Nang Manundo Si Kamatayan
Maghahating-gabi sa bahay ni mang Teban
Nandoon din sina mang Pedro at mang Juan
Silang tatlo’y masayang nagkukwentuhan
Tawa nang tawa habang nag-iinuman.
Maya-maya’y may kumatok sa pintuan
Sila ay natahimik at nagtinginan
Tumayo si Pedro’t pintua’y binuksan
Sa nakita silang tatlo’y nagulantang.
Ang kumatok sa pinto’y si Kamatayan
Anito’y “Kumusta na mga kaybigan.”
“Heto po medyo kabado,” ani mang Juan.
“Ah… eh… tuloy po kayo” ani mang Teban.
Pumasok at naupo si Kamatayan
Tahimik na ang tatlo siya’y pinagmasdan
Naisipan nilang bisita’y tagayan
Sumyat naman ito’t sila’y pinagbigyan.
Si mang Teba’y nagpasyang bisita’y tanungin
“Eh nagawi po kayo dito sa amin,
Mukha po yatang kayo’y may susunduin.”
Bisita’y isa-isang sa tatlo’y tumingin.
Tumango ito’t sinabing “Oo mga kaybigan
Sila’y ang unang tatlo dito sa listahan
Heto nga o baka gusto ninyong tignan
Dito’y nakasulat kanilang pangalan.”
Nang basahin nila makapal na listahan
Natahimik sila’t halos mag-iyakan
Number 1 si Pedro, number 2 ay si Juan
At ang pumapangatlo ay si mang Teban
Nagpasiya ang tatlong bisita’y lasingin
Meron kasi silang binalak na gawin
Pangalan sa unahan kanilang buburahin
At sa huling pahina doo’y sulatin
Nalasing nga bisitang si Kamatayan
Inantok pa’t nakatulog sa upuan
Binura nga nila pangalan sa unahan
Kagyat isinulat sa dulo ng listahan
At si Kamataya’y naalimpungatan
“Ang tapang ng lambanog ninyo kaybigan,
Aba’y nakatulog ako nang biglaan.”
“Humihilik pa nga kayo”, ani mang Juan.
“Dahil na-enjoy ko ang ating inuman,
Di ko susundin nakasulat sa listahan,
Sa halip na unang tatlo sa unahan,
Susunduin ko’y huling tatlo sa listahan.”
Teachers, Leadership Styles and McGregor’s Theories X and Y Assumptions
Managing people either in the academia or industry is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.
Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.
Leadership theories abound and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position as head of the organization they might already have a style which is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.
As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leader (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.
As to which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory” claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action is contingent upon the internal and external situation. This is the principle that guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.
In my experience as school administrator (1994-2012), I figured that there is no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership. I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint on how to lead when they take the reins of leadership in their organization but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free-rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.
Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y, presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction and should therefore be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.
When leaders have already determined under which set of those perception the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.
Experts in human behavior are saying though that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.
The best leaders are those who could devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That of course is easier said than done especially if they are overseeing a big group, company or association.
What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?
It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in-charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons; construct exams, mark tests, quizzes and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to do research and get involved in community extension programs.
That’s a lot of things to do for teachers and with their plates that full the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embraced the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours. Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.
The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – the embodiment of the theory Y assumptions.
Teachers are responsible and independent. They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told as to what to do because they have strong sense of self-direction and self-control.
Are these assumptions about teachers true?
I have been in the academia for almost 30 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and as administrator (for 18 of those 30 years). Based on my experiences (most particularly here in South Korea where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that that prevailing perception about teachers is not true.
Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.
The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” They ought to check carefully the background of the teachers they hire. They need to strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines. This should not be construed as lack of trust but rather enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.
The ones leading schools ought to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregards professional ethics.
On Graduating From Top Universities and the Principle of “Fair Judging”
Upon completion of their basic education, the next step for young people in the Philippines (and elsewhere) is to choose a tertiary institution where they will spend the next four years or so to pursue the undergraduate degree they dream of completing. Given the chance, they would choose to enroll in one of the top 10, if not top 5, colleges or universities in the country…better yet, in the world. Making it to the premiere universities and colleges is the dream of majority of those graduating from high school (and their respective parents and guardians).
Parents, no matter how expensive, would try their best to send their children to the tertiary institutions who are tops in the ranking. Even for basic education they enroll their kids to the most reputable schools. They inculcate in the young minds of their children the need to strive harder than the others so they would graduate in high school at the top of their class with GWAs acceptable in the universities they are targeting. And their children follow them like good soldiers heeding the marching orders of their generals.
The foregoing is a manifestation of how society have embraced the idea that when students graduate from highly-ranked universities their success is guaranteed and their future bright. What could have permeated that notion are classified ads trumpeting that only graduates of “this and that” university may apply for certain job openings. Such hiring policy is “not giving priority to alumni of top-notch universities but it “is giving ONLY them” the chance to fill up positions and vacancies in companies and organizations.
Business entities who implement the policy aforementioned cannot be faulted. It is a simple exercise of prerogative. If they want to hire only those who could present diplomas and transcript of records minted in their “preferred colleges and universities” there’s nothing that anybody can do against that. They consider it their right to do so.
But is it so?
When reason is allowed to prevail, there are rights that supersede other rights. And in nations where, indeed, reason prevails, every individual has the right to equal employment opportunities. In the Philippines for instance, this is a right guaranteed by the constitution (1987 Philippine Constitution – Art. 13, Sec. 3)[1]. So, the policy of not allowing graduates of tertiary institutions not belonging to the “preferred list” to apply is not just discriminatory, it’s also unconstitutional.
In the United States it is illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or generic information. [2] Discriminatory practices under Federal laws include employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about abilities. [3] Employers thinking that graduates of university A is better than the graduates of university B is a form of stereotyping. It is an act of assuming that only those who graduate from university A have the potentials of contributing to the growth of a company or organization.
But why are graduates of low-ranking colleges and universities seemingly being looked down upon?
Are graduates of “whatever university” mere mortals and those who received their degrees from “supreme university” gods and goddesses? Would the latter become better persons and professionals after completing their training from their highly-ranked alma mater? Are the former just second best and meant to play second fiddle to the latter?
To say that graduates of top-ranked universities are better than those who received their diplomas from lesser-known schools is committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. Nobody can say which group is better. Graduating from a highly-ranked university doesn’t make one a better person and professional than those who sweat it out in lesser-known schools.
Employers need to observe the “principle of fair judging.” Applications should be judged on their merits. The evaluation of the applicant should be in accord with the duties of the position; for example, for the job opening of choir director, the evaluation may judge applicants based on musical knowledge rather than arbitrary criterion such as hair color. [4]
“Education,” as Horace Mann puts it, “is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.” The education offered by the universities provides “fair access to qualifications” [5] intended to put applicants in equal footing before competition (for the job) begins. So, making a decision to hire based on “from-what-university” an applicant graduated is against equality of opportunity.
Graduates of the best colleges and universities already have the best things in life. That’s the reason they could afford to pay exorbitant tuition fees and the high cost of board and lodging in cities. The ones studying in lower-ranked schools, especially those located in provinces, belong to indigent families pinning their hopes for a better life through education.
Those who have less in life need to be given a chance, at least an equal opportunity for employment.
At the vantage point of an employer, applicants for a job need to be evaluated using objective measures. The decision to hire should not be based on from what college or university they graduated.
This is not asking that graduates of lesser-known schools be given priority. Let the applicants, wherever they graduated, undergo the hiring process.
They must be asked to submit their resume and the corresponding documents and attachment. These papers, in one way or another, will reveal things about the applicants that will inform decisions to hire or not – that is if the ones evaluating the papers do not give special treatment to graduates coming from their preferred universities.
This is where the “blind hiring process” becomes very useful. Blind hiring anonymizes or “blinds” demographic-related information about a candidate from the recruiter or hiring manager and eliminates the unconscious bias about the candidate’s age, gender, the school they attended and so on [6].
The next steps would involve interview (or a series of interviews) and battery of tests. These parts of the hiring process will gradually show who’s who among the applicants.
What could be considered as the best part of the process is the demonstration of skills. The applicants need to actually show their repertoire of skills related to the job they are applying for.
The decision to hire must be based objectively on the over-all results. The alma mater of the applicants should not be factored. This way, the applicants are given equal employment opportunity.
Companies and organizations limiting their choices to graduates of top universities are also limiting their chances of possibly getting the best applicants. One thing certain, there are brilliant young people sharpening their minds and honing their skills in lesser-known colleges and universities outside of the big cities and urban areas.
They are diamonds in the rough waiting to be mined and polished.
__________
[1] http://www.gov.ph/constitutions
[2] http://www.natlawreview.com/author/us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission
[3] https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
[4] Richard Arneson (Aug 29, 2008). “Equality of Opportunity”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[5] Mark Bevir (editor) (2010), Encyclopedia of Political Theory, SAGE Publications.
[6] https://ideal.com/blind hiring/
Goodnight Daddy
“O darling mukhang yatang ika’y tuliro.”
Wika ni Donya Maria kay Don Pedro.
“Halika, maupo ka’t mag-usap tayo.
Ano ba darling ang pinoproblema mo?”
Ani Don Pedro – “Honey napansin ko lang,
Kasi iyang bunsong anak nating si Juan,
Sino man ng ‘goodnight’ eh kanyang sabihan,
Eh biglaang natitigok kinabukasan.
“Oo nga darling, iyo’y akin ding napansin,
Heto nga ako’y sobrang nagtataka rin,
Nang sa kanyang lolo ‘goodnight’ ay sabihin,
Lolo kinabukasan”y ‘di na gumising.”
“Noong isang linggo eh si aling Tinay,
Naisipan na dito’y mangapitbahay,
Bago umalis wika kay Juan eh – ‘Goodbye!’
At sumagot si Juan ‘Goodnight’ po…babay.”
“At hayun nga ang kawawang aling Tinay,
Inaatake at ngayon ay nakahimlay.
Oh, eh, darling bakit naman ika’y matamlay?
Para kang balisa’t hindi mapalagay.”
“Ako’t driver nati’y nasa tarangkahan.
At mula sa likuran… sumulpot si Juan.
Biglang ‘goodnight dad’ ako ay sinabihan.”
Donya Maria’y natameme… gulantang
Kinabukasan si Don Pedro’y gumising
Mama’y tuwang-tuwa’t siya’y buhay pa rin.
“O Inday… nasaan ba ang aking darling?”
“Eh sir… si mam po ay nandoon sa hardin.”
“Nagluluksa po si mam at sobrang tamlay.”
“Eh bakit… heto naman ako at buhay.
Dapat eh masaya siya, hindi ba Inday?”
“Kasi po iyong driver natin… namatay.”
Paano Nga Ba Dapat Sukatin Ang Tagumpay?
Paano nga ba?
Tignan muna natin ang kahulugan ng salitang tagumpay.
Ang tagumpay daw ay katuparan o kaganapan ng anumang plano o balak. Simple! Hindi ba? Kapag may binalak kang gawin at nangyari eh nakamit mo ang tagumpay. Pero ang tatanungin ng karamihan eh sa ginusto mong gawin na natupad mo naman eh ano ang napala mo? Yumaman ka ba? Sumikat ka ba?
Heto pa ang isang kahulugan ng tagumpay – “Ang pagkakamit ng yaman, katanyagan, at kapangyarihan.” Ang kahulugang ito ang ginagamit nating sukatan ng tagumpay. Tama ba?
Kung may pangarap kang natupad o bagay na nagawa sasabihing nagtagumpay ka kung dahil sa mga iyon ay nagkaroon ka ng maraming pera, nakilala ka, o kaya’y naging makapangyarihan ka.
Kaya tuwing ang pinaguusapan ay kung sino ang mga taong maituturing nating nagtagumpay ay kagyat nating naiisip ang mga bilyonaryong nasa listahan ng Forbes’ top billionaires katulad nina Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckeberg at ang mga mayayamang Pilipino katulad ng mga Zobel, Ayala, Gokongwei at Sy. At ang susunod sa listahan ay ang mga sikat na artista, atleta, at mga makakapangyarihang pulitiko.
At sa ating mga kaybigan at mga kaklase ang mga itinuturing nating nagtagumpay eh iyong may mataas na pinagaralan at mga yumaman. Kaya nga kapag may class reunion eh hangang-hanga tayo sa kanila.
Pero iyong mga taong itunuturing nating matagumpay – iyong mga bilyonaryo’t milyonaryo, mga artista, mga pulitiko, at mga kaybigan natin at mga kaklase na mga titulado, maganda ang puwesto o trabaho at maraming pera – masaya ba sila?
Ang limpak-limpak ba nilang yaman, ang kanilang kasikatan, ang kanilang kapangyarihan, at ang mga diploma, rango, at kanilang puwesto eh nakapagbigay ba sa kanila ng saya? Sila lamang, o ang mga taong malalapit sa kanila, ang pwedeng makasagot niyan.
Hindi natin alam kung totoo nga na ang mga mayayaman – dahil sa kagustuhan nilang mas dumami pa ang kanilang pera; ang mga kilalang artista – dahil sa kagustuhan nilang huwag mawala ang ningning ng kanilang kasikatan; at ang mga pulitiko – dahil ayaw nilang maagaw ang kanilang pwesto, eh sila’y hindi namumuhay ng normal. Hirap silang matulog sa gabi. Hindi daw sila masaya – marami daw silang mga agam-agam. Sana naman eh hindi totoo.
Ganoon pa man eh marami silang pera.
Pero, kaya bang bilhin ng pera ang kaligayahan ng tao? Maraming beses nang naitanong iyan. Muli kong itinanong hindi upang hanapin ang kasagutan kundi gusto kong pagbulay-bulayan lamang natin.
Kumustahin naman natin ang kanilang kalusugan. Kapag sinabi nating kalusugan eh hindi lamang katawan ang tinitignan. Meron tayong tinatawag sa English na physical, mental, at emotional health. Iyan ang pangkalahatang kalusugan.
Ang tanong – Ano kaya ang kalagayan ng kalusugan ng mga kilala nating mayayaman, sikat, at mga makapangyarihan? Wala ba silang malubhang sakit? Tahimik ba ang kanilang kalooban at pagiisip? Sila din lang, at ang mga taong malalapit sa kanila, ang nakakaalam kung ano ang totoo hinggil sa kanilang pangkalusugan.
Bakit sa pagtalakay ko ng tagumpay ay isiningit ko ang kaligayahan at kalusugan?
Simple lang. Ano ang halaga ng kayamanan, kasikatan, at kapangyarihan ng isang tao kung hindi naman siya masaya, meron siyang malubhang karamdaman, at hindi panatag ang kanyang isip at kalooban? Paano nating masasabing nagtagumpay ang tao kung dumami nga ang pera niya at naging kilala kung nakaratay naman siya sa banig ng karamadaman at miserable ang kanyang buhay?
Materyalistik kasi ang pananaw ng tao sa tagumpay. Sinusukat natin ang tagumpay sa dami ng pera, sa laki ng bahay, sa pagmamay-aring sasakyan, sa alahas, sa pinag-aralan, sa rango o puwesto, sa kasikatan… sa mga bagay na materyal at panandalian.
Paano na kung wala ka lahat niyon?
Eh paano naman ang mga simpleng tao na hindi nakapag-aral, walang naipong pera sa bangko, walang kotse at naninirahan sa isang simpleng bahay o kaya’y nangungupahan lang. Pero masaya sila, walang sakit, at ginagampanan ang ano mang simpleng tungkuling dapat nilang gampanan sa lipunan. Paano ang mga magsasaka at mga mangingisda na nagsisikap itaguyod ang kanilang pamilya at nagawa naman nila? Paano ang mga magulang na nagbanat ng buto at nakamit ang simpleng pangarap na mapagtapos sa pag-aaral ang kanilang mga anak? Hindi ba natin pwedeng sabihin na nakamit nila ang tagumpay?
Paano kung simpleng buhay lang ang hangad ng isang tao at ang tanging gusto niya eh mamuhay ng tahimik at matiwasay kasama ang kanyang mga mahal sa buhay, ang maging masaya at magkaraoon ng magandang kalusugan? Sabihin na nating natupad naman niya ang mga simple pangarap na iyon. Hindi ba ito maituturing na pagtatagumpay?
Walang masama kung maghangad ang taong yumaman at sumikat. Walang masama kung magsisikap ang tao, mag-aral at mag-ambisyon… magkaroon ng pangalan. Basta’t sa bandang dulo, sa dapit-hapon ng isang araw o ng buhay, eh walang kang pagsisihan.
Sa bandang huli eh kanya-kanya ng panuntunan sa buhay ang tao. Bawat isa sa atin eh may sariling sukatan ng tagumpay. Ang sa akin lang eh mas masarap namnamin ang tagumpay na nakangiti ka’t walang pinagsisihan, malusog ang pangangatawan, at tahimik ang kalooban at isipan.
At maniwala ka man sa akin o hindi, matatangap mo ang tunay na tagumpay kung matibay ang paniniwala mo sa iyong sarili at nananalig ka sa Dakilang Maykapal.
Defining Success
How do you view success? How do you measure it? These two are the usual questions whenever the topic is discussed. But I think the more important question that should be asked is – Do you consider yourself successful?
Before you answer those questions, let’s revisit the definition of the word. Let’s check how online dictionaries define success.
Cambridge’s definition of the word is something broad – “The achieving of the results wanted or hoped for.” Colin’s goes – “The achievement of something that you have been trying to do.” Oxford is more specific with its definition – “The attainment of fame, wealth or social status.” Merriam-Webster’s is almost the same as Oxford’s – “The attainment of wealth, favor or eminence.”.
Our favorite research assistant – “Dr. Google” – says that success is “the accomplishment of an aim or purpose” and “the attainment of popularity and profit.”
Let’s also check the synonyms: prosperity, affluence , wealth, riches, opulence, and triumph.
I hope that the foregoing definitions and synonyms are sufficient to help you come out with meaningful and definitive answers to the questions I asked at the beginning of this article. And by the way, do the ideas conveyed by those definitions and synonyms jibe with what you think success is?
The definitions and synonyms above actually show the way people in our society quantify success. They tell us about the measuring sticks being used by most people, including you probably, to determine whether or not a person is successful. Everything boil down to one or a combination of the following: wealth, fame and power.
So, when asked who are the most successful people in the world, people never fail to mention the names of the world’s richest men – Jess Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and the others who are listed in Forbes’ top 10 world’s billionaires . The next ones in our lists are the showbiz, sports, media, and political personalities. We also remember the names of quite a few people – some of them could be our own friends – who excel in their respective fields of endeavors when we discuss about successful people.
Now, let me ask some questions.
Are those people we consider successful happy also? Have the money, fame, power, and accomplishment they possess brought them happiness? They are the only ones, or their relatives (or their close friends and confidants), who could answer those questions. People outside of their inner circle could only make speculations and assumptions.
Many believe that rich people live under the constant pressure of wanting to amass more wealth – famous people to ensure that their stars keep shining – politicians to perpetuate themselves to power – so much so that they forget to live a life. Thus, they are perceived to be unhappy.
At least, they have the money.
“But can their money buy them happiness?” This question has been asked so many times that it could be considered meaningless already. But in the light of the present discussion it should be asked, not for the purpose of having it answered, but as a point to ponder on.
We presume that with all the luxuries the money of the wealthy, famous and powerful could afford, it’s almost impossible that they are not happy. Unless it is true that of the needs which Maslow’s identified in the hierarchy of needs, only the basic ones (physiological and safety) could be covered by money. The psychological needs (esteem needs, belongingness and love needs) and self-fulfillment needs are definitely not available in the shelves of even the most expensive stores.
Here is the next question I would like to ask – “Are they healthy?”
They are already rich, famous, and powerful. They are truly blessed if they are also in good shape. Of course they are – financially. What about physically, emotionally, and mentally? In their quest for riches, fame and power, did they not sacrifice their health, values, and relationships? While they sit on their thrones clutching their coffer, do they feel peace flowing within them? Again, they are the only ones, and the people around them, who could give a definite answer. They are the only ones who know whether or not they are suffering from any debilitating disease, mental anguish, and emotional stress?
I brought out the questions on happiness and health in the discussion of success because I believe that there is a need to strike balance between the ephemeral and the ethereal when defining the concept. The prevailing view of success is materialistic. We attach tangible proofs to it – money, big house, new car, degree, job title, a certain body type, etc. I am not saying that such act (of attaching those tangible proofs to success) is wrong. I just consider it as not encompassing.
Why?
What about simple people who did not attend school, don’t have cars, and live in simple houses in far-flung farming and fishing villages happily living a simple life and diligently performing their role in society? Can’t they not be considered successful in their own right?
When you don’t have a mansion – a car – fancy clothes – expensive jewelry – a university degree – huge amount in the bank, when you’re not famous and not powerful, when you’re just an ordinary decent individual honestly earning a living and contended with what you have and what you’re capable of achieving and you’re happy and healthy, would people not consider you successful?
If a person’s goal is to be happy and healthy and he/she achieves it, isn’t that success?
Correlating happiness and health to success is a kind of paradigm shift that will make capitalists unhappy. It is the materialistic view of success that keeps most of their present business ventures alive.
Well, we define success in different ways. Success is subjective and I think that nobody could claim that their way of looking at it is the right one.
The most valuable lesson I learned about success is this – define it for yourself. Don’t allow other people to define success for you. Don’t subscribe to the standards they set. You know your capabilities and limitations more than anyone else, factor them when setting your success parameters. But be not satisfied with your current skill set. You have to improve and as you see yourself becoming better set the bars of your success higher. And most importantly, don’t forget that as you march towards the achievement of your simplest goals and the realization of your grandest ambitions, you should not sacrifice your happiness and health.
Bata… Bata… Saan Ka Ginawa?
Inay… si kuya ay mainit ang ulo
Hayun sa kuwarto nagmamarakulyo
Barkada n’ya kasi siya’y niloloko
Bakit kasi pangalan niya’y Anito?
“Kasi anak nagdate kami ng tatay n’yo
Doon namin nabuo iyang kuya mo.”
“Ah… eh… alam ko na kung bakit si diko
Ang ipinangalan n’yo sa kanya’y Sogo.”
“Tama! Napakatalino mo Luneta,
Mabuti na lang sa akin ka nagmana.”
“Ay inay, hayan, si bunso po’y gising na.”
“Oh FX! Halika nga, hug mo ang mama!”
Nang mag-ring ang phone sinagot ni Luneta.
“Inay, si ate nasa kabilang linya.”
“Akin na! Hello… Sofa… aba’y gabi na!
Hala… uwi! Si Rooftop, kasama mo ba?
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 