Is Duterte’s ‘Son of a whore’ for Obama?

Once again, the Philippine President, Rodrigo Roa Duterte has stirred international attention. The news that the Philippine President recently ‘called’ the United States President Barrack Obama a ‘son of a whore’ had spread like wildfire and have drawn a lot of attention and criticism in international media. Australia’s news.com.au headline, “Philippine president calls Barack Obama a ‘son of a wh*re’”; from the British newspaper, The Guardian: “Barack Obama cancels meeting after Philippines president calls him a ‘son of a whore’”; Al Jazeera: “Barack Obama cancels Rodrigo Duterte talks after insult: Philippine president expressed ‘regret’ after calling US leader ‘son of a whore’ ahead of planned talks”. The incident even made it into The Late Night Show with Stephen Colbert on 7 Sept 2016.

The Philippine President was set to leave the evening of 5 September 2016 for Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic to participate in the 28th and 29th ASEAN Summits and Related Summits. After a short message before the Philippine media, the President was asked by a correspondent of international news wire service Reuters, Jerome Morales, whether the President had prepared a line of communication to address the issue on “extrajudicial killings and human rights” in the government’s campaign against illegal drugs.

The President politely inquired with a tinge in the slow tone of his voice,

“To whom shall I address myself to and who will be asking the questions, may I know?”

The fledgling Morales, who previously stammered asking the President, replied,

“like, Obama, sir.”

The response offered a broader view for those who had been too fond of bringing up the subject on “extrajudicial killings” and human rights. It was short, informative like a smack in the face. He lectured,

“You know, the Philippines is not a vassal state.”

A vassal state, according to the U.S. legal definition, is “a state that is supposed to possess and enjoy only those rights that are granted to it by a more powerful state. The term is seen used in the context of international law. A vassal state is any state that is subordinate to another.”

Supporting his previous statement, he reminded those who had too few history lessons.

“We have long ceased to be a colony of the United States.”

The President referred to the Treaty of Manila, signed on 4 July 1946, wherein the United States granted the Philippines full independence and the recognition of that independence ¹ and wherein on that same day, the first President of the Third Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated. ²

Duterte then he veered towards those whose writings have become familiar to him in a short while.

“Alam mo, marami diyan mga — sa kolumnista (You know, there are many, among columnists), they look upon Obama and the United States as if we are the lap dogs of this country.”

To, but unlike, them who harbor a derogative feeling towards their own country, believing that the Republic is subject to the United States and that the Philippine government is somehow answerable to the President of the U.S., Duterte made his position clear, saying,

“I do not respond to anybody but to the people of the Republic of the Philippines.”

Which, if not obvious, confirmed that he is only accountable to the Filipino and not to Barrack Obama.

“Wala akong pakialam sa kaniya. (I don’t care about him.) Who is he?”

Duterte wanted to destroy that unpatriotic notion or belief that the Philippines is a vassal state. In fact, he must have deplored the thought because as he once said, “I am just an ordinary person. But, my god, no one can question my love for my country.” To make people think twice and demolish that unpatriotic idea, he presented a history lesson,

“When as a matter of a fact, at the turn of the century, before the Americans left the Philippines in the pacification campaign of the Moro in this island, there were about six million ang population ng Moro. (there were about six million Moros.) How many died? Six hundred!”

He referred to one painful past of the Moros and of the Filipino people as a whole, the Bud Dajo Massacre of 1906, during the Moro Rebellion against the United States military which lasted from from 1899 to 1913. Others have called it “The Battle of Bud Dajo” wherein, as said, 600 Moros were slaughtered in that dormant crater by American soldiers. Samuel Clemens wrote, according to the official cablegram coming from the Commander of the United States in the Philippines to the U.S. Government in Washington, “six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them…” ³ The then Sulu District Governor, Major Hugh Scott, described the occupants of Bud Dajo as harmless villagers seeking refuge from the upheaval on Jolo caused by the actions of American forces. The men, if possessing arms, have only melee weapons. ⁴ Did Duterte mention that among the 600 massacred in Bud Dajo are women and children? That event reached the U.S. press and the New York Times ran the headline: ‘WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILLED IN MORO BATTLE PRESIDENT WIRES CONGRATULATIONS TO TROOPS.’ ⁵

Duterte engaged his audience with a proposition,

“If he can answer that question and give the apology, I will answer him.”

Then he iterated because it is important. It is important because it is about the Filipinos. It is important because it is about the Republic of the Philippines. It is important that we know who we are and where we stand. Duterte said firmly,

“I am not beholden to anybody. Iyong mga kolumnista diyan na (Those columnists who write) ‘wait until he meets,’ — who is he? I am a President of a sovereign state, and we have long ceased to be a colony. I do not have any master, except the Filipino people, nobody but nobody.”

He advised,

“You must be respectful. Do not just throw away questions and statements.”

And to whom did he send his advise to? He could not have given that advise to Obama, did he? After clarifying that he “doesn’t care about him” and that he does not recognize the authority of the President of the United States over the Philippines, would he then resort to advising Obama? He knows very well that they are both presidents and that neither is above the other. If not directed towards Obama, could his advise therefore be for his audience? — reporters, columnists, journalists.

The following statement of President Duterte is where the swearing was heard. One cannot ignore that up to this point, his subject was the columnists who write things he did not said and who think we are a vassal state and subject to the United States; and to whom he ad directed all his messages and to whom he had been trying to explain where the Philippines and the President stands.

“Puta’ng-ina, mumurahin kita diyan sa forum na ‘yan ([son of a] bitch, I will swear at you in that forum).”

He said, ‘Puta’ng-ina’ meaning ‘Puta’ng [Puta ang] (the whore, the bitch, but ‘the’ is usually not translated); ‘ina’ (mother). If you translate that literally, ‘Whore mother’, but you don’t say it that way in english. The closest english equivalent is ‘bitch’ or maybe ‘son of a bitch’ but not ‘you son of a bitch’.

When he said, “I will swear at you in that forum”, could he have meant Obama whom he had only referred to in the third person, as ‘he’ or ‘him’ like when Duterte said, “Who is he?” and “… I will answer him.” Moreover, Obama wasn’t the gist of all he had said so far.

A local journalist who have written about the topic focused on the word ‘you’ wherein, she said, the Filipino word for ‘you’ that Duterte used was the singular word ‘kita’. She argued that if Duterte was referring to columnists, he should have used the plural form of the word which is ‘kayo’. Both words are translated to english as ‘you’. The former singular and the latter plural, depending on the context it is used.

In his next statement, he counseled,

“Huwag mo akong ganunin (Don’t do that kind of thing to me).”

What thing should not be done? Duterte referred to throwing away of questions and statements. The original Filipino sentence for that could only mean that the speaker is speaking to his audience. It could never mean to be towards a third person. So far, Duterte was not speaking to Obama. He used the word ‘mo’, again translated into ‘you’ in english, and contextually ‘you’ refers to his audience or to whom he is speaking to. So, when he said, “Don’t you do that kind of thing to me,” he could not have meant Obama because he is not speaking to him.

“Tell that to everybody.”

Is this statement bidding Obama to tell everybody what he just said? If he was directing his son-of-a-whore words to Obama, would directing his audience to tell that to everybody make any sense?

In the rest of his answer, Duterte continued to refer to Obama in the third person except in a few cases where he was clear that he is talking to Obama.

When the news reached the U.S. President, Obama remarked, “I don’t take these comments personally because it seems that this is a phrase he’s used repeatedly including directed to the Pope and others. And so, I think, it seems to be just a habit - a way of speaking for him.” (Time) ●