“A father is a man who expects his son to be as good a man as he meant to be.”
—Frank A. Clark
IF I were Senator Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao, I would not allow any of my children to join boxing.
Boxing is normally the chosen sport of poor boys who risk their lives and limbs in the ring to escape from dire straits.
The Pacquiaos aren’t poor. The children don’t need to risk being hurt in this violent contact sport to eat three square meals a day.
Unless their father didn’t make it big as a prizefighter, or failed to earn enough for his retirement and wants his children to pick up the cudgels and continue his legacy both for fame and money, there is no sense for any parent to “compel” the kids to follow his footsteps as a boxer especially when there are opportunities for the kids to excel in other fields of endeavor.
But we learned that Pacquiao, who is running for Philippine president in the May 9 election, is actually against the decision of his 21-year-old son, Emmanuel Jr. to box.
“It pains me to see him box because I know how hard it is,” Pacquiao was quoted by Mirror, a UK-based publication.
This came after Emmanuel Jr. recently won his amateur debut representing Wild Card Boxing Club in San Diego, California.
Even if it’s the son’s decision to become a boxer, the father Pacquiao—and also the mother—still have the authority and power to prevent it if they’re against it; the wealthy parents have the final say what’s best for their children, who grew up with a silver spoon, other than watching while they participate in a dangerous and cruel undertaking.
But since Emmanuel Jr. has already logged his first win, it’s now a case of water under the bridge; the decision to let him box and probably pursue and duplicate the father’s stardom, if necessary, has been permitted by the family.
The list of Filipinos who seriously became boxers primarily to escape poverty is long. Some of those who captured world titles did not amass a wealth like Pacquiao, who was already 42 when he decided to quit, but they never allowed their children to choose boxing as a permanent livelihood.
I WAS among the millions of people worldwide who watched and listened “live” on TV to the powerful speech of US President Joe Biden in Warsaw, Poland March 26 where he emphasized that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” after launching his brutal invasion of Ukraine—a closing, off-the-cuff message issued in the final moments of Mr. Biden’s tour of Europe that the White House swiftly walked back.
It was the first time I heard the President speak like a true leader of the free world, which, I think, was very necessary in this crucial moment when the Russian invaders haven’t yet captured the Kyiv.
It was also Mr. Biden’s impromptu call for an end to Mr. Putin’s reign—a month after he launched a deadly and destructive war with neighboring Ukraine; it was his first time broaching the subject.
Top administration officials, including Mr. Biden’s secretary of state, have stressed that they were not advocating a change in Russian leadership for weeks.
The line sent ripples throughout the U.S. foreign policy community, before the White House quickly clarified that Mr. Biden was not calling for regime change in his speech, contending that the president’s point was that Mr. Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.
“He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” an official said in a statement.
(The author, who is now based in New York City, used to be the editor of two local dailies in Iloilo.—Ed)
