observed during my cadet days, the Honor Code is a travesty of what the system purports to be: “Not to lie, not to cheat, and not to take advantage of others”. The emphasis is only on “not to lie”, forgetting that the Code forbids all acts of deception. Perhaps, military training does encourage deception, but against enemies. Deceiving our own people in effect treats them as enemies. Corruption is decidedly a system of deception.
The PMA must enforce the concept of the Honor Code in its totality and not merely a piece of it. Somehow, the PMA authorities themselves weakened the Code when they refused to carry out the decision of the Cadet Honor Committee to dismiss two cadets who cheated just because one of them happened to be the son of a top government official. The guilty ones stayed even as they were ostracized by the cadet corps. Ask me not about their fates; I lost interest in their case. As well, I do not know if there were other cases where the PMA authorities chose to be lenient and retain liars so as not to "waste" government funds in educating them. In effect, PMA alumni tend to close eyes on corruption committed by other alumni in our midst even when the obvious is demonstrated. We, PMAyers, are all debased by our silence and tolerance.
Lately, I strongly suspect that my concept of Truth had become anachronistic and supplanted by rigid legal observance of individual rights. Society has been Mirandized where the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination dominates behavior.
The “all right” issue may be trivial to a lot of citizens, including the distinguished alumnus of the PMA who said that is only confined within the cadet corps in Baguio. However, it somehow bothers me as an alumnus of the Academy, class of 1955, that there are some misconceptions as to the applicability of the Honor Code. There are two of them that I would like to take up.
A news item mentioned that some alumni insisted that an “all right” can only be asked by an upperclassman to an underclassman. This is a wrong notion since in the Academy, even a plebe or freshman on guard duty, can challenge any upperclassman an “all right”. In fact, an “all right” challenge is only given during official inspections or investigations. It is not trivialized by using it for informal or personal curiosities. Or in “fishing expeditions” to uncover misdemeanors. As explained quite lengthily by [then] Defense Secretary Reyes during the Question Hour of September 3, the “all right” is used to check on the behavior of cadets usually during Call to Quarters when they are supposed to be in their rooms and studying. However, during critical situations, particularly when an incident of hazing is discovered, the tactical officers do not hesitate to challenge the suspects with an “all right”. The usual question was “did you touch the plebe?” The response to the “all right” must be an unequivocal “yes” or “no” and no quibbling is allowed in the process. I recall [the late] Mr. Romeo Solis, who became a top official of the Budget Commission who was dismissed because he responded truthfully, although his only action was tapping the hazed plebe (who later became Gen. Thomas Manlongat) on the stomach with a pair of empty cotton hop gloves.
The other misconception is the one declared by [then] Senator Biazon when he said that the “all right” is confined only among cadets. I find this declaration as somewhat strange. We spent four years in the Academy and brainwashed every day of our stay in adhering to a Code of Honor, that we are to be always truthful and not to take advantage of another, only to realize that, in the case of [then] Senator Biazon, the indoctrination we underwent is supposed to end as soon as we leave the fences of the Philippine Military Academy! And to think that the purpose of any education is supposed to last us for a lifetime even if any particular subject is merely taken up for a semester or so. It grieves me to think that the Honor Code failed to sink in the moral consciousness of some alumni, when the PMA training is designed to inculcate the principles of “courage, loyalty, integrity.” If so, what a waste of four years under close government tutelage and care.
My own classmate, Brig Gen Alquiza, in his rejoinder to our letter in a national broadsheet, disagrees with our position that it was appropriate for Senator Lacson to challenge Secretary Reyes. Alqui failed to get the implication in Senator Lacson’s action which is to give a clear message to all PMAyers about the real essence of the problem. It is not altogether correct that Senator Lacson trivialized the “all right” when he asked it; he was under immense, albeit, desperate pressure to elicit the truth. Thus, confronted with another PMAyer in the person of Secretary Reyes, Senator Lacson has to demonstrate to all PMA alumni that the matter demands unequivocal answers. He did not have to be reminded that Secretary Reyes was still under oath, but to our perception the latter tended to be equivocal in his responses. He wanted a definite “yes” or “no” to his question. Being under oath is not a deterrent to quibbling, but an “all right” is. Senator Lacson was not playing to the other non-PMA senators and observers he knows will not understand his action; he was addressing the issue to his co-alumni who want to listen and comprehend.
I believe that an alumnus who has the courage to throw a challenge of “all right” during critical situations even if he makes himself vulnerable to the same challenge has assimilated the ideals of the Honor Code. He must have accepted the Honor Code to govern his behavior in life.
September 5, 2001
Perhaps I should add how the Honor Code was observed during my time. Behavior under the Code was such that one may commit all types of misbehavior, but once caught he must respond truthfully to the All Right challenge. The Honor Code, in practice, does not prevent the commission of criminal acts, but once confronted the miscreant must accept the penalty for the offense. A PMAyer, conditioned by the Honor Code, cannot hide behind the defense against “self-incrimination”. He is duty-bound to answer.
I am sure the late Angelo Reyes had grasped the essence of the Honor Code and, in committing suicide, perpetually avoided being challenged the All Right by the alumni in the Senate, or even in the House of Representatives. I, however, doubt if all PMAyers share the same value as the late Angie Reyes. Congressman Biazon had exposed himself way back in 2001 as one who believed that the Honor Code does not cover his life after the Academy. Only the future, as well, will reveal if Senators Honasan and Trillanes still uphold the Honor Code in their lives.
By the way, only alumni who believe in the Honor Code can confront other co-alumni the All Right challenge. Non-alumni cannot expect any useful response; it becomes a trivial question and may be answered in so many trivial ways. The non-alumni challengers may be ignored since they have not shared the same pasts and training of the alumni. On the other hand, alumni non-believers will just ignore the challenge as not worthy of any appropriate response and claim, like Biazon, as being trivial.
I believe the system ought not to be observed this way. Even non-alumni may demand the truth from PMAyers.
As practiced and observed during my cadet days, the Honor Code is a travesty of what the system purports to be: “Not to lie, not to cheat, and not to take advantage of others”. The emphasis is only on “not to lie”, forgetting that the Code forbids all acts of deception. Perhaps, military training does encourage deception, but against enemies. Deceiving our own people in effect treats them as enemies. Corruption is decidedly a system of deception.
The PMA must enforce the concept of the Honor Code in its totality and not merely a piece of it. Somehow, the PMA authorities themselves weakened the Code when they refused to carry out the decision of the Cadet Honor Committee to dismiss two cadets who cheated just because one of them happened to be the son of a top government official. The guilty ones stayed even as they were ostracized by the cadet corps. Ask me not about their fates; I lost interest in their case. As well, I do not know if there were other cases where the PMA authorities chose to be lenient and retain liars so as not to "waste" government funds in educating them. In effect, PMA alumni tend to close eyes on corruption committed by other alumni in our midst even when the obvious is demonstrated. We, PMAyers, are all debased by our silence and tolerance.
Lately, I strongly suspect that my concept of Truth had become anachronistic and supplanted by rigid legal observance of individual rights. Society has been Mirandized where the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination dominates behavior.
posted by myvja at
10:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home