The only country confused over its national anthem

First it was Martin Nievera who treated the national anthem the way he would an ordinary song. Then Arnel Pineda did similarly. Is nothing sacred anymore? Both sparked warnings by the National Historical Institute. Nievera has since apologized. We will see about Pineda.

I am not, however, optimistic that something can be done about these transgressions. First, more and more Filipinos actually see nothing wrong if such symbols of national identity get sacrificed in favor of what we falsely believe is our right to do things the way we want to.

Admittedly, artistic license is a sort of freedom. That being so, people tend to get very emotional in its defense. But there is no such thing as absolute freedom or license. The right to do something has got to stop somewhere, particularly in face of something greater.

I believe artistic license cannot proceed beyond that point of common sense where it gets to mangle the national anthem. The national anthem represents an entire people. It is not open to interpretation by individuals, no matter how strongly they may invoke a particular right.

It is, of course, easy to see why people no longer find it a big deal if anyone sings the anthem in a way different from how it was meant to be sung. If people no longer even stop for the national anthem, as if they do not hear it being played, why would they even care how it sounds?

The truth of the matter is, there is a severe erosion of pride in our country, and consequently of most, if not all, of the rites and symbols that represent it. Almost everything that denotes who we are have now been trivialized and rendered unimportant.

Look at our national holidays. They have lost their significance the moment we allowed them to become movable dates, and all because of something far less significant and unproven as “holiday economics.”

Yet our leaders who introduced such a demeaning concept would not have dared to do that had they not fully understood, and taken advantage of, the shift in the national mood — from being nationalistic to something that can only be described as being callous or oblivious.

Our leaders have seen how the view of Filipinos toward holidays has evolved from seeing them as occasions to sincerely honor significant events and heroes to being simply occasions of relaxation and enjoyment, or as opportunities to earn extra income from holiday premiums.

Having understood that, our leaders, being politicians, immediately saw the opportunity to use national holidays as political tools by which they can derive public approval, which is very important for political survival.

   By the same token, of what sanctity does the national anthem hold for us when we do not even have national museums that evoke our great compelling desire to visit and learn about our identities and our past?

 Of what dignity can be attached to the national anthem when all around us we see national monuments in varying degrees of neglect and disgrace? Of what pride can we show for the anthem when the national flag to which we sing is often displayed in faded colors, if not in tatters.

There are a million songs out there that any artist worth his salt can interpret to his or her heart’s content. But there is not a single one among those millions of other songs that we can call our national anthem. So why do we have to tamper with that too?

What kind of a nation is it that allows artistic license to prevail over the sanctity of the national anthem? We as a nation can go to war over the national anthem. But I have yet to see a nation willing to shed blood over the right of anyone to sing ordinary songs any way he wants.

A national anthem is called so because it is something distinct to a nation. If we sing it differently each time, we will have as many versions as there are singers, in which case what is the point in having a national anthem at all?