Philippines
Editor’s note: Because Manny Pacquiao is officially in the ring for president of the Philippines, we thought we would repost this piece in 2019 and Bloomberg’s current analysis.
Manny Pacquiao is not my hero, nor is Duterte
International News, Politics, Religion / July 22, 2019
Philippine Canadian News.Com (PCN.Com)
Manny Paquiao is a known gay basher and womanizer just like Duterte. (Facebook image)
Ed’s note: Because the internet is today awash with praises for Manny Pacquiao, it is good to see the real man behind the image. For me, he is not a hero and I don’t feel proud of him just because of his boxing prowess. People who adore him and Rodrigo Duterte who is the ‘misogynist-in-chief’ do not deserved to be acknowledged in my books.
Manny Pacquiao: boxer, senator, bigot
When he used his power, renown, and privilege to actively rob us of our rights and our humanity, it is only fair that we refuse this convenient compartmentalization and rob him of the things that put him there in the first place.
Rappler.com
Published 10:30 PM, July 16, 2018
Updated 11:00 PM, September 19, 2018
MANILA, Philippines – I grew up watching Manny Pacquiao fight. This also meant growing up with the myth surrounding the man.
For as long as I can remember, when he gets into the ring, the streets turn empty and crime is stalled. An entire nation roots for the underdog from General Santos. Pacquiao is the People’s Champ, the Pambansang Kamao. His victories were ours and his losses were our painful blows.
But the hero has evolved, and so has his story.
This time, in the wake of the pugilist-turned-politician’s recent victory against Argentinian Lucas Matthysse, the usual celebration was marred as we asked ourselves a difficult question: can we separate Manny the politician from Manny the boxer?
Over the years we’ve seen how he has used his fame and fortune in the ring to propel him to a seat in Congress and later, the Senate. His lackluster term as a legislator has been criticized for dismal attendance, a series of disappointing policy positions against reproductive health and anti-discrimination, and a regressive lobby for the death penalty (READ: Death by hanging? Pacquiao jokes, ‘Sisipain lang po ‘yung upuan’).
Yet, despite the evolution of his narrative, there are still those who insist that we can give credit where credit is due and separate the athlete from the public servant.
Is such a distinction even possible?
Is it necessary to separate the two when one leads to the other?
When he dehumanized members of the LGBT community by calling them “mas masahol sa hayop” (worse than animals), who was talking? The politician or the boxer?
Is his bigotry a function of his profession? Would he believe otherwise as a boxer? Or does it speak of who he is and his beliefs as a person?
When he broke his promise to leave boxing to focus on public service, he, in effect, already scrapped that distinction.
When he used his power, renown, and privilege to actively rob us of our rights and our humanity, it is only fair that we refuse this convenient compartmentalization and rob him of the things that put him there in the first place.
No more recognition. No more praise. Enough!
The scars of his bigotry will stay with us long after he hangs up his gloves and the crowd stops chanting his name. For there is no separation to be made when we confront the fact that, yes, talented individuals are capable of monstrous things.
To choose to look at his boxing career over everything else is an act of privilege. That’s probably because you’ve not been told that you did not deserve to live or that you’re blinded by the glitz of gold and fame.
Not me. Not many of us who feel this gnawing discomfort as we confront the fact that our poster child for Pinoy Pride is equally capable of sheer incompetence and hatred.
If we wish to dismantle the toxic fragile masculinity that permeates the fabric of our society, we must stop compartmentalizing and making excuses for bigoted machismo.
This isn’t the first time we’ve made excuses for shallow patriarchal displays.
Our president has solicited kisses onstage.
Our national basketball team found themselves in the thick of a brawl.
We attempted to brush these off as “Filipino culture.”
We’ve mistaken patriotism for unqualified support for any and all things that our countrymen do, disregarding the fact that patriotism comes with accountability. Without it, patriotism loses its meaning.
Patriotism requires of us self-introspection, asking the hard questions, and confronting calls to become better than who we are.
Pinoy Pride and Filipino culture in its current state is rife with toxic manifestations of machismo and will continue to be so as long as we refuse to acknowledge it exists at the expense of those in the margins.
We do not owe those in power.
We need to demand better of our role models.
In the case of Pacquiao, when his name is up in lights, we see “bigot,” not “boxer.”
As Filipinos, our biggest fights are out of the ring: the fight for justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of all. Manny Pacquiao is not our champion. – rappler.com
Related: https://www.rappler.com/nation/142561-bishop-david-pacquiao-bible-death-penalty
Bloomberg
Politics & Policy
Manny Pacquiao Isn’t the Hero the Philippines Needs
A celebrity presidency would extend the strongman-savior syndrome holding the country back. Look instead to the Aquino model.
By Matthew Brooker + Follow
September 25, 2021, 5:00 PM PDT
The presidency is one title bout Manny Pacquiao should lose. Photographer: Christian Petersen/Getty
Manny Pacquiao is running to be president of the Philippines. In a country obsessed with celebrity culture, the candidacy of its most famous son feels as inevitable as night following day. That’s reason enough for caution.
Pacquiao, or “Pac-Man,” is rightly regarded as a hero. A lightning-quick boxer of exceptional aggression and bravery, he is the only man to have held titles at eight different weight divisions, and ranks among the greatest of all time in his sport. The 42-year-old also has a compelling life story, having grown up in extreme poverty in the southern Philippines. Pacquiao presents himself as a champion of the poor and has been feted regularly for his philanthropy. What’s not to like?
Plenty, actually. There’s his lack of legislative accomplishment as a congressman and senator; his support of President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, a campaign of extrajudicial killings in which tens of thousands may have died; his illiberal policy positions on social issues. Whatever the candidate’s personal qualities and good intentions, a Pacquiao presidency would represent an extension of the strongman-savior syndrome that has done much to hold the Philippines back.
A small vignette serves to illustrate the nature of the country’s choice. The news of Pacquiao’s candidacy brought back memories of a pair of interviews that this writer attended during the 2010 campaign, and the contrast they evoked.
The first was with Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, at the family’s house in Quezon City. Although political royalty, Aquino was a reluctant candidate who entered the race on a wave of nostalgia for his mother, former President Corazon Aquino, following her death from cancer. Better known as Cory, she had toppled dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the “people power” revolution of 1986.
The informal atmosphere and relative modesty of the surroundings were striking. The arrival of a stranger with a suitcase might reasonably have been regarded as a security risk, in a country where political violence is far from unknown (Noynoy’s father, a Marcos critic, was assassinated three years before his mother’s victory). No one seemed bothered. The freshly arrived journalist from Hong Kong was ushered into the living room, suitcase and all. It was a homely space, decorated with still-life pictures of flowers and fruit painted by Cory Aquino.
As an interviewee, Aquino was unimpressive. He didn’t radiate charisma, or demonstrate any notable eloquence. In a follow-up discussion in a back room, after the TV cameras had gone, he appeared more interested in talking about the iniquities of his rival, real estate developer Manuel Villar, than painting a vision for the country he was about to lead.
The second interview was with Pacquiao, who was then supporting Villar. The bureau got word that Pacquiao would be shooting a campaign commercial at one of the tycoon’s properties in downtown Manila, and there might be an opportunity for a brief meeting once they had finished.
The men with guns on the door were the first clue that this was a rather different crowd. Once inside, several dreary hours followed during which there was little to do apart from study the bling adorning the boxer’s entourage. No one was unfriendly, but the vibe was ostentatious. It couldn’t have been further from the relaxed and understated ambience of the Aquino household.
Once free to talk, Pacquiao himself created a positive impression, coming across as softly spoken, humble and sincere as he outlined his campaign for congress and desire to help the poor.
Pacquiao’s endorsement wasn’t enough for Villar. Aquino won easily, a reputation for probity and decency more than compensating for his unalluring persona, and went on to become a successful president. It isn’t an unblemished legacy, and his failure to improve infrastructure and tackle law and order arguably enabled the turn toward autocratic populism under Duterte. But the Philippine economy performed well during his tenure, the country gained investment-grade status from credit-rating agencies, and its ranking on Transparency International’s Corruption Index improved. Aquino died in June at the age of 61.
There may be a lesson here. Reluctant leaders can sometimes make the most effective ones. Unburdened by obtrusive egos, they may be more inclined to delegate to technocrats, more concerned with the soundness of policies than personal glory, and less dogmatic. More charismatic leaders driven by a sense of mission may all too easily turn into demagogues. At worst, they may prove distractions who satisfy a celebrity-loving people’s need for drama without tackling the more important underlying issues of development. The Philippines has been down this road before with the calamitous, short-lived presidency of Joseph Estrada, a former tough-guy movie actor popular with the underprivileged who was later ousted and convicted of corruption.
Pacquiao isn’t among the frontrunners in opinion polls, but it would be dangerous to discount a candidate with his fame — or the vast wealth that his boxing career has generated. At the same time, he isn’t the only candidate with a rags-to-riches story, as Mark Thompson, a professor of politics and director of the Southeast Asia Research Centre at City University in Hong Kong, noted. Isko Moreno, a former garbage collector and (naturally) movie actor, also has the advantage of a record of accomplishment as mayor of Manila, where he “can point to the competence he demonstrated during the Covid-19 pandemic,” Thompson said.
Having broken with Duterte, the biggest significance of Pacquiao’s candidacy may be to divide the vote of the ruling PDP-Laban party and thereby allow the return to a more progressive political agenda. It’s a split decision that could be the boxer’s greatest service to his country.
Pacquiao is a big joke. He commissioned Mike Hanopol to write three Hebrew songs, then absconded him of the measly P50.000 payment. What a jack-ass. His HUBRIS is overflowing, and if he doesn’t mend his ways, he’ll be facing PEREPETEIA sooner or later. With a Grade 4 education, what do we expect? The nerve to run as president. We’re trying to get rid of RPs SERIAL KILLER of a president, then here’s another one who thinks he is holier-than-thou by quoting the Old Testament like a parrot—to drag the country into the gutter down the cesspool. Enough is enough. I hope the Filipinos better use their brain to choose a president they deserve, not the garbage that ran the country for 6 years of foul-mouthing everyone. Welcome to THE HAGUE. His grand vacation with ICC is coming soon. May he rot to kingdom come.