(FAKE) SAND AND FURY IN MANILA BAY

HALITOSIS cannot be cured by chewing white Mentos, in the same manner that the waters of Manila Bay cannot be cleaned by simply layering a small stretch of its beachfront with white sand or, to be more accurate, with crushed dolomite imported from Cebu. The muck and dirt of the waters of the bay are footprints of the urban decay of the metropolis, and no amount of beautification can seriously rehabilitate the landscape without a radical transformation in how urban development unfolds in the cities and municipalities surrounding it.

The justification offered is not only about aesthetics, but also about regulating people’s behavior. Officials behind the project believe that the mere sight of what they would perceive as white sand would inspire people to be more mindful of their duty to keep Manila Bay clean; that somehow it becomes a powerful cleanup reminder. They want us to believe that the beautiful sunset by the bay would not be enough of a deterrent for people to throw garbage or for some wayward soul to find a nice spot and defecate. We need the image of white sand, which actually reveals a colonial fixation on the magical effect of the color white.

Certainly, some people can find some sense in the argument that beautifying a strip of an accessible beachfront, making it look like Ipanema or Waikiki or Miami Beach, or even Boracay, could be a cheaper option for those who do not have the resources to travel to these places or even just to the beaches of Batangas. It is easy to appreciate the line that the elites who are now protesting what they point out as a ridiculous and artificial makeover and who can afford these luxuries should not deny the ordinary resident of the metropolis the chance to have a taste of how it feels to lounge in what to them appear as white sand as they watch the beautiful sunset of Manila Bay.

In cultural theory, this is the equivalent of the massification of culture, where those who do not have the resources to travel to Paris, visit the Louvre Museum and gaze at the Mona Lisa, can just marvel at its replica being turned into doormats, jigsaw puzzles and tablecloths. It comes with the gift of accessibility and the inclusiveness of the experience.

The main bone of contention to many is the offensiveness of artificial landscapes, particularly their ecological soundness. Yet, it is a given that the advance of humanity, coupled with development in science and technology, have made the alteration of the natural not only a cottage industry, but as indicators of how humans can control our environment. It does not have to be as glaring as an artificial white beach, but could come in the form of more subtle alterations. The art of landscaping is also a science that has turned our natural flora into built and well-manicured gardens.

Those who rail against what they describe as ridiculous attempt to create plastic environments should be reminded of the existence of forest plantations which are in fact artificial forests.

We decorate our environments with constructed mimicry and we even alter our human bodies to feel good about ourselves. And some do not even have to be seen as alien and inauthentic. Indigenous peoples wear body markings, piercings and tattoos, or elongate their necks, as part of their cultural expressions. We now live in times where plastic flowers decorate living rooms, artificial grass turfs become part of golf courses, and artificial breasts help to raise self-esteem while artificial organs save lives.

There are in fact artificial beaches. The entire Waikiki Beach in Honolulu was constructed in the 1920s and 1930s using real white sands shipped in large barges from Manhattan Beach in California. The issue is not whether beaches can be artificial. While there are ecological issues surrounding artificial landscapes, it is still a fact that they exist. The ecological risks of altering the natural environment are also as real as having a silicone breast implant. Forest plantations are prone to insect pests and disease infestation due to its lack of biodiversity, in the same manner that layering Manila Bay with crushed dolomite poses health risks associated with exposure to the mineral, not to mention its being prone to erosion.

However, one cannot also be dismissive of the ability of humans to innovate. The procedure called “beach nourishment,” which is pumping sand onto beaches, is not only for aesthetic purposes, but also for their health. Waikiki Beach in Honolulu is an artificial beach which is continuously nourished by adding new layers of sand, even as in theory beach nourishment is also applied to natural beaches that are prone to erosion or long-shore drift. Even as there are debates about the ecological soundness of making Manila Bay look like a Boracay transplanted to the metropolis, these are things that science and technology can address.

The main source of our fury, however, should be on its propriety. We need to ask if it is proper for us, a country that is in dire need of resources, to prioritize a beautification project over the needs of people who are fighting, and are victimized by, the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. Defenders argue that the money, about P400 million, used in the project had already been appropriated prior to the pandemic. However, President Rodrigo Duterte was given emergency powers by Congress through law to realign budgets towards those needs that are most pressing.

It now behooves us to ask if a beautification campaign, purportedly designed to lift the spirits of the people to take pride in the Manila Bay, and which is also anticipated to provide them enough inspiration not to dirty it with their garbage, is more important than test kits, personal protective equipment and financial assistance for people who are getting sick of, dying from, or losing their employment and livelihoods due to Covid-19.