The recent order from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to sing the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn every week during flag ceremonies has sparked a debate across the country with opinions divided on whether this mandate is beneficial or detrimental.
This decision evokes a sense of déjà vu, reminiscent of the policies of his father, the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who famously instituted the “Bagong Lipunan” hymn during his presidency. There are pros and cons to this order.
One of the primary advantages of singing the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn and reciting the pledge is the potential to foster a sense of national unity and patriotism. National anthems and hymns often serve as powerful symbols that can unite people across different regions and social classes. By singing the hymn, Filipinos might feel a stronger connection to their country and a shared identity, which is crucial for national cohesion.
The “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn could also serve as a means to revive and promote Filipino culture. It can remind citizens of their heritage and history, encouraging them to take pride in their roots. This cultural awareness is particularly important in an era where globalization can sometimes overshadow local traditions and values.
For supporters of the Marcos family, the recitation of the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn represents a continuation of the Marcos legacy, symbolizing a return to a period they view as one of progress and stability. It serves as a reminder of the aspirations and visions set forth during the previous Marcos era.
The hymn’s association with the Marcos family, however, can be polarizing. For many Filipinos, especially those who lived through the martial law period, the Marcos name is synonymous with repression and human rights abuses. Forcing the recitation of a hymn linked to this controversial legacy can be seen as an attempt to whitewash history and impose a particular political narrative.
Mandating the singing of the hymn, likewise, raises concerns about freedom of expression. Critics argue that such a requirement infringes on individual rights and may be seen as an attempt to control public opinion and sentiment. It can also lead to resistance and backlash from those who oppose the Marcos regime and its policies.
Implementing the recitation of the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn across the country, moreover, poses logistical challenges. Ensuring that every school, government office, and public institution complies with the order requires significant resources and coordination. This effort might divert attention and funds away from other pressing issues such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
The order to recite the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn undeniably echoes the policies of Marcos Sr., who used the “Bagong Lipunan” hymn to promote his vision of a new society. During his regime, the hymn was a tool for propaganda, reinforcing the ideals of the New Society Movement and cultivating loyalty among the populace. By introducing a similar hymn, Marcos Jr. seems to be drawing from his father’s playbook, aiming to create a unifying national narrative under his administration.
However, the historical context cannot be ignored. Marcos Sr.’s regime was marked by martial law, suppression of dissent, and widespread human rights violations. For many Filipinos, the “Bagong Lipunan” hymn is a reminder of those dark times. Thus, the introduction of a new hymn by Marcos Jr. is likely to be met with skepticism and resistance from those wary of repeating history.
The directive to sing the “Bagong Pilipinas” hymn is a complex issue with both potential benefits and significant drawbacks.
While it has the power to unite and instill patriotism, it also risks alienating a portion of the population and infringing on individual freedoms. By invoking the legacy of his father, Marcos Jr. may be aiming to consolidate his political base, but he must tread carefully to avoid the pitfalls of the past.
Ultimately, the success of this initiative will depend on how it is perceived and accepted by the Filipino people, balancing the desire for national unity with respect for diverse perspectives and historical sensitivities.