One cannot be in an Organization and refuse to be a Team Player

by Marciano Paroy Jr.

That’s a complete statement there – minus the period.

This observation has recently been bugging me – and I remember a student of mine whom I once advised to convene her fellows within a group that they were planning to put up at KASC. There was a directive from the Director of Students Services and Admission (DSSA) – Dr. Adoracion Taguba – that newly organized groups must submit their constitution and by-laws prior to their being accredited by her office (in the past, organizations were simply formed, with the list of members submitted to her office). A good directive, considering that some organizations and clubs are non-performing.

So I instructed the student to call for a meeting and set as one of the agenda the formulation of the group’s CBL – the composition of those who shall hammer out the provisions to be contained within the CBL, the subsequent presentation to the whole body, the eventual ratification, and the holding of election of officers.

Much to my surprise, the student – after just a day – came to see me and dropped the CBL on my table, with a self-satisfied air. I asked how her group could have made such an output in record time. She said, again with that smugness that reminded me of both Didi and Dexter (of the TV show “Dexter’s Laboratory”), “I did it alone.”
I nearly fell off my chair. A convolution of emotions almost knocked me out: crestfallen, perplexed, disappointed, amused, slightly angered, and some other feelings I could not put a name to. I then pulled the student aside and gave her a lecture on proper behavior and decorum that must be observed if one is to be a part of an organization.

Power-playing. That is what my student applied. She took it upon herself to single-handedly formulate the CBL without recognizing the fact that there are other thinkers within their proposed organization. Even assuming that she was the most intellectually gifted among her peers, it was still wrong for her to presuppose that what she had in mind will be approved anyway by the larger group. Even if the output would, in due course, be given the necessary votes by her fellows, it is completely unethical to put others in the sideline and work alone – then later show them the finished product.

Let us assume that the finished product is perfect in itself. There is nothing wrong with it, right? It cuts time that would otherwise be spent on a lot of jabs and freewheeling discussion. But these are incidents that can be avoided. That is why we have the terms discussion, argument, debate, and dialogue – all designed to summon the best thoughts out of the mental recesses of other people involved. If such opportunity of sitting down as a group is disregarded, then the rule of consensus is ignored – and remember that consensus is a highly priced commodity in an organization.

The student’s action, furthermore, speaks a lot about her. First, she exposed her authoritative stance and her lack of belief on her peers. Second, she already gave a preview of what she might be capable of doing once she will be given the reigns to lead her group.

Nevertheless, the proposed CBL was presented to the prospective members of the organization. During the meeting, there was an immediate backlash. All hell broke loose. From my corner in the room, I sat engrossed at the ability of students to verbally and noisily express themselves – an automatic phenomenon that is displayed by students whenever they perceive that their rights are sidestepped. And believe me, we have so many incidents of this sort at KASC.

The student who had the nerve to railroad the entire procedure to her advantage found herself at the receiving end of a hostile verbal assault. Her intent was questioned, her personality was thrashed, and her product was claimed to be filled with holes – though I saw not a single hole. This went on for the rest of the hour, until it became evident to me that we were driving nowhere – all because one person thought she had the best interest of the organization at heart and single-handedly come up with an output that would totally be credited back to her. All because of her thirst for prestige – but appreciation or approval from other people is not earned that way.

Wrong move.

End of story? The organization was never formed.

After the Mayor’s State of the City Address, how shall we Address him Next?

by Marciano Paroy Jr.

Going over the pronouncements of Mayor Lammawin during his State of the City Address at the Pastoral Center, I clap my hands and give Mayor Lammawin the two-tumbsup sign.
We do give credit where it is due. Not only because it is the fair thing to do – but more so because it would somehow express how impressed we are with his commitment to attain tangible change within the time parameter he has avowed to attain such. Also, placing his leadership achievement under the spotlight would inspire those who have set their eyes to scale the same ladder he has successfully ascended.

Normally, we would like to assume that his successor would stay within safe grounds and be guided with what is already in place by the time he or she takes over the reigns. Or take the more drastic move and put his or her own planning-execution wheels into motion – probably taking a different direction, or at least prioritizing a different area.

There is nothing bad with such prospects, especially so if the common good is being served, which is our yardstick in assessing the efficiency and competence of those who occupy executive posts in governance.

This early, I am talking about 2010 and what might happen after the elections next year because of the Mayor’s SOCA. He has summarized what has been attained by the city government under his watch – and so naturally, we look forward and ask the crucial question: what happens after he steps down from the apex of Tabuk politics and move on to whatever he might be contemplating at present?

We do need to ask that question. As a genuine Tabukeño, I – like everyone else in the community – have a stake in the future of this place. The natural course of thoughts for us would be to say that we like the course of things as they are now – but we have to realize that there would really be a different occupant at the Mayor’s chair next year, and so asking the question “What happens next?” is a cause of concern for all of us.

*****
Thumbing through our local history, Mayor Lammawin’s rise in Tabuk politics is almost like “a given” – one of those phenomena we refer to as “it’s meant to be.” Having shown his charisma, first as a councilor, then winning more and more believers and supporters when he sat as Vice Mayor – he has, so to speak, charted a political career that can only be described as “nowhere to go but up.”

By the time he was sitting at the Mayor’s Office, he has already a well-entrenched place in the hearts of Tabukeños. Though his original companions at the Council have moved on to other areas, and though the composition of that same council changed a number of times by the time he was wielding executory powers, he has held on – a trooper, if we are to liken him to a performer.

Back to the question – “what happens next?” Or shall we reword it more blatantly?
“Who shall sit next?”

A film that grabs and strangles your Emotions

by Marciano Paroy Jr.

Recently, I got hold of a DVD copy of the modern classic “Schindler’s List” – that masterpiece directed by Stephen Spielberg which hit theaters in 1993, and ran away with most of the awards in almost all major award-giving bodies in film the following year, especially the Academy Awards or Oscars in the USA.

When I watched it inside the movie theater back in 1993, while a college student in UE, I remember feeling that it was a painful film to watch – and I found out when I watched it all over again that the film has not lost its ability to disturb a viewer. The film grabs you by the throat so that any feeling of being aghast is contained – and you hold on to that feeling up to the very last scene.

Indeed, sitting through the long feature film is an agonizing experience. One has to be ready for the influx of mixed emotions, chief of which – if one values human life – is one’s loathing of anyone who takes it upon himself to degrade other human beings, to relegate them to lower forms of creations, to snuff out their lives with just a trivial pull at the trigger.

“Schindler’s List,” though most would consider it as Spielberg’s almost vengeful take on the Nazi’s experimentation with what they call “The Final Solution” regarding “the Jew problem,” is also a plain recounting of what the surviving Jews went through during World War II. In plain black and white – thus giving the viewer the sense of honesty and purity of intent on the part of the film-makers – “Schindler’s List never lets us forget that something as horrible as mass extermination of a nation can really be possible, and that a well-carried-out plan can attain its objectives, even in such large-scale terms. Then through it all, one never lets go of the question “How can such a thing happen?” and so the movie never lets us forget the horrors inflicted upon the Jewish people.

Sitting through the film anew, I felt glad that I never lost the ability to care, to value human life, to love humanity – and, conversely, to detest those who play God. So I cried my heart out. Again.

*****
“Schindler’s List” is not your normal choice of a weekend movie to insert through your DVD player slot. First, as I have noted earlier, it was shot in black and white (with only that interesting fleeting scene of a Jewish girl trying to escape – wearing a red coat). Second, it is very long. Third, if your chief intent in watching a film is to laugh, then “Schindler’s List” is not at all for you.

Edison Macusi: a new addition to the Guru writing family

by Marciano Paroy Jr.

Starting this issue, we are pleased to splash across the op-ed pages the outputs of Edison Macusi, carrier of that surname which, to people who knew, has always been identified with the Communication Arts (his father, Sir Desiderio Macusi – prior to his current post at the judiciary – was a former instructor at KASC where he handled courses on creative writing and speech). This younger progeny has been schooled in Biology at UPLB – where, as his website says, he found his spiritual calling. He has been a Christ disciple ever since and even went further by publishing books that continue to earn acclaim in the realm of evangelism.

His website takethelandministries.org shouts out that after graduation, he held jobs as instructor and then as a research assistant at several government offices. He recently received his Master’s degree on International Studies in Aquatic Tropical Ecology (ISATEC) from the University of Bremen in Germany. Quite impressive, huh!

I lifted the following from his website: “He believes in the full restoration of the five-fold ministries of the church, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the apostolic mandate to make all nations disciples of Christ. His main goal in life is to plant, establish and equip local churches so that they would be salt and light in their towns and cities amidst conflict and distress. He wrote Freedom from Religious Bondage, Unmasking Evolution, Restorer's of the breach and The surpassing Peace of God that seek to restore the focus of the church to its rightful place, Jesus, the Bishop and Apostle of our faith.”

All of these at a very young age.

There is hope… Indeed, there is hope.

After the storm comes… Justification

by Marciano A. Paroy Jr.

Some friends and readers were rather surprised by my feature on Capt. Dante Langkit last week. (Example: Sir Peter Balocnit of PIA said “Maysa page ti inted mo kin Capt. Dante ah…”) No need repeating their exact questions they voiced out, but they all border on my throwing support to a political aspirant. That was not the intent of the article, though. It simply presented the current situation that Capt. Langkit is subjected to – while drawing background material from foregoing circumstances.

The plight he is presently going through is a genuine source of concern – especially so that he is a constituent of this province. I’m even surprised to know that, when I asked around, many people are somewhat left in the dark as to Capt. Langkit’s case. I myself had to fill-in the vague areas in my knowledge about the case when, following his brief visit to Kalinga last May, he called for local media practitioners and bared the possible direction that he might take regarding next year’s election.

Take note of the speculative “possible direction” which means nothing is really final yet, even considering that he has clearly pronounced his intention of serving the people of this province. We all just have to lie in wait for that definitive “final decision.”

But before then, his story is one subject that is worth exploring – and I believe the feature on him last issue was presented bare of slants that tipped towards his side. We can write lengthily about a certain person or issue and yet still manage to distance ourselves from the possibility of being tagged. As a writer, I fiercely stand by that ability earned and continuously honed by us in the writing profession. Conversely, we can take a certain person and draw spotlight to him and make him appear as though he were, say, a Godsend. That is being done. Always. Which is why we have speech writers, PR people, media personnel (from both private and government-owned media outfits) discreetly working for political leaders – and I have nothing against that practice, so long as a line is clearly drawn between what is journalistically acceptable and what can be blatantly labeled as being under the clutch of the person cast under the spotlight.

Now, the issue story of Capt. Dante Langkit is one genuine topic that needs to be brought to the consciousness of our reading public – especially so that he is setting his eyes on 2010. That desire alone should merit his being given a certain media mileage to lighten up the gray areas: who is he? What has he done? What is he doing? What does he have in mind?... and many other questions.

The human angle of the story is that Capt. Dante Langkit is languishing in detention. He is a prisoner, as plain as that. It is that situation that immediately evokes sympathetic emotions – whether or not we totally identify with the principles that he and his group live by. Considering the impressive career that he has somehow built for his personal portfolio, we see a young potential whose leadership aspirations were nipped in the bud. Not allowed to shine, not given the opportunity to prove his mettle. So we can only stand by the sidelines and say “Sayang.”

And yet again, we are not here to judge the correctness or incongruity of his actions. We all do not have the ethical vein to accomplish that. What motivations drove him to take the direction he took, what intent backed his decisions, what inspiration fired him up – these are matters we can only gaze at, but cannot lay a hand on.

The moment he called and asked whether I had time for a conversation, it has never slipped my mind that the person I was talking to is someone who is confined within the walls of his detention unit. Restricted. Not free. I then decided to write last week’s feature about him – but even that piece took a long time to be completed, since one has to be detached as much as possible. I believe I did just that.

Whatever final decision the young army officer would take this November, I wish him all the best. And he may rest assured that, should he push through with his vision, this paper will also devote space for him – side by side with other political contenders. They’re all newsworthy. An enlightened voting populace is a wise populace. And the more options we have, the more we’ll be able to exercise the right to choose – and the busier we shall all be at the news industry.