Saturday, November 18, 2006 Seares: ‘Patriotism’ of Cebuanos By Pachico A. Seares The View from Here
PATRIOTISM means love of, or loyalty to, country. Feeling for Cebu is ethnic sentiment, limited to the province, the towns and cities, and their people.
Not even a regional feeling, just in Cebu, crossing borders only to places where Cebuano hearts still beat for Cebu.
Not surprising though that some defenders of Capitol harped on Cebuanos’ patriotism against critics of the Cebu International Convention Center (CICC).
“How can critics be so unpatriotic?” asked one Capitol sympathizer. “The CICC is something Cebuanos must support and be proud of—anything else is treason.”
Again, treason is against country, not a province.
But precise meaning aside, the Capitol camp’s point is that one is disloyal to, and has no love for, Cebu if one flogs the CICC.
The flaw
Basic flaw with that is the lumping of all who don’t accept the Capitol line totally into critics and tagging dispute on work done as destructive.
Yes, there must be a few such critics who are doomsayers, see nothing right in anything Capitol or government does, hate the governor and hope to see her fail. In media, there are pesky broadcasters and in print, occasional wrong calls on display and focus.
To cast well-meaning critics, however, with the few uninformed, ill-motivated, or rabble-rousers is confusing and unfair. To see organized or collective frenzy against CICC is myopic, even paranoid.
Source of troubles
Capitol needs to look again at the chief source of CICC troubles: arrogance of builders who insisted on their self-imposed deadline, without making qualification about limits of suppliers, bureaucracy, and acts of God, and refusing to budge until a few days before Nov. 15.
They had kept insisting on delivering CICC on time and complete to the last tile and doorknob. Public and media that saw reality on the ground, was skeptical. Every time builders stuck to their claim, media disputed and refuted. Not being unpatriotic. That is correcting a wrong foisted on the public, which is a press function.
Controversy could have been avoided or reduced had the builders been more candid.
Why didn’t they say from the beginning, or sometime along the way, something like this: “We impose on ourselves the Nov. 15 deadline. However, there may be factors beyond our control, such as fortuitous/events and limitations of sub-contractors. We will do our darn best though. Support us with prayers and best wishes.”
The builders didn’t mention acts of God as possible spoiler. They started talking about divine intervention only when deadline neared. They must thank God for not sending some plague or disaster as reminder on humility.
There would have been less of wasteful skirmishes over deadline, media-op visits that distracted CICC workers, and emotional strain on Capitol officials and the builders.
Unpatriotic
Only if they had been more frank and realistic. Instead, the architect answered public skepticism with a challenge of a P.5 million bet. As the public doubt grew, instead of admitting chances of delay, he raised the bet to P1.5 million.
Are the critics being unpatriotic? If they are, they are already demanding for details of spending—and would not have rushed to CICC’s defense when it was attacked in Manila as unsafe and overpriced.
We talk over our own failings but we loathe outsiders who flog the CICC based merely on rumor, speculation, and fear. And that is patriotism.
When the CICC is finally completed and then used for the summit, we can forget the troubles that beset CICC and thank the builders for the work done.
After the summit though, critics of every stripe can look at contracts and books, as builders account for the public funds spent. And Capitol can look for ways to make CICC self-sustaining, without the huge subsidy white elephants need.
