Asian Views

On Michael Pinches’ article titled: Modernisation and the Quest for Modernity

2008-01-18T22:20:00.001+08:00

The monumental architectural spectacles created by then First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos during the Marcos regime remain unsurpassed by any state-sponsored building project up to this time. Likewise, we can say that there has been no equally comprehensive program aimed at addressing rapid urbanization in Metro Manila since when the Marcos regime collapsed.

Pinches article "Modernization and the quest for modernity: architectural form, squatter settlements and the new society in Manila" portrays a vivid image of the rapid urbanization taking place in Metro Manila at the time, and the policy initiatives of the government tasked to the First Lady. A dilemma and irony of insurmountable proportion that confronted the Marcos administration was the fact that a former beauty queen and First Lady was designate the avant-garde of the Marcos administration in dealing with the urbanization in Metro Manila. Most likely the reason for this was that President Ferdinand Marcos wanted to get personal involvement in this issue.

It is important to mention some of the government agencies instituted during the Marcos regime to get a picture of how serious and comprehensive the Marcos government’s was in confronting the issue of urbanization: it was during the Marcos administration that the Ministry of Human Settlement, National Housing Authority, and even the School of Urban and Regional Planning of the University of the Philippines were instituted to support the government initiatives as formal agencies tasked to deal with issue and as intellectual resources.

In the regime’s quest for modernity and the First Lady’s noble intentions to lead the transformation of the capital city out of the grim reality that usually accompany rapid urbanization – beginning from what she called the "Filipino souls" through her initiative named "Sanctuary of the Filipino Soul" for the Cultural Center – she ended up confronted with moral issues, and questions of priority. The monumentality of the Cultural Center of the Philippines that she built stood in stark contrast with the squatters’ settlements she built for the urban poor, and according to some scholars created a glaring ‘showcase architecture’ that became symbol of the failures of the Marcos administration in addressing commercialization and rapid urban growth in Metro Manila.

Freedom Tower Promise

2006-05-14T04:25:00.000+08:00

By all indications the architecture of the building speaks in bold statements, but does not seem to promise what was envisioned at the beginning: creativity at its highest. Last April 27, the construction of the Freedom Tower at Ground Zero was officially started, more than four years after the incident of September 11, and after a long and slow public planning process; thanks to the high profile wrangling among the key players and stakeholders.

Present to do the honor of the ceremony at site of the former World Trade Center as reported in the New York Times were the usual suspects: New York Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, Developer Larry Silverstein, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Chairman Anthony Coscia, architect David Childs among others.

"Hoy, vamos a construir la Torre de Libertad," the Governor of New York was quoted as saying at the Ground Zero, in response to a question posed by a television reporter. But before the Governor could pronounce that declaration, New York City has to be treated to long series of public spectacles of power struggles proceeding in the following manner:

Shortly after the incident of September 11, squabbling promptly ensued among stakeholders as to who would control what in the redevelopment of the site of the devastated World Trade Center. In the aftermath, Governor Pataki and then-Mayor Guiliani created the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). Its mission: ‘to help plan and coordinate the rebuilding and revitalization of Lower Manhattan’. This would create problem as the WTC site is owned by another public entity, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Another stakeholder drawn into the foray was Larry Silverstein, well-known private developer who holds the lease of the World Trade Center. Silverstein bought the lease of the World Trade Center just several weeks before the attack on the World Trade Center. This burden ushered in negotiations over the lease issue between him as leaseholder and Port Authority the property owner, as well as legal battles over insurance claims.

As if these were not enough, the plot thickened. Moving along with then-unraveling power struggle for the control of the redevelopment was the public planning process for the redevelopment. One thing that would turn out difficult was reconciling the ideas of the master planner with the design concepts of the architect of the Freedom Tower. The reason: each party seemed determined to advance their interest, and each has their own favorite planner and designer for the redevelopment of the WTC site. As the planning process progress, strained relation developed between architects, echoing the clash of interests of their respective clients.

We recall that Architect David Childs, of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, was favored to design the Freedom Tower by Larry Silverstein. And Daniel Libeskind, of Studio Daniel Libeskind, was the one selected for the master planning, out of the seven finalists in the LMDC-conducted urban planning competition. With that honor Libeskind held the privilege of wielding that tremendous influence over the architectural design of all the architectural components in the World Trade Center site, including ultimately the symbolic Freedom Tower. Which power by the way Libeskind imposed. Childs on the other hand, seemed to have stood ground to defend his own design concept for the Freedom Tower.

This disarray entwined with the wrangling among the usual suspects, politicians, owners, developers, mortgage firm, insurance company, architects included, and the list goes on, one questioning the action of another or filing suits to all directions, may have limited the creativity of the designers to come up with the most creative architectural solutions. Creativity an issue? One may ask that question, but this is Manhattan which is a holy land in all sense, even for those who may otherwise not use the word. And, after all, now is the chance to build that symbolic tower of freedom, and if the artistry fails in its design, it will be burden for sure for long years.

Now that the public have seen the design of the Freedom Tower, it seems more apparent that the resolution of the conflicts reduced the upbeat spirit to produce an architectural icon, with the prevailing seemingly cookie cutter architectural solution for the Freedom Tower. (We shall find out as the construction of the Freedom Tower progress if design modification reveals far better Freedom Tower than what the images tell).

Again, let’s go back in time to look at the familiar milestones of this public planning process. In May 2002, Beyer Blinder Belle, a premiere architecture firm (main offices in New York and Washington DC) known for merging historic preservation concepts with high-tech architecture, was consulted by a selection committee to work with LMDC and Port Authority on the initial urban planning study. While the LMDC and Port Authority were gathering proposals from all over, for an urban planning study of the downtown Manhattan area, Beyer Blinder Belle came up with six preliminary urban planning schemes. These schemes emphasized on block layouts, building massings, building locations, plans for the foot prints of the twin towers, and concepts for inter-modal transportation center. However, at the public presentation in the following July, these six schemes was received with mix reviews, and negative reactions.

As a result, the initial program developed by Beyer Blinder Belle was revised to include the following parameters: interests on commercial space, "powerful skyline element", and a WTC memorial to be at the 'foot prints' of the original twin towers. Combined, these concepts constituted the new program that would serve as guiding principles for the next round of the planning process.

In September of 2002 after collecting some 407 proposals, the LMDC and Port Authority announced the six selected finalists. These teams, a total of seven (including one hired by LMDC at the beginning) were to participate in the second round of urban design study for the destroyed Lower Manhattan neighborhood. These seven teams were made up of the best architectural practice in the world, and teams of combined brightest architects.

By early February 2003, LMDC announced the selection of Studio Daniel Libeskind and THINK team as the finalists. THINK team’s entry seems like a masterpiece and must have been formidable in the final round of competition. It presented three schemes. The first, "Sky Park" creates a 16-acre rooftop park that spirals up around new buildings and the protected footprints of the Twin Towers. The second, "The Great Room," would create a vast protected indoor plaza surrounded by various buildings, including a new tallest building in the world. The "World Cultural Center," the third proposal, would provide two huge open latticework structures into which different architects could insert new "buildings" as the need for them arises. The bases of the structures surround, but do not infringe upon the original towers' footprints.

After a few weeks, it was Studio Daniel Libeskind’s revised design that emerged the winner, chosen as the plan that will guide the redevelopment of WTC site.

Many thought Libeskind’s signature master plan was a stroke of genius. It evolved through time with refinements responsive to myriad opinions including those coming from design community and the general public. In September 2003 public presentation, the master plan for the WTC site carried the following elements not far from his acclaimed original scheme: a 1776 feet high Freedom Tower shaped to be the culmination of ascending ensemble of new skyscrapers, a slurry wall as part of design element, space for memorial and cultural facilities, redefined street grid, and slimmer office towers intended to reduce density at the site. Relation of the Freedom Tower to the Statue of Liberty was one his strong concept that was fiercely debated.

The most important elements in the planning of the Ground Zero, the architecture of Freedom Tower carries many meanings. It is intended to symbolize liberty and commerce, according to a Wall Street Journal writer. Its height of 1776 feet tries to rekindle the spirit of the birth of the nation. The highest floor will equal the top floor of the original Twin Towers, where, similar to the original, a restaurant will be built. It will be topped with a communication antennae designed by a sculptor, extending up to 1776 feet height. When it is finished, it will be the highest structure ever built. Images released to public revealed façade reminiscent of the original towers. Only it differs in its chamfered corner, creating a tapering form closely resembling that of the obelisk. At the base of the tower will be twenty stories concrete podium, covered with glass claddings to hide its massive form.

It is important to note that skyscraper was born an American architectural tradition. It started in the late 19th century in Chicago and New York. Earliest skyscrapers were around twelve stories high, built in the downtown neighborhoods of these bustling American cities, for commercial purposes. It should be expected that the architecture of the Freedom Tower pay homage to this tradition through the most creative architectural solution.

By all indications the Lower Manhattan is poised to claim the honor as the premier architectural capital of the world. Aside from Freedom Tower, other architectural components in the master plan, the memorial, transportation hub, performing arts center and four other skyscrapers are now reserved for what Newsweek calls as the 'avant-garde old guards' of architecture, also known as 'starchitects'.

Except for Michael Arad, the young architect who won in the design competition for the WTC memorial, these star architects are the world’s most celebrated, and of course also high-priced. Frank Gehry, who takes on the performing arts center, is known for his signature undulating forms made famous since his Guggenheim Museum architecture in Bilbao, Spain. The British Norman Foster who takes on one of the five skyscrapers, has unrivaled expertise in high-tech architecture. Santiago Calatrava of Spain has designed bridges and transportation terminals in fine strokes of genius, is perfect choice for the transportation hub. Richard Rogers, another British architect (designer of the Centre Pompidou in Paris with Renzo Piano) will add another British touch on another high rise. There is always a distinction when it comes to minimalist architecture designed by a Japanese, and Fumihiko Maki, Pritzker Prize laureate is expected to bring that qualities in the architecture of the fourth tower. The French Jean Nouvel, recipient of Royal Gold Medal in 2001, architect of the famed Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris, ‘enfant terrible’ of French architecture who, according to a Paris-based architecture critic, is known for his outspoken criticism on urban regeneration projects in France, will bring that honor to the fifth tower.

These architects are recipients of at least one of the following architecture’s most prestigious accolades: Pritzker Prize, Royal Institute of British Architects’ Royal Gold Medal, American Institute of Architects’ Gold Medal, and prestigious international design competition prizes.

Interestingly the creation of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation by Governor Pataki and then-Mayor Guiliani in the aftermath of September 11, proved to be an excellent move. As contained in their mission statement, it aims to create an transparent public planning process for the redevelopment of WTC site, and it succeeded in that, with the public's enormous participation in 'shaping the future of Lower Manhattan'. Other than that, it also succeeded in putting the government (throught the LMDC) at the helm, important since it provides access to resources and funds from Federal, state and city governments. Since the Port Authority's (the property owner) expertise is on management of public facilities, not development of property, the creation of the LMDC filled that gap.

When, otherwise, the redevelopment project was put on the hand of private developers, the worst thing to have happened was to left it to the dictates of the market, resulting in nightmares of over commercializations, at the expense of cultural, historical, political concerns. What the private developers may be able to accomplish is expeditious delivery of the project, and, only up to a certain extent, quality. Project like the redevelopment of WTC site, which carry enormous meaning beyond commerce alone, time is not the only essence but the quality of the completed project, which should most importantly pay homage to cultural and history.

Of course the LMDC and people of New York already recognised these historical and cultural significance of the place. To go beyond the American context, however, may prove to be the best solution for this place, creation that honor and celebrate the world's cultural diversity. It would then be another field days for the architects to find the best architectural solutions.

And now going back to the Freedom Tower, ‘quality’ seems to illude as indicated in the less impressive architecture for the Freedom Tower that is now known to public.

Time magazine's lists of best and worst senators.

2006-04-28T00:34:00.000+08:00

It was an article I could hardly believe, it rattled my mind and sent me rummaging through my files to find a contact information.

A week ago, while trying to finish my very first post on this blog, I came across with an article in Time magazine's website. It was titled "America's Best Senators", which came up with a list of ten United States Senators who 'make a difference'. As far as I remember, the article highlighted the accomplishments of each of these ten senators during terms serving in the U.S. Congress. Likewise, it contained rundown of issues each one engaged with, their positions and responsibilities in their respective committees, and their styles of dealing on issues especially across party line, as well as some other stories while in service.

The article was immediately followed by another, this time entitled "The Worst Senators". And there, to my surprise was the name of Senator Daniel Akaka, who I would say I've known well enough. I met the Senator in Washington DC last October 2005 (while on field study as an exchange scholar of the East-West Center), in his office in Hart Senate Office Building, at Capitol Hill. In that meeting I had the chance to talk about the Akaka Bill, which deals on the rights of the native Hawaiian people. The bill is up in the US Senate and soon will be debated for its passage. I believed it was stalled lately to give way to legislations consequential to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

While these days I am tired of reading the usual noxious news about Philippines politics, where our politicians live like they are in Dark Ages, continually squabbling while our neighbors are riding the tide of economic and political development, I entertained my self by reading the whole Time article, to find out what were written about each of these select members of US Congress, to try to see how the weekly magazine came up with the list, what issues were focused on, and to find out whether the whole article merit serious thoughts. But the last one doen't really matter now. The mere publication of such kind of article may prop up or squander one's reputation to his or her constituents.

Having lived in Hawaii for several months for my Asia Pacific Leadership Program fellowship at the East-West Center, during which I first learned about the Akaka Bill and some issues in the state, it gave me that outsider's view on the local politics. And so, in reference to the Time magazine's write up on the senator, I drafted the following letter addressed to the editor:

Dear Editor,

I felt dismayed to read your article listing Senator Daniel Akaka under the five worst Senators. I have leaved in Hawaii for several months as an international student, chosen to participate in the Asia Pacific Leadership Program, by the East-West Center, a research and educational institution based in Honolulu. I met with the Senator during a field study in Washington DC. All these helped me to see issues, both local and regional.

We should remember that Hawaii is different from most other states of the United States, not only because of its geographic location and its beaches, varied ethnic groups and the Native Hawaiian people, but also because of its richness in history and unique culture, the preservation of which is one foremost concern of the people of Hawaii. With the plight of the native Hawaiian eloquently written in the pages of history, and presented vividly in the museums around the state, it is more than just fitting that a bill supporting the preservation of the Hawaiian culture becomes a law. Such is one issue, among many others, that Senator Akaka has been working on, the proof of this is the Akaka Bill. What is Hawaii with its indigenous culture gone? It is not just the beautiful beaches and mountains, but the native Hawaiian culture as well, that make up these beautiful islands of the Pacific unique. The current political system and tourism, pose constant threats to the native Hawaiians and their culture. Another international weekly news magazine recognized the importance of preserving the world’s heritage sites (which is similar advocacy the Senator is promoting), by dedicating its April 10 and April 17 International Edition and double issue to that cause. If this is what you call parochial, on the contrary, by addressing this kind of issue in Hawaii the Senator, I believe, serves more, and deserve much better credit than being labeled among the worst.

Yours truly,

Emilio Garrido
Manila, Philippines

Treading into the Capitol in Washington DC

2006-04-25T03:08:00.001+08:00

The day was full of schedules for all of us in the Asia Pacific Leadership Program similar to other days of our Washington DC field study. In the early morning of that day, my friend and I missed the bus that should have transported all the APLP cohorts to Booz Allen Hamilton headquarters in McLean, Virginia, for a day workshop. We tried to catch up with the group by taking a cab to Virginia, which we found out from our hotel concierge, would take about 45 minutes to reach the BAH headquartes from our location in Dupont Circle neighborhood.

We went anyway, but when we arrived at the BAH headquarters, we were motioned not to join the workshop anymore as it was already underway. That was a blow dealt to us for missing the start of this important engagement. Thanks for being billeted in a neighborhood known for its variety of pubs, restaurants and young night life; it must be the root cause, I later thought. Mea culpa.

Thanks God, the morning still promised a productive day ahead of us, with my friend’s network saving us from seemingly a failure day. At the BAH headquarters lobby we decided to head back to Capitol Hill, for a second ultimate networking day. First destination: Hart Senate Office Building.

(Earlier that week in Capitol Hill, the whole APLP cohorts had a series of briefings at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the works of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and an engagement with Honorable Representative Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, the highest ranking Democrat in House International Relations Committee who briefed us on legislative oversight of Asia Pacific issues. These were followed by the East-West Center Reception in the evening at the Dirksen Senate Office Building which provided us an occasion to network with important people and East-West Center alumni, and other fellows). Now, back to the day’s story:

So, from Booz Allen Hamilton headquarters’ lobby we figured the way to reach Hart Senate Office Building. We took the BAH shuttle to the nearest Metro Rail station for transit to Capitol Hill area. On reaching the Metro station, I found out it was the Green Line serving that part of Virginia. The line connects to Judiciary Square Station, which I knew is almost at the Capitol Hill. (Judiciary Square is where I am more familiar of as it locates the National Building Museum, where I spent part of my 2002 summer internship with the US/ICOMOS, but this is another story).

Any visitor to Washington who had an experience riding the Metro Rail would wonder at the system. The Washington Metro, I learned is highly regarded rapid transit system in the whole United States. It serves Washington DC and the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia, and was built in the 70’s. Only few discerning people would fail to notice at its architecture and planning. And for a technical person who would examine it closer, he or she would also marvel at its engineering and construction. But again this is another story. While we were waiting at the Metro station, my friend didn’t miss the obvious, noting the cleanliness of the station in comparison to the New York City Subway. My being a commuter of the rail transit in Manila, let alone my being an architect, helps me to notice all these wonders of the whole transit system, its architecture, planning, engineering, operation, etc.

After getting out of Judiciary Square Station we immediately looked for a place to have early lunch, and it was at nearby Chinatown. Then we finally walked towards our destination: the Capitol Hill and into the Hart Senate Office Building.

When we finally arrived at the Hart Senate Office Building, I noticed the building design was done in the modern language of architecture, with the signature clean lines and absence of surface ornaments contradicting the style of other legislative buildings in the surroundings. Once we got inside, I thought the architect of the building did more on its functionality; it was spacious; circulation spaces were comfortable and easy to find your way; and the interior I remember was well lighted from daylight source coming from atrium, thus the building must be energy efficient. One would not miss also the Alexander Calder huge installation at the lobby. A famed sculptor, Calder also did that lovely installation hanged over the lobby of the National Gallery of Art East Building.

We went from one senator’s office to another, all of well known names. In every office, I sensed the professionalism of the staffs as public servants, entertaining our quiries, and providing answers and readily extending services as simple as handing out materials such as Washington DC tourist brochures, maps, invitation cards, 2006 calendars, business cards, etc. Then, at almost noon time, we found ourselves inside an intimate conference room at the office of Senator Daniel Akaka (Dem. Hawaii), sharing stories and views with the senator's Communication Director. We were also informed that in the afternoon, our privilege guided tour of the United States Capitol, which my friend scheduled weeks earlier, and with two other Hawaii residents, would start at 1 o’clock. This tour would precede our most important event of the day: meeting the United States Senator. I could not wait to meet the Senator and to see the interiors of the historic Capitol.

At exactly at 1 o’clock in the afternoon, from Senator Akaka’s office we walked down the corridor, lobby and stairways down to the basement level, from where we took a shuttle ride through a well-lit tunnel. The tunnel connects the Hart Senate Office Building and the Capitol. During that short ride I noticed the patina of the tunnel walls, which speaks of its age, a rather appropriate introduction to our tour of this famous building: the United States Capitol (or Congress House). This was a memorable and thrilling moment, my first experience of going inside this historic edifice that houses the representatives of the people, who collectively share the power of the government; a system of government designed 200 years ago, which features unique horizontal sharing of power among the three branches, the executive, legislative and the judiciary. This design was meant to avoid the abuse of power by one single authority, as was committed by the tyrant king of England during their colonial times. This building is also symbolic of freedom and democracy, and an icon of the most powerful country in the world.

I first came to Washington DC in June of 2002, when I was selected to participate in an international exchange program sponsored by the US/ICOMOS. I was assigned to work as intern architect at the Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Records (HABS/HAER), in their Washington DC office, for the whole summer. During that internship, I was in a small group of architects, historians and scholars working on a project of documenting a historic industrial building from 1860s era. The building belongs to the Bethlehem Iron Company (later Bethlehem Steel), located in its home plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

The Bethlehem Iron Company manufactured the iron used for the construction of transcontinental railways system, which was integral part of economic activities during the Industrial Revolution in United States. During the early twentieth century, Bethlehem Steel forged airplane cylinders, armor plates, big cannons, and steels used in the construction of skyscrapers and brides, and also did the construction of U.S. Navy ships. After WWII, it would continue to play a huge role in the economic boom all over the United States. Example of these projects are the Chrysler Building, Golden Gate Bridge, George Washington Bridge among many others. In other words Bethlehem Steel Corporation claimed a pride of place for the American enterprise. Its inventions and innovations helped sustain and propelled the raise of the United States to become an economic powerhouse. Later, as the manufacturing industries started moving out of the United States few decades ago, it sealed Bethlehem Steel’s fate. It turned off for the last time the fire on its furnaces in the late 1990s. It could be said that Bethlehem Steel was one of those industries in yesterday’s Silicon Valley.

Also during summer of 2002, I had good time exploring the urban spaces, buildings, statuaries, monuments and museums of Washington DC in three months. One of the most memorable experiences was my seeing for the first time the famous Capitol, from Pennsylvania Avenue. Every new tourist will gasp in awe at the first sight of this monumental building from the far end of the avenue. It simply stands grandiose amongst the other great buildings in the surroundings. After all, the Capitol was regarded as the most important architectural component in the design of the federal city; and 'Washington DC wasn’t built in a day'.

It is located on the west end of Jenkin’s Hill (now known as Capitol Hill). L’Enfant placed this very important public building on a prominent location so that they held commanding views. Pamela Scott, who teaches History of Washington Architecture for Cornell University in Washington DC, once wrote “reciprocal vistas linking existing landscape conditions were fundamental design consideration” in L’Enfant’s design. L’Enfant’s idea no doubt has been successful on that.

During this second visit to Washington DC, in fall season the last two weeks of October 2005, this time for field study integral to my completion of the Asia Pacific Leadership Program, the privilege tour I had inside the Capitol was an occasion to experience the ultimate core space and exalted place of the city: the Capitol Rotunda. Two days after the tour, civil rights movements icon, Rosa Parks, who died earlier that week at the age 92, would lie in honor at the Capitol Rotunda. Within days of Parks’ death the House of Representatives passed a resolution followed by the approval of the Senate, for the tribute of holding the service under that great dome to be official, a privilege usually extended only to presidents. We recall it was Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery Alabama half a century ago, that launched the civil rights movement which sought the end of public racial discrimination. Her deep faith to a principle drove her individual act of courage, and proved it was more powerful than the system of American discrimination. Such an ideal was instituted with a landmark federal legislation. Thus the Capitol indeed symbolizes ideals such as equality, freedom and democracy.

Coming from the Philippines which has a long history marked with involvements by the United States, the tour inside the Capitol offered an insightful experience of the historic place, lessons in history, and also ushered myself to a deeper understanding of contemporary U.S. policy, all of which reinforced what I learned in the successions of meetings of the field study and in the program.

By and large, the impression by people on this building and the institution it house, varies depending on one’s origin, political belief, education, past experiences, etc. It could range from meaningful appreciation to contempt, or deep hatred, or in more blunt term, despised. When news of the ugly war in Iraq reaches us through different media these days, it easily influence the perspectives by many people around the world towards this institution, which the American public thought to have written the blank check for the United States President to go to war in Iraq.

And so after the more than two hours tour inside the Capitol, with my feet already tired we headed back to the Hart Senate Office Building and into Senator Akaka’s office. There we met again the Communication Director. This time we waited inside the Senator’s study. It was a well appointed room, with few memorabilia and icons of native Hawaiian culture adding appropriate ambiance to this intimate office. Flags of the United States and the State of Hawaii flanked the study table; a few framed photos and certificates hanged on the wall behind; a rather elegantly decorated and relax study room. This room, we were informed, was formerly occupied by Senator Bob Dole, former Senate Majority Leader. The whole office, indeed, speaks of privilege: ground floor location with easy access to and from the outside, and quiet high ceiling. As we found out, the Senator is a well respected, among the most senior and third longest serving member of the Senate.

After about fifteen minutes, the Senator finally arrived from a meeting. We could notice the staffs started moving here and there, as the Senator walked toward us. We four guests stood in courtesy, as the Senator approached and greeted us with a genuine smile; I could tell the real joy in his face greeting each one of us with a handshake and a hug. And the following transpired in that meeting:

At one point in the conversation, I introduced my self as a former government employee, a former Curator of the Presidential Museum at the Office of the President of the Philippines, and that I was once in Washington DC in 2002 doing internship with the HABS/HAER, a federal office involved in recording historic buildings and engineering structures of the United States. The other three went to introduce themselves as well.

The Senator told us that he just come from a meeting where in they talked something about unaccounted revenue of about some hundreds million dollars. Then he shared us of his childhood, elementary years memory when their whole class was thought to save money in a piggy bank. And after sometime, the whole class has to decide what to do with the money. It was a lesson he said of how money that belongs to the people has to be decided upon where it should go.

Recalling the Native Hawaiian Conference I attended last August, and the Akaka bill I mentioned in my leadership reflection paper I wrote, I shared with the Senator my concern that the Akaka Bill should address the issue of preserving the historic places of the Native Hawaiian People. I shared further with the senator that during the APLP field trip to the Kahala valley, we were told that the old fishing pond are in need of repair because of lack of attention by the authorities.

Replying to my statement, he said that there are laws already in place that take care of these historic sites. What the Akaka Bill would do is to question these laws so that concerned federal agencies are called into action so that these historic sites are properly maintained and preserved.

It was a pleasant exchange, with the other three telling their own stories as well. We wrap up the meeting with each one of us having a picture taken in the study room with the Senator, and kind parting words of wisdom for each one of us, him thanking me for following the Akaka Bill, a shake hands and a hug.

- end -