London is only a place

LONDON  — I had planned this visit to London long before I decided I would reprint “The Untold Story of Imelda Marcos.” It was in my bucket list a must thing to do before I die or as the saying goes,  before one kicks the bucket.  All throughout last year I thought of what I would do to retrace the footsteps of that 20-year exile, revisit Earl’s Court where Filipinos congregate and find out what had happened to old friends, the brave few who worked with us as the opposition in the dark days of martial law.

The day before I left I was interviewed for a broadcast trailer about the reprinted book. I was told by my interviewer that people looked askance when we spoke of a long London exile. “After all, he said, “what could be better than to be exiled in a  place of glamour? My quick reply was there was a difference between London as a place for tourists and as a place of exile.  It was a difference akin to freedom and imprisonment. As a tourist one was free to come and go but it was horrific to know that one could not go home because your had made an enemy of people in power.  It gnawed at you everyday and no matter how pleasant life could be the only thing that mattered was to be freed. When and how will the day of freedom be?  It was a daydream that occupied all my waking hours. London could not be a place of glamour for me. And even then, I thought that if I ever did write about my exile, it would be to teach the lesson that “London is only a place.” Apropos this lesson Albert Camus said it brilliantly: “We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash it on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves and in others.”

*      *      *

I have come to London to test that feeling. I have just arrived but already I discover that although many things have changed it is also true that nothing has changed. I was taken aback when I read a sign that had not been there before: United Kingdom border. How odd. That used to be taken for granted when the plane lands or even before that once we enter the entire London sky above us.

So what was the sign for? Emphasis I think. British authorities want to make clear to arriving passengers especially if seeking asylum that they have already transgressed immigration law beyond the sign.

The Tory government policy remains the same as it had been when we were on exile here in the 70s. “We are restoring order to our immigration system to bring annual net migration down to the tens of thousands — rather than the hundreds of thousands we saw under Labour — by the end of this Parliament. We have capped economic migration, reformed the student visa system, and we’re changing the family visa rules. We have made reforms at our borders, to ensure they are safe and secure.”

In the 70s the Filipino community was the chosen target of Tory policy to fulfill Margaret Thatcher’s campaign promise to limit immigration into the UK.

My late husband, Alberto Pedrosa was elected by Filipinos in London to lead the campaigns. One was known as the Resident Domestics Campaign and the other was the Immigration Widows Campaign. The campaigns gave us an opportunity to help politicize Filipinos both as residents in the UK and as citizens of the Philippines.  They would only follow opposition against martial law in the Philippines if they could relate their condition as a powerless community in the UK because of government neglect. It was their welfare at stake more than it was about taking sides in the politics of the Philippines.

*      *      *

London was a favored city of Imelda Marcos when she embarked on her new career of becoming visible in Europe’s high society.  So while Filipinos were being harassed for trying to find a way to earn their living, Imelda was living it up as a social parvenu in London, buying multimillion dollar paintings, jewelry and silver — anything she could get hold of as “beautiful things.”

I have heard and indeed some have written to say that the Untold Story of Imelda Marcos is so sad you feel sorry for her. That is the irony.  But it is only half of the story. The other half is about how that sad and cruel past made her insatiable as First Lady of the Philippines. Just because she was acquitted by a trial by jury in New York does not wipe out the damage that she wrought on the country with her compulsion to make up for that past. There is a second part to the story of Imelda Marcos. It must be told together.

*      *      *

Years ago, a close friend showed me a painting by Manansala which he said was hidden by the painter. The national artist was asked by Imelda to make a portrait of her.  He did paint her as he had promised but then chose to hide the painting. The painting is Manansala’s version of Imelda as Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Until and unless we purge that Hyde part of her role as First Lady, government officials who get elected and enrich themselves in office see in her the best example. She remains unpunished and unrepentant as the symbol of the culture of impunity in the Philippines.

Imelda’s story has only been partly told. That is the part of having been poor as a child and as a young woman, the other part is of a First Lady’s acquisitiveness that knew no bounds. Her trial in New York does not prove her innocence. On the contrary it will remain the documented proof of more than 300,000 documents and dozens of witnesses of her role in the botched nation building of the Philippines.