Just my opinion, Mr. Nepomuceno empathically ended his piece. Which instantly, and in the scheme of things opinionated, naturally, drew clashing viewpoints.
Premised on the geographical given of landlocked Angeles City as 90 meters above sea level to the City of San Fernando’s 45 meters, thereby affi rming gospel truth in the old folk’s belief that “Bayu lumbug king Angeles, lumbug ya pa ing pisamban king Sampernandu,” and on political grounds of the highly urbanized city being independent of the Pampanga provincial government, even ranking 15th most competitive city in the country, the brilliant Mr. Nepomuceno asked:
How come when the Pampanga provincial government (with due respect to Gov. Lilia Pineda), declares a disaster, no matter the magnitude, people also think that Angeles City should also be automatically included in the declaration?
The obvious answer would be: Those people did not know the political autonomy of the city from the province.
And granting they did know, they still expressed some wish – indeed, hoped against hope as it turned out – for empathetic consideration, given the very magnitude of the calamity befallen their area outside the city.
Who are these people? Are they Angeleños or are they transients from the outlying areas who work, study and play in Angeles, use the resources of Angeles, but do not pay income taxes to the local government. Sure, they have sent their children to the schools in Angeles, but they do not spend in Angeles most of the income they might make in Angeles.
Perorated the excellent Mr. Nepomuceno, who went on to lecture:
From an economist’s point of view, their contribution to the local economy is limited since the household (which is the basic unit of the economy) to which they belong is located elsewhere. Households make the economy move and, in a certain sense, households that are located outside the local economy do not contribute as much to the local economy as those that are.
I cannot hold a candle to the brilliance of Mr. Nepomuceno in matters of economics: he, being an esteemed business leader whose recent master’s degree from the Ateneo making but a single leaf in his already thickly foliaged laurel.
Woe then unto one netizen who dared contest Mr. Nepomuceno’s learned assertion by saying that even the casual traveler to the city who buys bottled water already contributes to its economy. Obviously a non-Angeleño, less so a master’s degree holder. So what did he know?
From one Jason Paul Laxamana – the prizewinning fi lmmaker? – came these hugot lines:
Sounds like a Brexit sentiment…I think the progress of highly urbanized cities, especially for those that have no abundant natural resources such as Angeles, is built also on the contribution of migrants/transients. A lot of these transients eventually become residents anyway, and to not consider their concerns as important as (that of) the so-called hardcore residents is a bit problematic, discriminatory, non-compassionate.
#PampExit, anyone?
Conceded the erudite Mr. Nepomuceno, but with the qualification:
Of course, I agree with the fi rst part of your statement. As for the second part, the kind of “discrimination” you are talking about, including protectionism, is allowed by the jurisprudence of many countries all over the world.
Pursued Laxamana: Angeles is just a chartered city within a country. It can’t even survive without IRA from the national government. For it to imagine itself as a developed city-state like Singapore is a bit over the top.
Declared the knowledgeable Mr. Nepomuceno:
Discrimination, exclusivity, and protectionism are practiced by cities all over the Philippines. It’s not illegal.
In the context of the WTO, of ASEAN integration, is there still room for discrimination, exclusivity and protectionism in this part of the world?
Then, how will this “not illegal” discrimination, exclusivity and protectionism stand before the eternal truth of the Christian values of faith, hope and charity? Indeed, of guardianship upon which Angeles was founded, dedicated as it was – and still is – to its patrons, Los Santos Angeles Custodios?
So has Angeles City gone the way of Cain scorning the Almighty: Am I my brother’s keeper?
But then, what do the opinions of this plain AB-holding, struggling journalist matter vis-à- vis those of the highly respected, supremely successful, eminently progenied master of economics?
Nada. Zilch. Ala man qñg calingquingan.
Faced then with the impeccable reason of Mr. Nepomuceno, we can only reduce ourselves to ad hominem and ad misericordiam, as one JP Dizon precisely did:
It does show that you know much about what we should be thankful for as an Angeleño. However, in weather like this, you do not consider these things. What you do is put yourself in the regular Juan’s shoes. You do not think if they even meet the city’s or your standards. Why become politically correct in a time you can just be simply empathetic? Wa, megaral ka, wa maimpluwensya ka, pero milalako mu silbi uling eka makaabut keng panandaman dareng tau.
Comes to mind now F. Scott Fitzgerald:
…the very rich. They are diff erent from you and me. As the aristocracy from the rest of the miserable mass of society, so is Angeles City from the rest of Pampanga?
God forbid! Marx now: The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of… patrician and plebeian, lord and serf…in a word, oppressor and oppressed…
Got to stop here before I end up with Les Miserables…
Do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men…
