Take the case of Revillame. What does he symbolize when he is viewed by an international audience? He symbolizes arrogance, sexism, impunity to insult his fellowmen and general inanity. To expose him for what he truly is, can this be crab mentality?

Let’s take another entertainer, Martin Nievera. How do we perceive him? In the vernacular, saksakan ang yabang (sorry to English readers because this can’t be translated word for word). He was warned by others not to sing the National Anthem (for the Pacquiao-Hatton fight) in any other way than it should be sang.

He didn’t heed the warnings. Instead he sang it the way he wanted to sing it. Why? Is it being Filipino? No, it’s being Martin Nievera. When you’re not internationally recognized, singing the National Anthem correctly will just feature a Filipino celebrity singing the Philippine National Athem. But when you try to give your own version, just maybe, your name will be remembered, i.e. “Martin Nievera just sang the Philippine National Anthem;” especially when you try to give it a rousing ending.

It’s just the same as singers singing other people’s songs. They give their own version so they will be remembered instead of the original singers.

So when Nievera –or the latest one, Dessa– slaps our cultural sensibilities by making a mockery of the National Anthem (not to mention Philippine laws), is it crab mentality to write against it?

Sure, we may write about it in a stinging manner. But we were first stung by the insensitivity of these "professional and talented" singers.

In glaring contrast, look at Lea Salonga. She’s internationally recognized. Obviously she’s comfortable with who she is. This is why she doesn’t have to sing the National Anthem her own way. So we’re proud of her!

Heck, we’re even proud of Sam Milby, because here’s a guy born and raised in the U.S., but who’s really trying to master Tagalog and to even speak it without an American accent (hello, Martin Nievera!).

Yet, we’re not perfect. So, perhaps we perceive things cross-eyed. Nevertheless, think about this: what we perceive may very well be what people are unknowingly revealing.

Didn’t she learn from the criticisms of the bad rendition of the national anthem of His Haughtiness, Martin Nievera, during the Pacquiao-Hatton fight?

Organizers of these boxing matches should make sure that the singers of our national anthem will sing it as it should be sang and with pride. And pleeeaaaassseee, get a real Filipino to sing it. Not a Filipino who holds an American passport.

The problem with singers like Dessa and His Haughtiness is they try to use these boxing matches as a venue to showcase their talents. Desperate for worldwide attention, they try to end the national anthem with a big bang, only to fizzle at the end and have it backfire on them.

They are fortunate that the Filipino boxers win their matches. Otherwise it would have been doubly tragic.

Next time a Filipino mangles the natonal anthem, I suggest he/she gets knocked out in public. After all, they shame the Philippines with their showboating.

His arguments are weak if not downright wrong. For one thing he states that, although Nievera didn’t sing it traditionally, he did not disrespect it. Duh… So, singing our national anthem without respect to THE LAW is not being disrespectful. At the very least, Nievera disrespected the composer, Julian Felipe.

De Quiroz also argues that Americans have been singing their national anthem, The Star-spangled Banner, in different renditions because they’re "secure in their patriotism," even citing Jimi Hendricks’ now iconic version played in Woodstock. Americans aren’t secure in their patriotism. The truth is they don’t really give a rat’s ass about anything and that’s why Jimi Hendricks played The Star-spangled Banner the way he did because Americans were being indifferent to the Vietnam War.

De Quiroz then wonders why historian Ambeth Ocampo disapproves of Nievera’s rendition when Ocampo teaches a "pop" version of history to make it more appealing to present-day listeners. Here’s where de Quiroz shows his naivete. Certainly history should be taught in a way that today’s listeners (i.e. the youth) can understand it, for it is merely a story of our past. Our national anthem, on the other hand, brings honor to those of our past who died that we in the present may enjoy our freedom. To sing it any other way than how it should be sang dishonors our history.

If we were to allow people to sing Lupang Hinirang any which way they want, then what’s next? Would we also approve of Martin Nievera using the Philippine flag as a beach towel because he wants to connect tradition with post-modernity?

But here’s my take on why Nievera sang the anthem the way he did: He wanted worldwide attention. Nievera doesn’t hide his burning ambition to be an international star. He tried singing in the Las Vegas strip, but he was a curtain raiser to a magician. Thus, the Pacquiao-Hatton fight was an opportunity to be on a worldwide stage. Notice that he sang the anthem first in a low pitch and then ended in a high note that was designed to elicit oohs and aahs. He also sang in different beats. The problem was his singing just didn’t hit the mark. He had pitch problems as he ended and the entire performance was just ghastly.

Never mind if he sang the Anthem rightly but in a bad way. But he sang the Anthem in a wrong way badly. And it backfired on him.

Did Nievera sing with thoughts of the youth? I doubt it. Did he sing it wrong albeit with a patriotic heart? Yeah, right. He’s an American, for crying out loud!

I believe Nievera used the National Anthem for his own agenda at the expense of Filpino pride and honor. Maybe, Conrad, he should have sang "Ang Himig Natin" instead.