Stop making us heroes

 

BY ANNA CRISTINA TUAZON

APRIL 9, 2026

Read Next

The new world pariah

Oil prices continue to increase, with last Tuesday’s double-digit increase that led to diesel costing as high as P172.9 per liter and gasoline up to P119.9 per liter. Public utility vehicle (PUV) drivers, who have long been calling for fare increases, have been ignored by the government and instead have been promised “ayuda.” It is not known whether the frequency and amount of ayuda will be enough to offset the financial losses, especially as oil prices continue to increase, and along with them, our general cost of living. I watched a transport spokesperson on the news, who seemed despondent at the government’s lack of action, explain that whatever ayuda they receive now is no longer to pay for today’s fuel but to pay the debts they have incurred in the last few weeks. Her remarks highlight the inadequacy of the ayuda strategy, in that it is insufficient to keep PUV drivers ply their routes. Commuters, therefore, will continue to struggle to get to work as fewer and fewer PUVs are on the road. There are beginnings of a contract service program, specifically in Manila, though Mayor Isko Moreno admits they are not sure if they have the funds to sustain it through the oil crisis.

The Department of Finance responded to the multisectoral call to suspend the excise tax by expressing concern that doing so would decrease the government’s revenue by at least P121 billion. It is hard to sympathize with this, as they have allowed—and continue to allow—hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to be siphoned off by corrupt officials and contractors. Surely, they can spend this much energy on recovering the funds stolen by their government colleagues to spare ordinary Filipinos from further suffering at the gas station.

Once again, in a crisis, it is the regular folk who have to bear the brunt of keeping our system afloat. It is the jeepney and tricycle drivers who have to continue absorbing the cost for the sake of the commuters. Commuters, in turn, have no choice but to keep going to work despite difficulties in getting there. Establishments continue to run and provide services, thanks to such commuters. It also happens to be tax season, and we, taxpayers, have the burden of doing our duty to keep government programs running.

The government has a habit of calling us heroes. They celebrate overseas Filipino workers as heroes while they trap them in a tiresome paperwork and administrative process just to be able to work abroad. They called medical and economic frontliners heroes during the COVID-19 pandemic even as they withheld hazard pay and other merited benefits.

The term “heroes” is unfortunately used by the government as a misdirection, lauding someone’s sense of responsibility to hide their own lack of action and accountability. It also creates the illusion that the “heroes” have the superpower to solve our national problems when, in fact, it is their powerlessness that forces them to sacrifice.

It is easy for the government to ask jeepney drivers to sacrifice their income because the drivers do not hold power over them. The government holds all the cards: permits, licenses, taxes. Even if jeepney drivers decide to no longer work, they still need to find another source of income. They cannot afford to wait this out. They are also the ones who have to face the tired commuters daily, and so their sense of responsibility is hard to ignore.

It was the same during the pandemic with nurses and other health providers. Despite not receiving back pay, their sense of duty to their patients kept them from walking out. Government agencies are the most egregious employers; they can delay the release of salaries for many months simply because they can.

The government cheers on the “hero” so that it doesn’t have to do the work. The public tightens their belt so that some public officials can continue to ride their helicopters and steal from coffers to fund their lavish lifestyles. They glorify our self-sacrifice so they don’t have to.

There is a Filipino psychology concept called “tagasalo,” coined by psychologist Dr. Lourdes Carandang. It is a personality type, usually within the family, where a family member becomes the tagasalo and carries the burden of caring and solving problems for the family. They become the primary caretaker, the breadwinner, and the emotional babysitter of the family. Expanding her concept to the nation, the regular Filipino citizen has become the tagasalo of our society. We bear the burden of keeping our nation going, even as our public servants actively work against us, creating dysfunctional systems that cause the problems to begin with and exploiting loopholes to enrich themselves at our expense.

In this oil crisis, I sure do hope that the government won’t try to make us the heroes. This time, I hope they do their job.

SEE ALSO

COMMENTARY, OPINION

Some disadvantages of women

—————-

aatuazon@up.edu.ph

When thoughts and imagination cause harm

 

BY ANNA CRISTINA TUAZON

MARCH 5, 2026

Read Next

Of drinking water and public spaces 

Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay, in defending Vice President Sara Duterte’s public threats against President Marcos, made a shockingly inappropriate analogy. During a hearing on the impeachment complaint against the VP, Suntay used himself as an example, “Alam mo, minsan, nasa Shangri-la ako, nakita ko si Anne Curtis, ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kung ano ang pwedeng mangyari. Pero syempre, hanggang imagination na lang ‘yon. Hindi naman siguro ako pwedeng kasuhan dahil kung anu-ano ‘yong na-imagine ko.”

Members of the House of Representatives quickly asked that his statements be stricken from the record, given their impropriety. He doubled down and said there was nothing sexual and immoral about his statements. Even after the subsequent public outcry, he gave the standard non-apology: “I stand by that analogy that I made, but if some people were offended, lalo na Women’s Month, I’m sorry for those who were offended, but if you read the context talaga, there was nothing malicious in it.” His conduct is a prime example of, at its mildest, a reckless and irresponsible argument, and at its worst, the exercise of political power to condone and support the use of violent rhetoric.

The question of whether one should be responsible for their rhetoric, especially when it inspires physical violence, is playing out in different political arenas. This is at the heart of the arguments laid out in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s confirmation of charges hearing at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Violent rhetoric also plays a pivotal role in the naked aggression of countries, such as the United States, toward other sovereign nations, as well as against their own immigrants and citizens.

In praise of listening

 

BY ANNA CRISTINA TUAZON

FEBRUARY 19, 2026

Read Next

Dreaming of more trains for the Philippines

My maternity leave has led to an unintended consequence: opting out of my usual platforms for discourse. I had no students, no colleagues, no clients, and no column to which I can express my thoughts and ideas. It was not a slow month for news, either, making my self-imposed abstinence from opinion an even bigger challenge. There were concerning developments regarding civil rights violations in the United States, escalation of tensions around the West Philippine Sea, impeachment cases filed against the two highest positions in the land, and of course the infamous remarks of Sen. Robinhood Padilla regarding the youth as “weak” for having mental health issues. What a time to bring a child into the world!

That said, listening and observing are underrated skills and perhaps we should devote our time to it more often. In psychological first aid, we follow the core actions of “look, listen, and link.” Before we prescribe any intervention, we must first look at the situation and listen to our clients. In psychotherapy, listening and observing are fundamental and at times make up much of our work. I would often remind my students that if the therapist did most of the talking in session, that probably wasn’t therapy. This is what prompts the misconception that our work is easy, and that “all therapists do is listen.” In fact, listening is much more difficult, and has more impact, than talking.

There are depths to listening. One can hear but not listen. One can repeat what one hears but still fail to understand. To listen actively and empathically, which is what psychotherapy requires, is to observe at multiple levels at the same time. To hear what is being said, to hear what cannot be said, to observe how things are said, and to understand the context behind what is being said.

To listen to others well, you must also know how to listen to yourself. How are you receiving what you heard? What emotions and reactions are coming up for you as you listen to the experience of others? What urges accompany these reactions? What biases and context do you have that are filtering what you are hearing? For therapists, it is especially important to be well acquainted with your own voice, so you don’t impose it on others. One should also have the humility to acknowledge that our experience and views are, by essence, limited. This will allow us to listen to others without judgment or constraint.

Being forced to stay in listening mode this past month has been a good and humbling reminder for me. I’ve inhabited various positions of authority–of being a teacher, therapist, and professional–that has made me, perhaps, too comfortable in expressing and asserting my views. (Caring for a newborn is, likewise, a humbling experience. No amount of imposing my will on this little one will change when she wants to feed, cry, sleep, and poop. I am forced, as her mother, to hone my listening and observing skills to better anticipate her needs so that I can have even a sliver of a chance of sleep and rest.)

Listening opens us up to resources we usually gloss over. First, listening gives us time. Instead of reacting quickly, we have time to process and digest. If I had written this article right after Padilla’s statement, I would have probably expressed indignation and focused on providing counterarguments. But having to sit with it for a week, as well as allowing my emotions to complete their cycle, I feel less of a need to quench my personal frustration. I still do not agree with the senator’s sentiments. However, I can locate that my true frustration lies in the realization that such sentiments still exist in society–especially among leaders and elected officials–and that our work as mental health advocates are far from over.

Second, listening leads to empathy and compassion. The extra time I had to reflect on what I heard helped me see how our narrow definition of what it means to be strong and our unwillingness to be vulnerable has led us to cut short our empathy for others. Listening bridges us to others, helping us to see our interconnectedness. It opens us up beyond our personal and direct experience. It allows us to experience lives far different from our own. We see how this refusal to listen to others have led to cruelty. For example, refusing to listen to the lived experience of immigrants, instead labeling them as “illegals” or “criminals,” made supporting actions that violate their civil rights easier. Our version of it is “Red-tagging,” where we put labels such as “adik,” “tibak,” or “komunista” to give ourselves permission to stop listening and to stop seeing them as fellow human beings.

SEE ALSO

COMMENTARY, OPINION

Why I take the ICC probe personally

For this season of Lent, Pope Leo has urged us to abstain from speaking hurtful words and rash judgment. A good way of doing this is by focusing on listening. We might be surprised by what we hear.

 

‘It’s just a lifestyle show’

BY ANNA CRISTINA TUAZON

AUGUST 28, 2025

Read Next

Talk of the Town: PH tourism at gunpoint

Media ethics became a hot topic over the weekend, with some prominent broadcasters called out for featuring the ostentatious wealth of the Discayas, the controversial owners of two of the top 15 construction companies, who amassed billions from flood control projects. With Sarah Discaya having already filed for candidacy at the time, the timing of these interviews last year begged the question of whether they were part of her promotional campaign for mayor of Pasig City. It was already raised if it was appropriate—or even inspiring—to feature a “rags-to-riches” story about contractors who got their wealth from government projects.

An often-cited defense for such media pieces is that it was a lifestyle show and not investigative journalism. As such, they reasoned that it was not their place to question or probe their subjects even when red flags occurred. It is their story to tell, so who are we to question it?

This reminds me of my four-year stint hosting a small public affairs program. One could consider us “lifestyle,” in that we featured human interest stories and looked for inspiring stories of triumph against adversity. But since we were under the banner of “news and public affairs,” we also took our mission of providing education to the public seriously. I’m thankful that our executive producer, Janus Victoria, was unwavering in this regard. She exercised strict quality control that whatever topic we featured had to be treated with enough depth. She disciplined us in finding quality case studies and was discerning about whether useful lessons could be gleaned from their experiences. There were a few times that we decided not to air an episode, especially when we felt that our guest was being disingenuous or had nothing substantial to say on the matter.

My identity—and ethics—as a psychologist didn’t disappear just because I was on the screen. I was hired to host the show precisely because of my profession, to bring a mental health angle to issues of the day. As such, I took care that nothing in our show, either in our content or the way we treated our guests (and each other), would violate my principles as a mental health advocate. I would not allow mentally harmful views to be left unquestioned on air. I would engage with my guest so that multiple perspectives can be highlighted, helping our viewers discern for themselves. When guests talked about their success, I made sure to elucidate the struggles and challenges they faced along the way, as well as the privileges that helped them get there. This was to make sure that viewers won’t feel dissatisfied or disappointed in themselves for somehow not achieving the same success. I wanted them to understand that success has multiple routes, some easier and some harder, and almost always with a lot of luck.

There were also times when I had to take the conversation off-air as it became too personal, requiring my full clinical attention. We were careful to ensure continuing psychological support and resources for guests who needed it. Sometimes we would receive emails from viewers asking for professional advice; we treated those seriously and did not use them for our show.

This is why I cannot understand why the accused show runners would insist that they have no say in the treatment of their interview with the Discayas. As journalism professor Danilo Arao said in an interview about the issue, one cannot stop being a journalist just because one is on a different platform. Similarly, my profession and ethics as a psychologist did not stop simply because I hosted a TV show. Professional ethics should run through every aspect of production. From choosing the topic, choosing the guest, deciding on an angle and how to package the content. The interview should be run ethically; we need to treat both guests and viewers with respect and dignity. One can remain respectful and nonconfrontative in an interview while also making sure that viewers have all the information and context they need to make informed opinions about the subject.

If a small show like ours could exercise editorial control, what more of these big shows with big-name hosts? They are not struggling in ratings; they can have their pick of the litter when it comes to guests. Their reputation has secured them significant autonomy from their networks to run their show as they see fit. We had to balance our topics to keep us afloat in views (and keep the higher-ups appeased). Yes, our most viewed episodes tend to be about sex and relationships. But even those subjects were treated with depth. I made sure we did not turn the topics into a laughing matter. As a psychologist and educator, I made sure that viewers would be able to learn something useful, even with such light-hearted subjects.

SEE ALSO

COLUMNISTS, OPINION

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm?

Lifestyle can have depth. Lifestyle can be critical. Most of all, lifestyle should uplift and provide insights that improve people’s quality of life. It is never “just” lifestyle.

—————-

aatuazon@up.edu.ph

Why kids break

 

Why kids break Kids cannot tolerate mistakes because the world does not tolerate mistakes. When mistakes become unacceptable, the situation turns desperate. The world is no longer worth living in when our mistakes follow us wherever we go. If the kids have become fragile, it is only because the world would rather break them than let them bend.