Trash and treasure

ANNUAL reports are publications we seldom read today. For example, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) takes the effort to put together a printed annual report that is mailed to all phone or landline subscribers. I wonder how many people actually read or keep this publication after going through the pictures. While I would not read this report today, it could become a contemporary or a primary source for a historian of the future, who would be doing research on telecommunications in the early 21st century. A day-old newspaper with stale news would make good wrappers for some merchandise purchased in a market or could be a handy way to deal with dog poop. But if the newspaper survives two centuries, it might just become valuable for collectors or, at least, for historians desperate for something to write about.

There is permanence to the printed word that is the lifeblood of history and historians. We do not feel all the history around us that is lost almost as soon as it is made. Unless a hard copy is made of texts or e-mail, unless the spoken word is recorded on tape or transcribed on paper, they'd be lost history and any reference to them would be "hearsay" (literally [to] hear [what I] say) by the standards of lawyers and historians.

With all of the above in mind, I often find it difficult to throw away printed matter because I know that, if kept long enough, it could become an antique; one's trash might just turn out to be someone else's treasure.

I probably took after my maternal grandfather who was a pack rat. He never seemed to throw things away and kept his "junk" in neat piles around his home. Once, while watching a TV game show that asked for the oldest phone directory to be brought to the studio, he dug one out of storage and won an inconsequential prize. If memory serves me right, the prize was a can of salty biscuits or a month's supply of rubbing alcohol. When he passed away, he left a task for his heirs: Everything had to be sorted out and evaluated. Was an object due for the "basura" [trash bin] or would it be appreciated in another home? Many dusty folders of clippings were uncovered in his cabinets, mostly columns and articles I wrote but never kept. He did not say much. I don't even know if he read me, but it was indeed heartwarming to know he quietly followed my career. Aside from the sentimental souvenirs, his files facilitated the compilation of my columns into books.

Whenever I go through old books and documents, I'm always thankful that someone cared enough to keep them rather than consigning them to the basura or the flames. Old books feed this column and that of Bambi Harper. So when I open an old book, caress its binding, smell its pages and admire the pictures, it is always a voyage of discovery.

Going over the "1926 Report" of the American governor-general of the Philippines, I noticed a list of legislative bills vetoed for a number of reasons: lack of funds, defective form of bill, lack of time, etc. When you read the title of the bill and the reason it was vetoed, you wonder whether the same bill in our times would be approved or not. Of course, time has changed, situations have changed, but the nature of political life has not changed much in the past century or so.

For example, there were a number of bills meant to address emergencies. When a storm, flood or earthquake hits a place, politicians today will act swiftly and grab every opportunity to be photographed distributing relief goods or condoling with the bereaved. At seeing such photos, have you ever wondered if there were any follow-up efforts to address the cause of the calamity, or are the acts of mercy merely done for the photo opportunity?

This came to mind when I saw a bill appropriating P100,000 for calamity victims, which was vetoed because it would have allowed the interior secretary to distribute money without the supervision or control of the governor-general. Was the bill vetoed because of an administrative concern, or was the veto a reflection of a rivalry as to who should get the "pogi points" [brownie points]?

To get around the veto, another bill was proposed for a calamity fund to be distributed by the governor-general, the president of the Senate and speaker of the House. This was still vetoed on the ground that the Red Cross and the Office of Public Welfare had sufficient funds for the purpose.

I may be over-reading, but there is much that can be read between the lines here. What is the subtext to all this?
Then, there were matters of simple fiscal discipline, like a bill extending the period for the payment of a loan granted Sorsogon province. "Vetoed on the ground that it encourages disregard of financial obligations rather than prompt settlement." A bill for the sale of forfeited real property was vetoed on the ground that it encouraged delinquency. It was proposed that taking fish from Abra River be prohibited. Vetoed "based upon the recommendation of the director of science that it is very bad policy to attempt legislation controlling the 'ipon' fisheries before definite information is available regarding the life history of the species." Then as now, there were a number of bills proposing the changing of street names; these were vetoed for practical reasons, as it "tends to confuse land titles." Then as now, divorce was proposed; it was vetoed on the ground that it "tends to break down the institution of the family."

Reading the past in the context of the present is always a way to understand why we are in a rut today.

* * *

Comments are welcome at aocampo@ateneo.edu

Copyright 2005 Inquirer News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.