Hello classmates! Since we are discussing elites during the Japanese Occupation, I would like to ask your opinions regarding former President Jose P. Laurel who has been dubbed as a "war collaborator" during his administration. Apparently, there are some historians who are insisting that he was not the same as others who collaborated with the Japanese for profit. It was said that Laurel was given instructions by Pres. Manuel Quezon and Gen. Douglas MacArthur to remain in Manila and take charge of the civilian government. There are some chapters in history books such as "Test of Wills: Diplomacy between Japan and the Laurel Government" by Prof. Ricardo Jose portraying President Laurel as recalcitrant and uncooperative with the Japanese which led them to turn to the Makapili. Also, Laurel was shown to have pushed for diplomacy despite the war.
In light of these readings, I would like to hear what you think about whether branding Jose P. Laurel as a "puppet president" in elementary and high school text books is accurate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBranding Jose P. Laurel as a “puppet president” is somehow unfair. And I believe that the group of men who perpetrated the idea of Laurel as a “collaborator” were the “self-identified patriots” who left Laurel behind the country during the Japanese occupation and “comfortably” stayed in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThese “self-identified patriots” severely criticized Laurel and his colleagues for working and cooperating with the Japanese forces. For them, Laurel and his company were traitors. But who were they to judge? Throughout the Japanese occupation, they were thousands of miles away from the country. They did not experience nor even see the harsh and ruthless rule of the enemy. As in the words of a renowned Filipino historian:*
Patrioteers who enjoyed the easy and good
life in the United States during the grim
war, who never knew what enemy occupation
meant, who spoke volubly of freedom and
democracy behind gleaming desks in air-
conditioned rooms, who had no imagination
to put themselves in the position of men
in occupied territories, – in short, men
who had a false sense of pride and
prejudice were quick to condemn acts they
never understand.
And if we try to examine more closely, aside from condemning Laurel for “collaborating” with the Japanese forces, these “patriots” possibly had an ulterior motive from doing so. Perhaps, they discredited Laurel, who was allegedly gaining support at that time from majority of the Filipinos for his programs such as campaign for food production, to repudiate his leadership and thus it would be them who would be placed in the highest positions of the government as soon as the Japanese rule ended.
Like what our classmate said in reference to Dr. Jose Rizal, let us also give another Jose the benefit of the doubt.
* Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 8th ed. (Quezon City, University of the Philippines, 1990), p. 403 ff.
I suppose that depends on how you viewed his collaboration. You could say that he had no choice -- that it was the only recourse through which he could best lead the state. Unfortunately, that argument leads to questions about choice. Saying that there is 'no' choice is incorrect and masks other options; there is always a choice.
ReplyDeleteLaurel made a choice to collaborate as a diplomatic measure, in the perspective of others. However, who can say for certain that it is simply out of concern for the entire state? Only Laurel can truly answer whether or not he also collaborated to preserve his interests the way other future presidents also did.
At face value, Laurel is a puppet president. He was the head of state, but a head of state under the command of the Japanese colonists. However, if he really acted as such, in practice, is debatable.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, he was more like a "channel" for the Filipinos leaders who fled abroad. He "collaborated" with the Japanese to gain access within the structure/system.
As to whether "he had a choice or not", I agree with Nina that there is always a choice. The question is why he did choose to collaborate with the Japanese. Am I right in my assumption that he did so in order to act as a medium of access for his brothers abroad? Or, did he do so for more personal/selfish reasons? Or maybe, after weighing the pros and cons, it was the best decision that he could choose considering the circumstances?
Whatever his reasons are, it is only he who can account for what his real intentions were. The best that we can do is speculate based on what historians and what the people involved had recounted to us.
Be careful with names of people. You mean Milagros "Guerrero," not "Guevarra." Small errors like this diminish your credibility. It is a symptom of carelessness.
ReplyDeleteSheer assertions fall flat. If you want to convince, explain concretely how Laurel demonstrated his loyalty to the people. What insurmountable tasks did he face? In what way did he soften the impact of the Japanese occupation? Unless you can demonstrate these, your defense of Laurel carries no weight.
FN
For Ms. Garcia
ReplyDeleteSince he was selected by the Japanese and the Japanese retained absolute power throughout the occupation, how can Laurel be anything but a "puppet president"?
You are suggesting that all of Laurel's critics were Filipino officials who sought refuge in the United States. In fact, most of his critics were based in the Philippines and spent the wartime in the country.
You ascribe "ulterior motives" to his critics. What were those ulterior motives? Show in what way these motives were indeed ulterior.
Be careful with wild assertions. To make your points convincing, explain your bases for saying them.
FN
For Ms Nina
ReplyDeletePlease sign your name whenever you enter the class blog or write an email to me because I cannot identify your alias, "Nina".
Maybe Laurel really had no choice but agree to be the president of the Puppet Republic. Had he refused to collaborate, like Justice Jose Abad Santos and Crisanto Evangelista, the Japanese might have executed him.
I am not aware of a single instance when he betrayed a compatriot, but neither am I aware of anything good he did for the country.
FN
For Ms. Chua
ReplyDeleteLaurel himself admitted in his 1949 presidential campaign that he had no powers as head of state; in other words, he was a puppet president. Therefore, he could not be blamed for the atrocities committed against his people. Perhaps, he had no choice but accept the appointment since he was in Japanese hands; to refuse could mean death, like Justice Jose Abad Santos.
In fairness, there is no evidence that he betrayed anybody to the Japanese. It is therefore unfair to call him a traitor. Collaboration under duress is not an act of treason.
Did he serve as a "channel" or a spy for the Commonwealth leaders in the US? That's what he claimed after the war. This is confirmed by MacArthur. But I take MacArthur's words with a grain of salt. He also said that to exonerate Roxas, Vargas and other top-level politicians who collaborated. On the eve of "independence," the Americans were anxious to save the power elite structure they had cultivated in half a century.
If indeed he served as a spy or mole (you prefer to call it a "channel"), how useful was he? if (as he claimed after the war) he was powerless, he was excluded from the power circle because the Japanese did not trust him completely, what inside information could he have passed on to the US?
In political science we do not bother probing into a politician's personal motives. We will never know that unless he writes a credible (warts and all) autobiography. We judge by his actions and the consequences of what we know he did.
FN