Marlon’s World

Conceptually, I am in favor of federalism. I would like to streamline the Philippine bureaucracy and see a more direct representation of the people in parliament. However, the way José de Venecia and his cohorts are modeling the federal government reeks of opportunism and self-serving ideals.

And why, you ask? Let me count the reasons:

1. I am happy that writer Conrado de Quiros has pointed this out in a previous column. We have no true party system in the Philippines. All parties (Liberal, Lakas, Laban, PRP, NPC, en saecula saecolorum) are but permutations of the same mass of people who just want to be voted to office. A party needs to differ in program and platform, not in personalities and publicity. If one would go through the rhetoric during past elections, the fact that all parties have the same safe stance toward issues is enough to prove that they don’t constitute a party at all. When asked about population control, everyone would say he would do the best to answer the problem. When asked about economic nationalization, everyone would say he would do the best to answer the problem. When asked about healthcare, everyone would say he would do the best to answer the problem. Issues become parenthetical and the decision boils down to who has better campaign materials.
2. Corollarily, alternative parties are still not allowed in mainstream politics. For many, having a Communist Party or a Socialist Party in Congress in unthinkable. But this is clearly the essence of federalism: all thoughts must be represented and heard. Many an academic has commented before that the word communism has taken on so much negative meaning that people shun it automatically as being an evil concept. Which surprises me even more, since in Spain, for example, I’ve met a lot of people who publicly declares their being communists. Up until communists and socialists are slaughtered in the Philippines, no true federalism can stand. Communism and socialism are political thoughts, not moral regimen, and those who readily avoid it almost always just fear criticism.
3. We don’t have a mature voting public yet. Federalism can only be done in an ambit of political maturity, as the right to elect the Head of State is surrendered by the sovereign people to their representatives. Hence, the necessary first step to federalism is to educate the voting public. When we have a public that votes for a provincemate, or a friend from high school, or for a candidate that promises P500 easy money, federalism still has a long way to go.
4. We need to see the commitment to political change before we shift to federalism. If the essence of federalism is to reduce public spending, then those who support it should show their conviction and REDUCE PUBLIC SPENDING NOW SANS FEDERALISM. I dare those politicians who campaign for a federal Philippines to begin by reducing their pork barrel funds and by reducing their staff now. I also dare them and their families, if and when federalism has been carelessly adopted, not to run for public office for the first federal term, thus showing us that the change of the form of government stems from a need to overhaul the system, and not from the greed to stay in power.
5. Change the form of government through the people, and not through representatives. De Venecia and his cohorts fail in this test, for they apparently want to change the form of government as fast as they could without the broadest representation of the sovereign people. We, citizens, ought to be very afraid since if these politicians can and do things according to their own caprices even before a federal government is instituted, then just imagine how they would maneuver the government during federalism.

News websites in the Internet on September 11 of every year have in time been converted into an eternal paean to ‘common-man’ heroism and a recognition of the grief shared by people who lost loved ones during the terrorist attack. Scores of feature stories, memorials, post-9/11 stories and the like are read and re-read, the people in the Net refusing to forget that fateful September morning of five years ago.

One has to admit that the commemoration is befitting, and we, kibitzers, marvel at the strength of a grieving nation to pull together and recover. Indeed, for nation such as the Philippines whose collective memory is short and whose understanding of history, reticent, the images of a mournful America five years after the 9/11 remain moving and powerful. 

But one also has to recognize that similar images from other countries have not been brought to the consciousness of the people by mainstream media. Funeral dirges had been sung and plaintive cries had been echoing in many parts of the planet prior to September 11, 2001: Many Africans had been starving and are dying of AIDS. Many Arabs had been living dangerously in war-torn Middle East, caught in the middle of terroristic strife waged by self-proclaimed defenders of freedom. Many Filipinos had been condemned to perpetual poverty, in such a way that thousands are forced to leave family and friends and sacrifice themselves — both figuratively and literally — in another country.

It seems very disconcerting to me that many of us woke up to the realities of terrorism only upon the collapse of the World Trade center and that a number of people automatically equate terrorism to a specific religion, race or creed. But if terrorism is taken to mean any act that devalues human life through forced, external, destructive and usually armed interventions, then terrorism has been the feature of our age for quite some time.

Every time the sick are not assured of proper healthcare, every time children are left to die of malnutrition or beg to be educated, every time citizens have to die in the hands of foreign powers while defending their sovereignity, every time women have to prostitute themselves, every time a country imposes its policies under the guise of international benevolence, every time dissent is hastily defined as a destabilization plot, terrorism at its ugliest rears its head and manifests itself to a world seemingly numbed by ethnocentrism.

We wail for orphaned kids of New York, but no one wails for the orphaned children of Lebanon. We honor the fallen rescuers who came to help Americans trapped in the World Trade Center and the military sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, but we lambast Islamic soldiers and Muslim separatists who engage in similar armed combats, this time, against US-led war in their own country. We find fault in Osama Bin Laden’s fatalistic vision of the world, but we hail George Bush’s political determinism and Machiavellian logic.   

And worse, not one candle has been lit, not one bell has been tolled, not one postcard has been signed, not one Amazing Grace has been sung to remember those who died innocently while waiting for their personal redemption. This is the greatest mockery of 9/11: we remember while we forget. We affirm while we negate. We are taught to love and we are encouraged to hate.  

If 9/11 has indeed been converted to the iconic symbol of how man’s greed and intolerance toward others destroy lives, I dedicate this blog entry to the memory of the millions of victims of the many unremembered 9/11s.

Hindi ko alam kung anong meron ngayon pero parang lagi akong may nababasa tungkol sa wikang Filipino sa mga forum sa Internet at sa mga blogs. Sa totoo, happy ako kasi mukhang meron nang consciousness ang mga tao tungkol sa importance ng language.

Ang nakakapagtaka lang, parang hindi pa rin unified ang ideya natin kung ano ang Filipino. Sa totoo nga, sa isang e-group na umimbita sa aking sumali, minura ako ng isang member kasi nag-post daw ako ng Tagalog. In English ang mura, take note. Ang post ko kasi, "Ano bang mayroon dito?" Apparently, (1) considered na magkapareho ang Tagalog at Filipino sa e-group na ‘yon, at (2) kahit na ang sabi nila ay aim nilang i-promote ang regional languages, hindi nila kinokonsider na regional language ang Tagalog. (At ayoko nang patulan ang mga nagsasabi pa na ang Ilokano, Kapampangan, Panganinense, etc., ay mga dialect sa ibang mga fora. Mali po. Language po sila.)   

Sa kabilang banda, meron din akong mangilan-ngilang nabasa sa Net tungkol sa bilingualism at sa relationship nito sa language policy ng Pinas. Naalala ko tuloy ang panawagan ng Departamento ng Filipino ng UP na i-uphold ang gamit ng Filipino sa paaralan, kontra sa proposal na palawakin ang gamit ng English. Naalala ko rin ang maraming komentaryo kontra sa paggamit ng National Language dahil naka-base umano raw ito sa direktang pagsasalin ng mga terms, lalo na sa science at mathematics, mula sa English tungo sa Filipino.

Simple lang ang aking opinyon: Una, hindi pareho ang Filipino at Tagalog. Theoretically ang Filipino ay ang corpus ng mga principal na languages sa bansa. Matatanggap ko pa siguro na ang Filipino ay ang dialect ng Tagalog na sinasalita sa Maynila. Pero, para sabihing equal ang Tagalog at Filipino, meron tayong mga nakakalimutan:

1. Maraming mga salita sa Filipino na hindi galing sa Tagalog. Naalala ko ang isang libro ni Virgilio Almario. Lahat ng mga speakers ng Filipino, alam ang salitang katarungan. Pero hindi galing sa Tagalog ang salitang ito. Galing ito sa Cebuano. Ang pagpapalawak ng alphabet ay tanda rin ng openness ng Filipino sa mga wikang gamit sa bansa. Ang F at V ay hindi mga titik ng Tagalog, pero dahil may mga salitang ginagamit ang mga letrang ito (Manuvu, foreigner, etc.) na unti-unting inilalahog sa corpus ng Filipino. Gayundin naman, maraming Tagalismo na hindi kasama sa Filipino. Hindi maliwat ng balintataw ang mga kasiphayuan ng sangkinapal nang dahil sa mga pagbababag at sang-angaw na tunggalian ukol sa wika. Ito, Tagalog ito. Hindi ito Filipino. Sa totoo nga, maraming elemento ang Batangueño na dialect ng Tagalog na hindi akma sa Filipino. 

2. Iba ang morphology at syntax ng Filipino. Mahirap na trabaho ang paglaba. Mali ba ang paglaba bilang verb? Masakit pakinggan sa Tagalog, oo, pero ito ang isa pang sign ng malawak na scope ng Filipino. Ang hindi pag-uulit ng syllable ay galing sa mga wika sa Visayas. Eh ito: Nakakatuwang mag-aral ng Filipino. Tama ba ang nakakatuwa? Naiintindihan ito bilang imperfect aspect ng verb. Pero ayon sa grammar ng Tagalog, ang dapat na inulit ay ang unang syllable ng rootword, hindi ang huling syllable ng afix, kaya nakatutuwa ang magiging conjugation kung Tagalog ang pag-uusapan.      

Marami pang mga tulad nito sa essay ni Dr. Isagani Cruz (hindi ito ‘yung homophobe na columnist ng Inquirer) sa kanyang librong Bukod na Bukod. Recommended ko rin ang mga books ni Dr. Roland Tolentino. Nakasulat lahat iyon sa Filipino, hindi sa Tagalog. Malalaman ninyo kung bakit kung babasahin ninyo.

Puntahan naman natin ang bilingualism. Sa tingin ko, compatible ang bilingualism sa National Language policy. Kung tutuusin nga, walang silbi na magkaroon ng bilingualism kung walang National Language policy in the first place. Ang buod kasi ng National Language policy ay magamit ang Filipino bilang wikang panturo sa mga subjects sa eskwela. Hindi ito nangangahulugan na walang lugar ang English at ang iba pang mga wika sa curriculum ng mga mag-aaral. Sa totoo, kailangan pa ngang i-improve ang English bilang subject para maging simultaneous bilinguals ang isang estudyanteng Pinoy.

Ang mahirap lang kasi, conservative ang concept ng Filipino para sa marami. Hindi nangangahulugan ang policy na ito na ang mga words gaya ng cosine, tangent, slide, keyboard, etc., ay dapat na hanapan ng katumbas sa Filipino. Communicative ang language policy natin, ibig sabihin, ang paggamit ng isang salita ay naka-base sa capacity nitong maintindihan ng mga users, hindi upang mag-create ng esoteric na corpus ng wika.

Hindi rin nangangahulugan na hindi mapapaunlad ang mga regional language sa ilalim ng scheme na ito. Maraming nagsasabi na pro-Tagalog ang language policy natin at marami pang nagsasabi na gawing co-official ang mga regional languages sa mga regions. Mahirap na setup ito dahil HINDI GEOGRAPHIC ANG BASIS NG WIKA. Kung pupuntahan mo ang Ilokos, hindi lang Ilokano ang sinasalita rito. At sa Visayas, walang definite border ang bawat wika. Isa pa, vicious cycle ang pagdedeclare ng co-official languages dahil anong dialect ang gagawing co-official? Halimbawa, sa Tagalog, ang Bulaqueño ba ang co-official dahil pinaka-"pure" itong variety at sa pagiging literary? O ang Batangueño ba dahil sa malawak na original lexicon? Ang Ilokano, anong variety ang dapat gawing co-official? ‘Yung ginagamit sa Ilokos? O ‘yung gamit sa Pangasinan o ‘yung sa Tarlac? Paano sa Palawan na sinasalita ang Cuyunon (hindi kasama sa principal languages ang wikang ito)? Puwede rin bang i-declare na co-official language ang Cuyonon?   

Sa palagay ko, mas valid na isyu ang pag-usapan natin kung ano ang mga rules tungkol sa paghihiram (i.e., ang "paragraph" ba ay codeswitch o synonym na rin ng "talata"?), ano ang consensus tungkol sa spelling ng mga borrowed words (i.e., Cherman o Chairman? Fisiks o Physics?), paano mag-iincorporate ng mga words mula sa ibang mga regional at foreign languages (i.e., paano ang verb ng noun na SM? Mag-e-SM? Mag-i-SM?), at kung papaano gagawing mas intelektwal ang Filipino (i.e., ang bayag at puke ba ay maaari nang gamitin sa mga biology textbooks?).

Valid na isyu rin ang pag-iimprove ng edukasyon, lalo na ng pagtuturo ng wika. Maraming teachers ng "Filipino" na ang itinuturo ay Tagalog. Kung hanggang ngayon ay pinagagawa pa rin kayo ng "takdang-aralin" o pinag-aaral ng "pandiwa" at "panghalip," baka Tagalog pa rin ang inaaral ninyo.

Sa huli, kailangang matandaan natin na ang wika ay hindi nasa loob ng vacuum at related siya sa socio-economic realities ng bansa. Hangga’t hindi nagiging profitable ang paggamit ng wika — Filipino man, o Tagalog, or Ilokano — walang torya ang gawing co-official ito dahil lagi namang may option na gamitin ang English bilang prestige at utilitarian medium. In short, kung may progress sa Pilipinas, doon lang pupuwedeng malinang nang husto at mapangalagaan ang ating mga wika.