When a Keynote Speech Becomes a Playbook
- Ellis Faye Sison
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
On February 8, 2026, Julieta de Lima’s keynote speech for the 21st National Congress of the League of Filipino Students was uploaded to the organization’s YouTube channel. De Lima, who was the wife of the late Jose Maria Sison, addressed youth activists – praising them for their achievements, reminding them of the importance of struggle, and challenging them to stay engaged with the movement.
However, an analysis of the speech, in the lens of former CPP youth cadres, shows that it was intended as a guide for ideological alignment and political action, and less as motivation or congratulations.
Blurring the Line Between Activism and Armed Struggle
One of the most striking features of the speech is how it removes the boundary between legal student activism and armed revolutionary struggle. De Lima explicitly describes workers and peasants as the “core” of building the Party, the New People’s Army, and the national united front. This statement directly positions an armed group at the center of the movement being promoted to students.
In simple terms, the speech does not treat the NPA as a separate or distant actor. It treats it as an essential partner, even the primary actor for the students to gravitate towards. This framing is significant because it bridges a supposedly legal political movement of the youth into an ongoing armed conflict by insurgents.
Repeated calls for students to “go to the countryside” are presented as part of revolutionary renewal. In activist language, this phrase has a long and specific meaning. It does not simply mean rural immersion or community service, but rather joining or supporting underground revolutionary work.
The speech reinforces this interpretation by emphasizing the need to “replenish” the movement and by quoting lines about the “ceaseless flow of new blood.” For De Lima and other remaining CPP stalwarts, the youth are being framed not just as advocates for social justice, but as replacements for aging or neutralized cadres.
Ideology as a Requirement, Not an Option
Also, De Lima instructs students to study and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the guiding framework for understanding society and for correcting errors within the movement. This is presented not as one school of thought among many, but as the correct and necessary worldview.
For students, this matters. Education is supposed to open questions, not close them. When an ideology is treated as mandatory rather than debatable, critical thinking is rendered useless.
The speech lists many genuine social issues like corruption, unemployment, rising prices, landlessness, and inequality. These are real concerns that affect young people daily. However, the speech does not explore reform, policy change, or democratic participation and non-violent engagements as possible responses. Instead, all roads lead to the same conclusion that the current system is beyond repair and must be completely overthrown through . There is no discussion on alternatives. The problems are used to justify a single political direction, not to encourage broad public debate.
A substantial portion of the speech is devoted to promoting the writings and legacy of Jose Maria Sison. Students are urged to read, apply, and promote his work and to carry forward his revolutionary line. This approach limits intellectual independence. Rather than encouraging students to develop their own analyses based on present realities, it anchors them firmly to past doctrines. In this manner of political education, the future is asked to follow the past, not question it.
Why This Matters
This speech matters because of who is listening. Students are at a stage where they are questioning institutions, authority, and the future they are inheriting. They deserve open spaces for debate, critical inquiry, and multiple paths toward social change.
What this speech offers instead is a closed framework of a fixed ideology, a defined enemy, and a prescribed role for the youth. It does not ask students to think freely. It asks them to commit.
In the end, genuine empowerment gives young people choices. It does not narrow them. And it does not treat their idealism as a resource to be deployed.
Kung may aral man tayong mapupulot dito, ito ay kapag ang isang talumpati ay tunog manwal, hindi na ito maituturing na mensahe, kundi isang direktiba mula sa nakatataas.
