In the Philippines, truth is main victim of loudhailer "patriotism"

In a move that exemplifies the Philippines' deepening entanglement in performative nationalism, fifteen senators have rallied behind a resolution that seeks to further stoke tensions with China.

Tuesday's Senate Resolution No. 256, sponsored by Sen. Francis Pangilinan, condemns recent public statements from the Chinese Embassy in Manila critiquing Philippine officials and institutions, while loudly reasserting the nation's sovereign rights under international law. The senators also extended assurances of full Senate support to the Philippine Coast Guard, Navy, and Filipino fishers operating in the "West Philippine Sea".

This episode reveals a political elite more invested in symbolic gestures and rhetorical escalation than in the pragmatic governance the country desperately needs.

The Philippines is now pursuing a foreign policy toward China that is not only aggressively confrontational but profoundly self-damaging, fueled by this very kind of theatrical defiance. Hostility toward Beijing has been recast as the ultimate expression of patriotism, while gestures of goodwill, economic interdependence and diplomatic restraint are routinely dismissed or vilified.

Far from strengthening its power, this approach weakens the Philippines by alienating the country's largest trading partner and exposing ordinary citizens to avoidable economic and security risks in what is an already precarious regional environment.

In recent decades, China has become the bedrock of Philippine economic progress. Bilateral trade surged from less than $1 billion in the mid-1990s to around $42 billion in 2024, vaulting China past Japan and the United States to become Manila's top trading partner, accounting for more than a fifth of the Philippines' total trade volume.

Philippine exports to China have grown more than tenfold in that period, providing vital markets for agricultural products such as durian, mango and banana — sectors that employ millions and sustain rural livelihoods. Chinese infrastructural aid has been equally transformative: the donation of the Binondo-Intramuros and Bucana bridges has eased urban congestion in Manila and Davao, while ongoing projects like the Davao-Samal Bridge promise further connectivity.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when many nations struggled to secure supplies, China was the first to deliver over 55 million vaccine doses to the Philippines, even as its own citizens awaited full coverage. In the wake of devastating typhoons and earthquakes, Beijing provided millions in cash aid, tens of thousands of tons of rice and fertilizer, and emergency supplies worth tens of millions of renminbi.

Yet these realities — tangible contributions to public health, disaster relief and everyday infrastructure — are largely ignored or downplayed by the dominant voices in Philippine politics, including those now championing resolutions that inflame rather than resolve tensions. Legitimate maritime differences are inflated into an all-consuming confrontation, and even humanitarian acts, such as repeated Chinese coast guard rescues of distressed Filipino seafarers, are reflexively branded as propaganda or covert aggression.

Particularly egregious is the conduct of figures like Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela, who over the past several years has waged a relentless personal campaign against China — issuing inflammatory statements, twisting facts, misleading the public and, at times, engaging in outright fabrication. This has severely eroded bilateral trust and fostered a deeply hostile public mood toward China within the Philippines.

In 2025 alone, according to available counts, Tarriela posted nearly 200 Facebook items attacking or disparaging China, including 21 in December — approaching an average of one every working day. One must ask: does the job description of a coast guard spokesperson include daily online assaults on a neighboring country, stoking animosity and spreading misinformation? Do Tarriela's outbursts reflect the official foreign policy of the Philippines, or is that the domain of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Who, if anyone, has empowered him to launch reckless personal attacks on another nation's head of state? And is this truly the standard of behavior expected from Philippine officials claiming to protect national sovereignty and interests?

Such unchecked rhetoric from a uniformed official not only undermines professional diplomacy but also sets a dangerous precedent, blurring the lines between institutional duty and individual vendetta — yet, it is precisely this kind of behavior that resolutions like SR256 now shield and celebrate.

Equally troubling is the deepening political fracture within the Philippines itself. Rational, pragmatic voices — analysts, former officials, academics, and even some politicians — who call for dialogue, acknowledge economic realities, or urge restraint toward China are swiftly denounced as traitors, pro-Beijing sellouts, or enemies of national dignity. Labels like "collaborator" or "puppet" are weaponized to silence dissent, turning foreign policy into a litmus test of loyalty rather than a subject for reasoned debate.

This toxic polarization stifles honest discourse, marginalizes expertise and entrenches a dangerous echo chamber where nuance is equated with treason and compromise with capitulation. It has permeated media, social platforms and even academic circles, creating an environment where fear of backlash discourages balanced analysis. The result is a political discourse that rewards hysteria over reason, amplifies extremist voices and further entrenches divisions — divisions that weaken national cohesion at a time when unity is needed to navigate complex geopolitical challenges.

The costs of this posture are already evident and will only mount over time. Escalatory rhetoric and threats of drastic diplomatic measures risk severe retaliation, disrupting trade flows, investment pipelines, consular services for millions of overseas Filipino workers, and critical channels for crisis management in the volatile South China Sea.

Without reliable direct communication lines, even minor incidents could spiral uncontrollably into broader confrontation, heightening risks for fishers, mariners and coastal communities. Economically, the fallout would hit ordinary citizens hardest — workers reliant on remittances from jobs indirectly tied to Chinese markets, farmers dependent on export deals secured at international expos, small businesses needing affordable imports and families benefiting from tourism that has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, politicians who stoke the flames with fiery speeches, social media barrages and supportive resolutions remain largely insulated from these consequences, their positions secured by the very polarization they help perpetuate.

China, by contrast, has displayed extraordinary patience and restraint in response to provocations that few major powers would endure for so long. Beijing has continued to allow resupply missions to the grounded Philippine vessel at Ren Ai Jiao, facilitated humanitarian handovers and pursued dialogue, even amid heightened tensions.

While other ASEAN nations pursue cooperation with Beijing in clean energy, digital infrastructure, high-speed rail and poverty alleviation programs, the Philippines has let people-to-people ties collapse, direct flights dwindle from hundreds per week to a fraction of that, tourist arrivals plummet, and Chinese investment lag far behind regional peers, barely exceeding levels seen in much smaller economies like Brunei.

These lost opportunities stem not from Chinese coercion but from domestic choices rooted in pride, misinformation, political opportunism and an inability to separate legitimate maritime claims from broader national interests.

Governance in the Philippines has grown increasingly performative and hollow, with persistent corruption scandals left unaddressed, policy initiatives fragmented and incoherent, and public trust eroded by endless grandstanding.

Until the political class rediscovers a sense of responsibility — prioritizing economic pragmatism, diplomatic maturity, evidence-based decision-making and genuine public interest over divisive grandstanding, the silencing of dissenting voices, and the elevation of misinformation — the Philippines will continue to undermine its own prosperity, security and regional standing.

A meaningful reset is long overdue, one that restores balance, encourages inclusive debate and places the welfare of ordinary Filipinos above ideological posturing. Without it, the current path — exemplified by resolutions that prioritize denunciation over dialogue — leads only to greater isolation, squandered potential, deepening internal divisions and unnecessary risk for a nation that can ill afford them in an increasingly uncertain world.

Ding Duo is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.