Ping Pong
August 22, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Panfilo Lacson;s brought the “Hello, Garci” issue back to center stage: ‘I heard Arroyo, Garci talk,’ says ex-sergeant: She asked about 1-M votes, claims ex-ISAFP agent. See Ellen Tordesillas and An OFW in Hong Kong for more.
I believe Dean Jorge Bocobo was the first to argue that the real story -and scandal- all along, boils down to a question: how could the President of the Philippines end up with a tapped phone? Senator Lacson seems to be inclined to pursue that question, trotting out Doble, who says the intelligence service could tap people, with the connivance of a telecoms firm. Doble says the President was, in a sense, “collateral damage.”
DJB may be right in that, if you ask how a President could be the victim of wiretapping, it establishes that wiretapping took place; you would then have to resolve whether what was wiretapped -the conversations- are useful for other cases, along the way verifying the authenticity of those conversations.
Who knows, maybe Ping and Pong are better-prepared this time around. The Senate, convened as a committee of the whole, has a chance to hold orderly but in-depth hearings, which can ask:
1. Who ordered the so-called “Operation Lighthouse”? For what purpose? Who decided it should be undertaken by the ISAFP?
2. On what basis did ISAFP conduct its eavesdropping operations, and how, and to what extent, and on what legal basis, did the telecoms company assist ISAFP?
3. How did ISAFP’s tapes end up being sold?
4. The President implicitly confirmed the authenticity of at least one event supposedly recorded in the tapes. What is the legal implication of this admission? At which point, if any, did she break, bend, or mishandle the law? Even if a victim of the wiretapping, what if she had authorized the operations in the first place, in aid of reelection?
Certainly, there’s plenty of opportunities afforded by these questions, for investigations in aid of legislation, much as I disagree with this limitation on Congress’ powers of inquiry, which I’ve long argued we already approach from a Wilsonian point of view, and it’s time our jurisprudence caught up. They are questions independent of the stand some like myself have taken with regards to the President’s fitness for office: as I explained at the time, what mattered less was what the tapes contained, but how the President (mis)handled the issue. These questions, in the time that’s passed since, goes beyond the President’s being in office or not, or whether the public is resigned to her finishing her term (I believe public opinion is inclined to let sleeping dogs lie). But whoever is president and will become president, has to worry about the possibility the ISAFP can run around wiretapping people, from the President to has-been movie actors.
Jove Francisco reports on how the President didn’t sound combative even when she insisted combat operations will continue in Sulu and Basilan.
Overseas, Paulson says no quick fix for credit problems. He’s the US Treasury Secretary; and so Wall St. remained on edge. Meanwhile, Chinese central bank raises interest rates, pointing to concerns over higher inflation. Economist Nouriel Roubini explains why “the Fed actions on Friday have been so far ineffective and the investors’ panic and rush to the safety is in full swing”.
On the other hand, guarded optimism from The Economist about the country in The Jeepney economy revs up. Its cautionary tone is explained as follows:
All good news, but worries remain. However welcome the growth in call-centre jobs, it is engineering and business graduates who are queueing to take them. A recent International Labour Organisation study noted that the country’s average annual productivity growth between 2000 and 2005 was just 0.9%, compared with 10.3% in China and 4.9% in India, suggesting that “many new job entrants are underemployedâ€.
A chief problem, despite foreign interest, is a rate of investment that is at 20-year lows as a share of GDP. Poor infrastructure, especially roads, hampers businesses of all sorts. Gil Beltran, a senior finance-ministry official, says the government intends to increase annual infrastructure spending from 2.8% of GDP to 5%. Successive administrations have had a poor record of keeping such promises.
The public finances still need a lot of fixing. Tax revenues as a share of GDP are still below pre-1997 levels, while public debt is high, at around 75% of GDP. The next big job, says Mr Beltran, is to simplify the mess of illogical tax breaks that cost a fortune in lost revenues. Efforts to drag big-business tax-dodgers to court have so far got nowhere. A swingeing tax rise on Jeepney owners looks like squeezing the poor to spare the rich.
The Inquirer editorial says former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa was wrong in suggesting finding out who ordered Ninoy Aquino killed is a lost cause. A fascinating comparison of Beijing in the 70s, 80s, and now, in Haggling and horror at Tiananmen.
A whole heap of interesting reading in the blogosphere. A heart-breaking entry in fish in a bowl, on a friend’s losing a daughter.
Iloilo City Boy is back to blogging, and has two insightful pieces: the first is Oil Spills Are Cheap In This Country : The Petron Oil Spill A Year After. The second, The New Hacendero.
Iloilo City Boy’s look at how landlord-tenant relationships are evolving in Negros serves as a reminder of how things on the ground are changing, ot necessarily for better or worse, but changing -this is something that caffeine sparks looks into, in terms of the OFW phenomenon, with its complex issues. The Journal of the Jester-in-Exile provides a thorough update on the debate sparked by Malu Fernandez’s writings, but caffeine sparks provides the broader context on OFWs and how they are increasingly flexing their political muscles. Incidentally, baratillo@cubao points to another writer in trouble.
The language debates has a thoughtful piece by A Nagueno in the Blogosphere (who thinks regions should be allowed to formulate their own education policies, an advocacy I strongly support, and this means greater latitude when it comes to language policies), and Demosthenes’ Game (who does make a good point that there are probably those who oppose English instruction because it goes against the interests of the politburo, which is interested in filtering ideologically-inconvenient information) making an observation I find curious:
Which is something we’ve been doing here for ages, voting with our feet I mean. After all, no private school here can remain in business very long without giving English pre-eminent position in its curriculum. No, the issue here is the failure of our so-called democracy for the past two decades to heed the will of the people, instead paying obeisance to the all-knowing ‘nationalist’ academicians of our cultural politburo. Look where that got us. Only now is the situation being rectified, and none too soon. No, the issue was never which was the better curriculum. The issue was always about choice. And that those who had none should have the same as those who could, and did, vote with their feet.
What I find curious is that if you ask the owners and administrators of public schools, their problem is that people are voting with their feet -but not in the direction Demosthenes’ Game assumes. Generally, the problems I most often hear, are three:
1. Private schools are hemorrhaging faculty to the public schools, which now offer, at the very least, competitive salaries and in some areas, better salaries than private schools.
2. Private schools are also experiencing a decrease in enrollment. Parents are taking their kids out of the private schools and sending them to public schools. In some areas, it’s because substantial investments have been made by local authorities in the public school system, which then becomes competitive, but in other areas, the public school system has been expanded, is mediocre at best, but exists, and that’s all that matters; in these areas, parents move their kids from private to public school because it’s much less expensive for the parents, regardless of the quality (or lack of it) of the education being provided. The drop in enrollment is being experienced both by establish private schools (belonging to the religious orders, for example) and the increasing number of small private schools.
3. Whether public or private, school administrators face pressure from parents to pass the kids, regardless of whether they’re qualified to move on to the next level or not; for private schools, the pressure is to keep moving kids along from one level to the next, to keep parents happy; in public schools, it’s because so many kids are entering school, no one can be made to stay behind: the quota system at its worst.
Red’s Herring reflects on Nick Joaquin and Rizal; Philippine Commentary reflects on Ninoy Aquino and takes Conrado de Quiros to task for not exploring Jovito Salonga’s assertion that the Plaza Miranda bombing was ordered by Jose Ma. Sison. Big Mango offers up some thoughts on political parties.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, history, human rights, philippines, politics, president, Senate
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 4:27 pm
“So, the foremost Filipino novelist, essayist, playwright, poet and biographer remains a revered National Artist, the highest award for arts in the Philippines.”
Nick Joaquin was not a good novelist. All his novels were artistic failures. His short stories were over-written, though, accidentally, he did invent slow-mo. I hate everyone in the literary community who adores Nick Joaquin. You can ask Mr. Butch Dalisay and Krip Yuson that, although it was Nick Joaquin who first published me in the Philippine Graphic.
When Brillantes resigned from the Magazine and Joaquin took the editorial reigns of the Literary section, he published an old story of mine that was collecting dust after the Graphic stopped publishing literary. God bless Joaquin’s soul. He was a true cono, but his influence in the literary community was bad: a lot of bad writers have been winning awards and getting grants because of his influence. Now, we’re the least published English-speaking nation in the world. What a shame.
john marzan on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 4:31 pm
who’s Pong? Biazon?
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 4:34 pm
“He was a true cono, but his influence in the literary community was bad: a lot of bad writers have been winning awards and getting grants because of his influence”
He was a true cono. His influence in the literary community was bad: a lot of bad writers have been winning awards and getting grants because they were influenced by him. They won them undeservedly. All these Palanca winners are making us look like idiots. Maybe we are. We are enamored by hi-tech English, even when that hi-tech English badly expresses what was meant. The Filipino version of “felicitous” language is nothing more than the literary version of “over-acting.” Manolo Queson “himself” used to be an awfully mannered writer.
Guys I am serious about this. If someone translated Lualhati Bautista in English, it would prove my point. There are a lot of good writers here, but it’s the pretentious morons who rule Philippine literature. Tama na pagalingan sa Ingles, padamihan nang semi-colo. Tama na. Kailangan sopistikasyon. Kailangan puso at kaluluwa… at hwag na hwag nating kalimutan and katotohanan maski ito’y pangit pakinggan.
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:10 pm
brianb:what kind of sophistication exactly?
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:19 pm
“brianb:what kind of sophistication exactly?”
Huh?
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:21 pm
brianb: you said “kailangan ng sopistikasyon.” What do you mean? What kind of sophistication is needed? Sophistication in what?
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:22 pm
The use of the English language?
Beancurd on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:25 pm
The trend in the provinces is that private schools continue to lose students to the public schools while the public school system subsidizes the students who cannot be absorbed by the public schools by keeping them in private schools. I guess the same is true in the NCR and in cities around the country but only to a lesser extent. And that tells us that poverty is increasing in the rural areas. But of course, Madam Glori! the economy is always better than the previous years and soon, the Enchanted Kingdom.
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:28 pm
brianb:ah. so, mannered writing lacks sophistication? just out of curiosity, what would be an example of sophisticated writing?
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:29 pm
Manolo, read Iloilo Boy’s story. Hm, I know someone who’s like that too. He quit his job and went “farming” with the sakadas. Maybe it’s the same guy. Just one guy representing. Still, what of the “other” haciendas?
Jeg on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:30 pm
What is ‘hi-tech’ English and how is it different from ’sophisticated’ English? When you said ‘they won them undeservedly’ what criteria, aside from lack of sophistication that youre still to define did you have in mind? I believe youre serious about this, but you have to define your criteria and your, well, definitions. If this is a manifesto of a new clique youre looking to start that’s set to go mano-a-mano with the ‘unsophisticated’ Palanca winers, perhaps this would-be clique merits its own blog site, BrianB? Who knows, maybe one day youll have the BrianB prizes for literature. Think big, ‘ika nga.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:31 pm
Well, read Roth, Bellow, any Jewish writer born after the turn of the century. That’s the 19th century.
But really, you don’t see anything weird with people who write like they’re in 19th century Britain? Calling them trying hard is being kind.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:33 pm
Jeq, Rom, later. I’m working. Give me two hours. But food for thought, and I quote myself:
“He was a true cono, but his influence in the literary community was bad: a lot of bad writers have been winning awards and getting grants because of his influence. Now, we’re the least published English-speaking nation in the world. What a shame.”
Especially the last sentence.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:34 pm
No the last two sentences.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:38 pm
ROM, whoever taught you English is just some turd trying to get allies for his cause at the expense of this country’s cultural future.
http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/writing/style.html
Jeg on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:41 pm
Id like to get my kids out of the school system altogether, whether public or private, if it were possible, and home school them. But that option isnt open to most parents since both parents have to work to make ends meet.
Jon Mariano on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 5:52 pm
The new haciendero will in the future own the pieces of land he’s renting today. What’s keeping the new land-owners from selling their land?
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:00 pm
brianb:hey, take all the time you want, man. no one’s forcing you to reply right away.
i happen to agree with what you said about most of our novelists and fiction writers nowadays. long on style, short on plot, sometimes even shorter on substance. one even managed to devote something like 20 pages to the ruminations of a girl who had just been date-raped on her way home.
Speaking of Sul Bellow, just a question: I found this quote. Is this sophisticated?
“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:04 pm
About us being the least published, does it help that the publishers with access to the biggest markets are mostly in America? And that America produces like a bajillion writers every second? And That Filipino writers are pre-occupied with themes of poverty, homosexuality, and cults?
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:13 pm
Philippine Literature.
ROM, Jeq. Literary writing is the summit of language. Poetry, fiction, etc. is the mount everest of language, one of the things that separate us from the rest of the animal world. Now, lets focus on Philippine literature. We have Philippine literature in English, which arguably is the strongest representative of the entire Philippine literature, which in turn is dominated by writers with a special obsession with the English grammar and a “sophisticated” vocabulary.
My argument is that this “sophisticated” vocabulary is not sophisticated at all but a symptom of colonial mentality. More specifically, when you find Filipinos using unnecessarily “hi-tech” words you will be looking at a Filipino so insecure about his usage of English that he has to constantly prove himself by using big words. Does he use a thesaurus? Who knows. Mannered writing is writing where you lose the immediacy of literary language as a form of communication. This is psychic and cultural immediacy, what many traditional and non-traditional critics call the “soul” of literary writing. When a sentence hits your guts, hits your background as people in the middle-class, lower class or upper class, as Filipinos, you’ll know what I mean of “Immediacy” in language. Another word for it is “authenticity.”
Besides immediacy and authenticity in writing, you also have continuity. A good writer has this in the very fabric of his writing style. What is this “continuity? Why, it’s your cultural background, it’s your racial roots, it’s your religion. It’s your father, your grandmother, your great-grandmother’s spirit inside you. It is the Jungian collective unconscious. I think many award-winning writers like this continuity in their writing. Why do they lack it, since like you and I, they are Filipinos too? Why, we’re back to “mannered writing” and styles that imitate the kanos (Europeans included here).
But, of course, you’ll ask yourself if this cultural continuity and authenticity in writing style is possible using English as the medium. Sure it is. Sionil Jose is an example. Understand that many writers think Sionil Jose is a bad writer, due to the lack of “felicitous” language in his works. But dude and dudette, if you happen tonhave a copy of Sionil Jose’s lectures at Standford and any of his essays, you’ll quickly see that his style there is different, most sophisticated perhaps, than his novelistic style. Compare Jose’s essays with any of his enemies and “former” enemies and you’ll see a gap wider than any found in… where’s the Grand Canyon located?
Clearly Jose is the better writer when put against the multiple Palanca winners that many younger writers admire so much. His novels may sound unsophisticated or even bakya for a very important reason: authenticity. Read how other wirters write dialogue, especially NVM. His Filipinos sound like Brits. Read “The Bamboo Dancers.” You may argue that it’s hard to translate Filipino idioms into English idioms and that it’s probably logical to make Filipinos sound like Brits or Americans. (to be continued)
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:25 pm
You may argue that, but don’t forget the Indians who manage to capture Indian speech (both in English and in their native tongue) wonderfully. I’m thinking mainly of Rushdie and Roy.
Philippine literature has been admiring the wrong writers. Maybe it’s our insecurity as users of English that makes us admire the soulless “bombastic” writer. Yes, some are so bad, the word is apt.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:30 pm
ROM,
Saul Bellow is the most sophisticated writer I’ve read. C.S. Lewis sure is a mighty fine writer. Do you consider him mannered. Most writers before Bellow were all mannered in a a way.
DJB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:42 pm
BrianB,
You can’t be such a bad person if you like C.S. Lewis. I think the Screwtape Letters are works of moral genius and I actively imitate its polemic when criticizing the Media.
MLQ3, The thing we did not know for sure but is now explosively revealed is the alleged complicity of a major telco, which explains how easily this wiretapping was done. But the implications of such a happenstance, if the accusation is proven, will be vast for that particular cellular service provider. the palace reaction is revealingly rattled and overdone.
They’re going to the mattresses as Sonny Corleone used to say.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 6:46 pm
“BrianB,
You can’t be such a bad person if you like C.S. Lewis.”
DJB, whoever had the idea that I was a bad person?
nash on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 7:17 pm
Er?
In this day and age, we have an infinite (if you consider that the average lifespan is 70 and only 5 years, at most, will be spent on reading) supply of literature.
To each his own. If someone wants to read Nick Joaquin, let him/her. So what if there are mediocre literary works out there? And who exactly defines mediocrity? What is sophisticated for one may be utter rubbish to another.
Ranting is pointless.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 7:26 pm
“Ranting is pointless.”
Nash, YOU are ranting. If you don’t like to read my explanation, don’t. If you hate other people’s point of view, stop listening. You know the definition of rant? It’s “ranting” without bothering to think.
There is always criticism. If people are stupid enough to think that even matters of literary valuing should be subjected to laissez faire, they are not thinking but ranting. Was I telling people not to read Nick Joaquin? I was pointing out the obvious: He was no novelist. Hell, Nash, if you don’t like opinionated statements why even go to this blog. I’m going to dinner and be back. Hold your horses.
And please read first before calling my postings ranting. It’s a form of discrimination that some middle-aged writers/columnists are applying to younger people who don’t make pasipsip to them.
jaxius on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:14 pm
BrianB,
Are you then saying that those “undeserved” Palanca awards given to pretentious and unpolished writers should go to someone else? Probably someone who writes with sophistication, authenticity, and immediacy? Hmm, perhaps someone like you? Well, only in the sense of how you imagine yourself and your writing style to be.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:26 pm
jaxius,
I’ll do you a favor and ignore your comment.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:42 pm
He he. Yeah. I get it. I speak too much therefore I’m stupid. Yeah, I was told that little gem when I was little. Then I started watching local TV. Such a snobbish concept. Filipinos generally speaking, think people who say a lot know a lot. I don’t agree but that do we ignore this fact and only deal with people with the well-bred? I tell you, sirs, I’d rather be like the masa than these smug, well-bred bastards.
And Jaxius, for a moment there, you were as smug as a corrupt politician. D
Karl Garcia on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:45 pm
Since I am not a sophisticated writer; you can see in my posts that is so,just a reader,I will just stick to reading.
Brian B, good points but learn how to take punches when you can throw punches as well.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:45 pm
Sorry, cursor keeps jumping. Here it is again.
He he. Yeah. I get it. I speak too much therefore I’m stupid. Yeah, I was told that little gem when I was little. Then I started watching local TV. Such a snobbish concept. Filipinos, generally speaking, think people who say a lot know a lot. I don’t agree with that but do we ignore this fact and only deal with the well-bred? I tell you, sirs, I’d rather be like the masa than be like these these smug, well-bred bastards.
And Jaxius, for a moment there, you were as smug as a corrupt politician. D
Karl Garcia on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:47 pm
Before you say look who’s talking Brian B, I am still learning unitil now.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 8:47 pm
OK, people, let me make this short.
I wasn’t criticizing unsophisticated writers. I was criticizing writers who try too hard to be sophisticated and lose their authenticity. Get it? Come on, how did I suddenly turn into the same people I was criticizing.
jaxius on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:00 pm
BrianB,
Aw, shucks. I thought you’d ignore it.
Smug as a politician? Believe me, I wasn’t.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:05 pm
Well, why not read my entire post and stop being so patronizing. Does it make you feel good to be patronizing? Honestly, does it? It wasn’t just the Palanca. The Palanca is subject to a lot of hypocrisies and double speak. On one hand, the winners keep promoting it as the premier Philippine literary award; then when you push the issue further, they’d turn it around and admit all their winnings are just “luck” and a lot of writers who are also good don’t win.
They remind me of Samuel Butler’s “Erewhon.” If you read the section about the University of Reason where the profs never put forward an opinion fearing they might make a mistake.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:18 pm
Sorry again, that’s University of Unreason.
manuelbuencamino on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:19 pm
William S. Burroughs, Brian B.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:22 pm
manuelbuencamino. Believe me, I haven’t even tried the stuff.
BrianB on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:24 pm
You mean The asshole that speaks?
cvj on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 9:59 pm
Ha ha ha, i was thinking the same thing to myself. Reading fiction (except as part of schoolwork) is something i haven’t gotten into so i find the discussion fascinating. All i know about the authors being mentioned is that Sharon Cuneta’s favorite writer is Arundhati Roy.
As far as [American] english is concerned, i think 18th century-style beats 19th century anytime especially when it comes to the material Thomas Jefferson wrote. Strictly nonfiction though.
Devilsadvc8 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:04 pm
“And That Filipino writers are pre-occupied with themes of poverty, homosexuality, and cults?”
Perhaps the ones you know, or perhaps the only ones you know coz they’re the only ones allowed to have their works see the light of day by the powers that control the industry. Even Jim Libiran’s Tribu may have been an idea he ripped off from City of God. And people were so oohed and ahhed by his “genius.”
As I’ve said before, the dearth of good writers being published is not their fault. Go underground and you’d find many that’ll blow you away. Even vanity publishing offers little opportunities. CRAP, that door only opens for the moneyed vain enough to think their works are worth publishing.
As for awardees, where do they get noticed? They all come from schools well connected in the award-giving body in the first place. Their works get submitted bec they know people, or they’ve been shown the way how. Ever heard of a winner from a backwater school? No, it’s always UP, Ateneo, UST. Schools that have a solid paper or organ to get them noticed.
Don’t complain abt the lack of good writers. Complain abt the lack of avenues wherein they can be discovered. But hey, technology is moving us forward. In here (online), writers will rise and fall on their own merits. The well connected may still corner the audience for now, but sooner or later, theirs will be buried beneath the mass of talent that lies there undiscovered.
Devilsadvc8 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:24 pm
cvj, good writing cuts across styles and languages. Whether it be 18th or 20th century, good writers will make any words seem as if they’re dancing, and not merely trudging by. perhaps, you’re of that opinion bec as you’ve said, you’re not that well read (when it comes to fiction).
Here are a few 20th century writers you might wanna look up:
Chuck Pahlaniuk (Fight Club)
Charlie Kaufman (the greatest screenwriter today IMO)
Anthony Burgess (Clockwork Orange)
and then compare them with Walt Whitman (one writer of the 18th century whom I like)
mlq3 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:48 pm
i’ve always preferred political to literary circles, but i remember the one and only conversation i ever had with nvm gonzalez. i asked him why most filipino novels, to me, at least, seemed unreadable. he laughed and said it was because filipino novelists tended to write for each other. what did he mean, i asked. he said well, the writers wrote with their friends in mind, and that they deliberately set out to write novels that only made sense if the writers were around to explain how clever they were being, to their friends.
i think brian is pointing to the problem of aestheticism -art, not even for art’s sake, but for the sake of proving how artful the writer is- which connects to a larger point brian always makes, which is the clannish, cliquish, extremely self-satisfied yet paranoid and therefore, vengeful but ultimately sterile, world he sees not just in the literary world but in what passes for high society in this country.
personally i’ve only enjoyed two filipino novels in english, nick joaquin’s “caves and shadows” and f. sionil jose’s “ermita”, and i don’t know if i enjoyed them primarily because of their style or because they were historical novels; i can say that of the two, joaquin’s was more beautifully written while jose’s exposed basic truths not only about our society, but human nature in general, and we’re all told the best writing is the kind that is succesful on both levels: describing the writer’s culture and circumstances, and able to strike chords in the common humanity of anyone who might pick up the book, regardless of their origins.
brian has explained his attitudes when it comes to our society and history so of course joaquin, with his fondness for the spanish aspects of our past won’t appeal to him, in fact, it makes him ill. jose’s views are really closer to brian’s. what i admire the most in terms of joaquin’s writings are his political reportage (though he himself seemed to have thought the most highly of his crime reportage, though i haven’t had a chance to read his crime stories); his heir, in that department, was pete lacaba, and i myself have always aspired to produce political reportage matching their political reportage from the 50s to the 70s (the opportunities are few and far between).
and anyone commenting on public life would be criminally ignorant if they haven’t read jose’s commentary on people and politics, including his collection, “why we are poor.”
as far as literary contests are concerned, i don’t think it’s the luck of the draw but really, whether one runs into a jury even willing to consider your work. a jury obsessed with aestheticism will only consider like-minded work; a more open-minded or politically-aware one, will do likewise, as might a jury heavily stacked with socialists or feminists, etc. what the literary ruling class, so to speak, has over all writers in general, is that they’re better-equipped when it comes to competing for the things that constitute literary achievement. the circles that hold reunions and call them literary workshops are composed of people who are called upon to be jurors in literary contests; who nag their students that the deadlines for these contents are coming up; who train young writers not only to write in their image, but according to the standards decreed for their friends.
like political families who may not even have to use fraud and terrorism to win elections, but who simply have elections down to a science, literary cliques are then in the best position to submit to the juries of their peers who handle the awards. the awards have the advantage of longevity (which reinforces their prestige) and of funding (which makes competition not just something emotionally, but financially, worth while).
i’ve pointed out that i am excited about the philippines that’s emerging, because the old obediences are disappearing and that’s a good thing. one example i gave was how the old middle class was made in the image of the old upper class: this applied to church, club, and school, the bedrock of old culture and how it was transmitted and upheld. the ofw phenomenon has provided a way out of the trap that kept people where they were: it makes life unpredictable and even frightening for those yearning for the days when everyone knew their place, but change is inevitable and the inabilty of the upper class and middle class to remain relevant is becoming apparent.
anyway, in terms of writing, the question becomes, how will the writer fit into the emerging scheme of things? as it is, the old ways endure but are getting more and more inconsequential even for the portion of the publication that enjoys reading for pleasure (and has the means to do so). brian asks a question that’s really remarkable: why, indeed, has no one sought to translate lualhati bautista’s “dekada 70″ into english? and it has to mean something that jose can claim to be the most widely-translated filipino author with the exception of rizal -and why rizal’s noli was translated by augenbaum for penguin while no filipino translation made the grade (i enjoyed guerrero’s translation but it was less a translation than a rewriting in english; locsin’s treated it too much like sacred text); i have have also been perplexed over the lack of interest in translating, say, orwell, into filipino, and why rolando tinio seemed the only one ambitious enough to attempt to translate shakespeare.
the themes of poverty, homosexuality, and cults are as universal as one can get. if a novelist is writing primarily with other novelists in mind, as nvm gonzalez charged, then of course these vital themes won’t get anywhere, they won’t fly. perhaps the filipino novelist begins with the defeatist notion a larger audience is impossible? possibly. or do filipino novelists fatally handicap themselves, not only by means of writing primarily for each other, but by putting the cart before the horse, worshipping style ahead of substance? is it all a case of the worst possible kind of insularity? or a genuine lack of imagination?
or dedication to a larger cause, without that cause imposing ideological straightjackets on writing (an entire generation got dated because of an english professor’s slavish devotion to mao zedong thought). the propagandists make for stimulating reading up to today not only because many of the things they pointed out and criticized are still with us, but because they explored so many ways to express what they thought and felt: satire, poetry, historical essays, etc. to an extent that even surpasses jose ma. sison, it took a journalist, renato constantino, to articulate a (during his time, anyway) iconoclastic view of our history. the sad thing is that today constantino has become sacred text and sacred texts may remain suitable for religious instruction but lose their potence in terms of secular political development when viewed in that manner.
there will always be a point where opinions can never be reconciled because of personal tastes. a person who is an antiquarian by instinct will always prefer anything expressed in a manner that resembles british 19th century usage: for that reason i like british writing (in particular, historical writing from macaulay to churchill) and have never, say, enjoyed reading hemingway. but that’s a personal preference with ideological undertones (i prefer the traditional british approach to history as literature to the germanic idea, so avidly adopted in the united states, that history is best approached as a science). but since writing is communication, brian, i suppose, fiercely contests those who, to his mind, view writing as a means to gratify the writer’s ego instead of serving the public -whether to entertain, instruct, enlighten, challenge, etc..
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:49 pm
brianb:but should writing be as ‘nationalized’ as you seem to suggest? if, for instance, i write like i’m not filipino, using an idiom different from FSJose, does that make me less Filipino or less authentic? I think every writer, regardless of nationality, has the right to have her own voice, whether or not that voice corresponds with her ethnicity.
Authenticity means being true to yourself, and we all have a right to express that truth in the way that feels most apt to us.
Of course, if your only quibble is with style, I guess we all fall back on how there’s really no arguing about taste.
cvj on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:51 pm
Devils, perhaps you’re right. I usually wait for the movie to come out. I’ll keep those authors in mind.
nash on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:55 pm
Yes BrianB, the irony is not lost on me.
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 10:56 pm
mlq3:writing for each other. sounds about right.
Devilsadvc8 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 11:02 pm
BrianB, nice link. essentially, all those quotes are saying is: brevity trumps pretentiousness anytime. its the first rule in creative writing. do not use a 7 letter word when a four lettered one will do. only break this rule when the word you wanna use instinctively fits the exact direction where your narrative is going.
our professor made an excellent example when he picked a random article in a newspaper and asked us to replace all the words used in it with high-falluting ones. the effect, as you might imagine, was quite comical.
Rom on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 11:16 pm
brianb:i’m an anglophone.
Devilsadvc8 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 11:22 pm
cvj, here. an excerpt from Chuck Pahlaniuk’s GUTS
http://forums.mukamo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1192&view=findpost&p=38859
do not read while eating something..
Devilsadvc8 on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 11:24 pm
esp a carrot
cvj on Wed, 22nd Aug 2007 11:44 pm
Ok, i wouldn’t want to stay criminally ignorant for longer than necessary so i’ve decided to bump up Jose’s ‘Why We Are Poor’ in my reading list. Particularly relevant to this thread is what he says about the role of the novelist:
I agree with his take on the role of the novel but i think his comparison with the Bible and the Koran unintentionally obscures the distinction that the novel as a narrative form had a historic role in the formation of nationalist thought (as pointed out by Benedict Anderson). The religious texts he used as comparison do no such thing.
cvj on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:19 am
Devils, thanks for sharing. All i can say is ‘Ouch!’.
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:15 am
I think most Filipinos read books as assignments in school.
But those who don’t go to school,but can at least read,read another kind of novel which is the komiks,where the icons are Carlo J. Caaparas and the likes..
About Novels, we always try to be an affinity to Latin America that is why until now,Filipinos are still fascinated by the telenovelas like “Marimar”.
I wonder why,we do not translate foreign novels,even in plays in the CCP to Filipino.
Les Mis would be appreciated by Filipinos and could relate them to El Filibusterismo.
or for the global minded why not translate”Dekada 70 to English”
Is it because it was already presented in movie form with subtitles?
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:18 am
“brianb:but should writing be as ‘nationalized’ as you seem to suggest?”
No, but write with open eyes, ears, etc. Not with open thesauruses.
“Authenticity means being true to yourself, and we all have a right to express that truth in the way that feels most apt to us.”
You think snobs and conyos speak aptly?
Mlq,
I didn’t exaggerrate about Nick Joaquin. He was no novelist. He writes novels like a painter painting on a huge, with exaggerated sweeps of the brush and always dramatic body language (that’s how I view his novels and it irritates me no end, so over-acting). But even then, even if our novelists focus on aethetics they could still make us proud by being exceedingly good at their artistry. Are they? I just think they are pretentious. Took me some years before I could say it, but once I said it I am entirely convinced it’s true.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:29 am
“have have also been perplexed over the lack of interest in translating, say, orwell, into filipino, and why rolando tinio seemed the only one ambitious enough to attempt to translate shakespeare.”
Only people who truly understand these works can translate them. Again, Butler’s Erewhon, specifically the “College of Unreason.”
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:35 am
cvj,
thanks for quoting. I especially like that part about “racial memory.” Why oh why would I read a second rate American or English novelist carrying a Filipino passport when I need a first rate Filipino writer. I think this answers your questions, too, ROM.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:24 am
BrianB,
With all your erudition and ebullience, all you need now is something to believe in!
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:34 am
Rom,
When you said you were an anglophone,you mean that your native tongue is english,correct?
so remind me or any one else, when addressing you in Filipino or any language for that matter.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:44 am
DJB,
You make me laugh. Isn’t it obvious? I’m a humanist.
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:04 am
Please allow me to digress,
The telco is now denying any part of the claimed by Doble.
And the chief of staff claim that the narration about the basement is entirely false,since he now occupies the quarters and it has no baseement.
Is that so,CSAFP?
I know even senators Ping and Pong,know if this is true or not?
Pero garapalan na,at deretsukhan na ang pambobola.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:33 am
BrianB, how many literary awards have you won?
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:43 am
“The language debates has a thoughtful piece by A Nagueno in the Blogosphere (who thinks regions should be allowed to formulate their own education policies, an advocacy I strongly support, and this means greater latitude when it comes to language policies).”
it’s about time to renew this call. and push for the right regional bilingualism program.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:52 am
“BrianB, how many literary awards have you won?”
I won Editor’s choice in 1998 from Story. Why?
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:52 am
Interestingly enough, i find that the observations I made long ago about Pinoy movies seem to be aligned with the observations about Pinoy literature if the statement “And That Filipino writers are pre-occupied with themes of poverty, homosexuality, and cults” is to be believed.
More importantly I pointed out that what is ABSOLUTELY missing in Pinoy creative arts (inlcuding cinema and writing) is a CELEBRATION OF WEALTH. In Pinoy cinema wealth is almost always associated with evil and it is almost always implied in Pinoy cinema that rich characters acquired their wealth illegitimately.
mlq3, you also posited that Pinoy artists worship “style ahead of substance”. I think there is more than enough evidence of this predisposition in Pinoy society. The jeepney is our best and favourite example — its garish SUPERFICIAL design is in stark contrast with the design under the hood (or beneath the yero).
Masyadong “conscious” ang Pinoy. You see that in the way Pinoys sing and dance on stage. They exude subtle body language and facial expressions that tell their audience “don’t take this too seriously I just do this in my spare time”.
Maybe it also explains why the “glamour” of call centres suck in our brightest engineering and science graduates. Taking up engineering and science in university is no joke and not for the faint hearted. So I find it curious how minds that invested so much blood sweat and tears learning how to do differential equations can stomach a career doing mind-numbing call centre work just to be able to sip lattes in Starbucks and buy the latest Nokia gadget.
Could it be that Pinoys are just so easily beholden to shallowness, superficiality, and credentialism as to be completely clueless about substance? Pasikatan lang at pasiklaban. Clearly in line with mlq3’s other observation that members of the Pinoy literary community merely “write for each other”.
Maybe that’s the reason why we remain “perplexed over the lack of interest in translating, say, orwell, into filipino” and wonders “why rolando tinio seemed the only one ambitious enough to attempt to translate shakespeare”. Perhaps the substance of works in English and other languages are just to “substantial” for the Pinoy mind and his language faculties.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:55 am
“Could it be that Pinoys are just so easily beholden to shallowness, superficiality, and credentialism as to be completely clueless about substance?”
Benig0, I believe this is rooted in the Filipino’s lack of intellectual confidence – arrogance is a better word for it. Filipinos don’t allow themselves to think on their own, as if other people are going to think for them .
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:08 am
“Filipinos don’t allow themselves to think on their own, as if other people are going to think for them”
You’ve just succinctly summarised an entire chapter in my book.
You’re spot on the reason why Pinoy political debate is so focused on talking about politicians rather than understanding underlying ISSUES. It emanates from what you described above:
Pinoys don’t think.
We expect our politicians to think for us. This becomes very convenient when things don’t work out for us. We simply blame them (then launch the odd Edsa “revolution” or impeachment bid to act on this blame). That is why we are always on the look out for “heroes” and end up voting for heroic morons like Trillianes, Erap, and (almost) FPJ. We see the dashing figure but are not inclined to take the trouble to pick their brains.
Our literature merely reflects this lack of substance.
Beancurd on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:17 am
I wonder why people argue about taste?
Jeg on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:17 am
mlq3: i have have also been perplexed over the lack of interest in translating, say, orwell, into filipino, and why rolando tinio seemed the only one ambitious enough to attempt to translate shakespeare.
Let’s do it then. Anybody who has the time, pick a text to translate, post it in a blog somewhere for students to access for free, and for other people to critique and correct. We can start with essays in English and go on from there. We can make technology work for us.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:17 am
Wala lang. I just thought I tasted some sourgrapes reading your posts.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:20 am
“I just thought I tasted some sourgrapes reading your posts.”
I bet some of the names I mentioned would be intimidated by me. Not that I look like I could murder a crocodile.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:27 am
Besides sourgraping is just sourgraping. It’s not as if I would sourgrape over Sionil Jose’s success too, or Lhualhati Bautista’s. I don’t know any of these people and they may even hate my guts when they do. In fact, people like Butch Dalisay go about the same social circles as I do. I don’t even know anyone who knows Bautista personally and most of Jose’s posse are fat and ugly (I don’t mean this literally). Granted, I might think people like Dalisay have reputations that are more vulnerable to criticism. It’s possible that I am venting my frustrations on weaker individuals in the literary higher ups. It’s possible, but does that make my opinions less valid.
My belief is, real motives are more complicated and harder to discuss than the issues. Getting into my head is a harder thing to do than arguing against my points. Right?
mlq3 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:38 am
jeg, come to think of it, oo nga no? now the problem is:
1. foreign copyrights (i guess, forget about translating copyrighted works) and,
2. it should be a wiki, not a blog, no?
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:41 am
Another reason why I love this blog, is diversity of topics and the brilliance of commenters.
Now, I am beginning to understand more the points of Benign0,that his pointing out of flaws of this nation,may not necessarily mean that he hates this country,and not rubbing salt to the wound.maybe he just wants us to damn wake up and get real.(style nya yun eh) as per one commenter:”to each his own”.
And to Brian, thanks to the literary topics, which unleashed his literary side,and how he feels about it. Nice to know that your story earned an award.
And as to Devil’s and others thanks for the links,which I might find time to look at, one of these days.
And for me,I am here to learn,which I am.(Many Thanks!)
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:47 am
“jeg, come to think of it, oo nga no? now the problem is:”
But this way we’re making sure Bautista will have the least literary impact worldwide. I think there are a few writers who can translate her. International publishers will eat it up, I promise. Baka wala lang incentive sa mga translators at dahil na rin sa ina-anticipate na bangayan. Maybe National Bookstore can commission one and get International rights pa, pagkakakitaan pa yan. I particularly like Gapo. My opinion of International publishers is that they love this sort of mature material. Dekada 70 is too middle class in perspective. But who knows. Any boook would do.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:49 am
I don’t know why the word “charlatan” keeps coming to mind.
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:49 am
Wikibooks has a collection of great “master pieces”,just in case you want to save money and time.(for those who want to translate them to Filipino)
But it is beginning to get noticed,I noticed they deleted the”lord of the Rings” series as of date.That is why it has set the new 80 year or hundred year rule,I suppose.
When it is too old,it is already open house.
I understand there is a group organizing wiki philippines,maybe some willing translators can put there translations there.
Jeg on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:53 am
mlq3: 1. foreign copyrights (i guess, forget about translating copyrighted works) and,
We can choose works already in the public domain.
2. it should be a wiki, not a blog, no?
Wiki would be better.
sparks on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:54 am
From a generation who actually knows people who work in the call centre industry, I think it is a disservice to claim that new graduates do “mind-numbing” work just to sip lattes as you say. If you mean they do so to earn more money, then I agree.
While it may have been “glamorous” in the early years, most young people now know its a highly stressful job, and if you don’t perform well, you’re easily replaceable.
If you haven’t been in the Philippines for a while, then you won’t know week after week there’s nothing else in newspaper job ads but call centre placements. Why would any thinking being choose to ignore a loud and booming employment opportunity?
The friends and acquaintances I know decide to do call centres to save up, then move on. Those who decide to stay can count on very high returns as they climb up the ladder. It is all quite rational benign0. Even Australia is fighting to keep its call centre seats.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 10:58 am
“I don’t know why the word “charlatan†keeps coming to mind.”
Depends if you know the meaning of the word “charlatan.”
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 11:06 am
For the other way around Filipino to english, maybe its time to put them to wikibooks ,but it will not apply to the one hundred year rule.What if the author is dead?
mahirap pala,ang daming sabit.
Shaman of Malilipot on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 11:56 am
I don’t use words I don’t understand. That way, I don’t lose my authenticity.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:04 pm
MLQ3,
A translation is considered to be a “derivative work” and is very much like an original creation in that it can be protected by copyright. So there is nothing preventing us from translating Orwell into Pilipino! (except as noted below:) The big problem is, there may not be the required vocabulary, or even idiom to do a good job.
Here it is in the Intellectual Property Rights Act:
173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:
(a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments, arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and
(b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q], P. D. No. 49)
173.2. The works referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection 173.1 shall be protected as a new works: Provided however, That such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works. (Sec. 8, P. D. 49; Art. 10, TRIPS)
mlq3 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:06 pm
djb, i can’t believe you really think the vocabulary isn’t there. even if precise words are lacking, you simply invent them, them way shakespeare did.
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:27 pm
“Another reason why I love this blog, is diversity of topics and the brilliance of commenters”
KG, the “brilliance” of the commenters in this blog merely reflects the quality of the blog itself.
sana nga we can extend this environment that encourages healthy exchanges of ideas to the broader society so that Pinoys are encouraged to:
(1) think;
(2) challenge even the most sacred of traditions and dogmas;
(3) critically evaluate information; and,
(4) have a bit of foresight.
…which should have the effect of adding that key ingredient to the proper practice of democracy: SUBSTANCE.
Without that key ingredient, our democracy will be nothing more than the farce that it is today.
Rom on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:39 pm
karl:i understand tagalog ok.
brianb:even snobs have the right to express themselves as snobs. you may not like it, but then again, that’s a matter of taste.
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:44 pm
“djb, i can’t believe you really think the vocabulary isn’t there. even if precise words are lacking, you simply invent them, them way shakespeare did”
I think the problem is more complex than simply a lack of words or idioms. This problem I find is not completely understood judging from the reactions to my assertion that “there is no Tagalog word for ‘efficiency’”.
In this simplistic example, we can always easily invent a tagalog word for “efficiency”. In fact, the easy solution is to spell out “episiensy” and then unilaterally proclaim it a Tagalog word.
But the problem I highlight is not that. What I highlight is the deeper issue of why, IN THE FIRST PLACE, Tagalog lacked a SPECIFIC word to articulate the concept of efficiency (the amount of output for every unit of input). Compare that to English where the word “efficiency” and the concept itself goes way back. I think it became an official technical term when development of steam engines started (a milestone in that the use of steam power marked the beginning of our dependence on fossil fuels).
I interpret this original lack as an indicator of the LIMITS of our culture to READILY comprehend certain things. Surely there are other far more subtle concepts beyond “efficiency” that cultures with far richer and deeper CULTURAL CAPITAL are able to articulate NATURALLY that are beyond the reach of the collective intellectual scope of our society.
The sooner we recognise this as a REALITY, the sooner we can take measures to CORRECT this pathetic situation we are in.
hvrds on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:55 pm
“But certain inconveniences arise from the commercial spirit, Men’s views are confined, and “when a person’s whole attention is bestowed on the seventeenth part of a pin or the eightieth part of the button,” he becomes stupid. Education is neglected. In Scotland, the meanest porter can read and write, but at Birmingham boys of six or seven can earn threepence or sixpence a day, so that their parents set them to work early and their education is neglected….”
“There is too ‘another great loss which attends the putting boys too soon to work. The boys throw off parental authority, and betake themselves to drunkenness and riot.”
“The workmen in the commercial parts of England are consequently in a ‘despicable’ condition; their work through half the week is sufficient to maintain them, and through want of education they have no amusement for other but riot and debauchery. So it may very justly be said that the people who clothe the whole world are in rags themselves.” Adam Smith .. the Wealth of Nations, describing the conditions of peasants being put to work in the early manufactures at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
A word of caution on being too harsh on pinoys who are forced into circumstances where they have no choices.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 12:56 pm
I think translations should be done because they are necessary, not to “preserve a dying language” or for the vanity of it. Let’s face it, something is always lost in translation, so the impetus to them must go to the value of the substance in the work, which may, for some reason or other be inaccessible in its original.
But the English original of Orwell is surely more accessible to Filipinos than a fresh translation with INVENTED NEW WORDS largely meaningless to all but the inventor.
Still I am not really against it as a literary exercise. A Tagalog version of Animal Farm could be downright surreal and bizarre, almost Kafkaesque….
Now there’s a challenge for translators! We have all the vocabulary in Tagalog or even Pampango to do Kafka. But try it and see if you get Kafka and not Pepe and Pilar!
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:04 pm
My favorite quotes in this comment thread, so far:
“If people are stupid enough to think that even matters of literary valuing should be subjected to laissez faire, they are not thinking but ranting.†– BrianB
“i think brian is pointing to the problem of aestheticism -art, not even for art’s sake, but for the sake of proving how artful the writer is- which connects to a larger point brian always makes, which is the clannish, cliquish, extremely self-satisfied yet paranoid and therefore, vengeful but ultimately sterile, world he sees not just in the literary world but in what passes for high society in this country.†– mlq3
I also like the following simile(?) – if political families are essentially different from literary cliques:
“like political families who may not even have to use fraud and terrorism to win elections, but who simply have elections down to a science, literary cliques are then in the best position to submit to the juries of their peers who handle the awards.†– mlq3
And the most worn out clichés:
“The jeepney is our best and favourite example — its garish SUPERFICIAL design is in stark contrast with the design under the hood (or beneath the yero).†– BenignO
“There is no Tagalog word for ‘efficiency’â€.- BenignO
But three quick questions to BrianB:
1) mlq3, has written:
â€but since writing is communication, brian, i suppose, fiercely contests those who, to his mind, view writing as a means to gratify the writer’s ego instead of serving the public -whether to entertain, instruct, enlighten, challenge, etc.â€
Alright that’s quite authentic, immediate to me. But, if mlq3 had more leisure time to reflect on his message and come up with a version suggested below, would you consider it as an exercise in “mannered writing�
“But since writing is dialogue, Brian, I suppose, will hold in contempt anyone who thinks writing is not also action.â€
2) “(Joaquin) writes novels like a painter.†Isn’t that a compliment since novelists are supposed to be artists too?
3) Would you consider “mannered writing†as inherent in the poetry of those deemed to be craftsman of the beautiful and agreeable? Keats, for example, changed “A thing of beauty is a constant joy†to the immortal “A thing of beauty is a joy forever?
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:08 pm
Rom,
I stand corrected,I just got lost in translation, I mean definition. That is the point of many,one word may mean many things.
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:24 pm
Back on topic: I have bad news. You know all that praise for the Supreme Court last year because of its unanimous decision on EO464–it was undeserved because they actually upheld the part of EO464
DJB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:25 pm
…that the Palace needs to actually shut down the investigations, at least for the top officials: executive privilege.
Abe N. Margallo on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:25 pm
Something lost in translation:
Second stanza of Mi Ultimo Adios
En campos se batalla, lunchando con delirio
Otros te dan sus vidas sin dudas, sin pesar
El sitio nada importa, cipres, laurel o lirio,
Cadalso o campo abierto, combate o cruel martirio,
Lo mismo es si lo piden la Patria y el hogar. (Original, by Rizal)
Others are giving you their lives on fields of battle,
Fighting joyfully, without hesitation or thought for the consequence,
How it takes place is not important. Cypress, laurel or lily,
Scaffold or battlefield, in combat or cruel martyrdom,
It is the same when what is asked of you is for your country and
your home. – Austin Coates
On the field of battle, fighting with delirium,
others give you their lives without doubts, without gloom
The site nought matters: cypress, laurel or lily:
gibbet or open field: combat or cruel martyrdom
are equal if demanded by country and home. – Nick Joaquin
Sa pakikidigma at pamimiyapis
ang alay ng iba’y ang buhay na kipkip
walang agam-agam, maluwag sa dibdib
matamis sa puso at di ikahapis
Saun man mautas ay di kailangan
cipres o laurel, lirio ma’y putungan
pakikipaghamok at ang bibitayan
yaon ay gaon din kung hiling ng Bayan. – Andres Bonifacio
From: Rizal and the Revolution by Floro Quibuyen
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:29 pm
no tagalog word for efficient: expanding the vocabulary is nothing new,it is just a matter of consensus and acceptance like episyente which is differentiated from epektibo.
More on accepting words as part of vocabulary of course is the word “boondocks”.,which is now part of the American vocabulary.
cvj on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:33 pm
Filipino is by no means a dying language. The reason why there is a need to translate works into Filipino is not vanity, but because there is a demand for it. It’s the same sort of demand that drives the translation of imported telenovelas, which as far as i know, are not translated into English.
As for something ‘being lost in translation’, that is a given but this is not necessarily a bad thing because the reader will at least be able to better appreciate the spirit of the work. You yourself sell the English (King James) translation of the Bible, not the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek originals.
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:35 pm
Abe, as I said earlier: “This problem I find is not completely understood judging from the reactions to my assertion that “there is no Tagalog word for ‘efficiency’â€.”
mlq3 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 1:37 pm
djb, accessible to whom?
re: efficiency, the handy-dandy dictionary on my computer says the ff:
efficiency |iˈfi sh ənsē| noun ( pl. -cies) the state or quality of being efficient : greater energy efficiency. • an action designed to achieve this : to increase efficiencies and improve earnings. • technical the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in. • short for efficiency apartment . ORIGIN late 16th cent.(in the sense [the fact of being an efficient cause] ): from Latin efficientia, from efficere ‘accomplish’ (see effect ).
so it’s a latinism and we can go into a long disquisition as to why the english didn’t coin a word for efficiency until the dawn of the scientific age, for a concept that required the adaptation of a latin concept itself not precisely related to the new word. and why filipino somehow seems defective for having to borrow an english word for a western concept. but it only, at best, suggests how belatedly, in western terms, we’ve adopted western ideas of well, efficiency.
interesting survey of “efficiency” in other languages:
japanese: seinou, kou, kouritsu, nouritsu, jitsuryoku
hungarian: hatóerõ, hatékonyság, termelékenység, hathatósság
norwegian: effektivitet
russian: дейÑтвенноÑÑ‚ÑŒ
spanish: eficacia
french: efficience
italian: economicità , efficienza
in swahili, swedish, danish, finnish, dutch, portuguese, and indonesian, apparently, none!
imagine that, how culturally impoverished and economically backwards the swedes, danes, finns, dutch, portuguese must be (benign0 would, of course, sieze on the lack of a precise equivalent in indonesian and swahili).
benign0 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 2:25 pm
“but it only, at best, suggests how belatedly, in western terms, we’ve adopted western ideas of well, efficiency”
mlq3, but that was PRECISELY the point I was making. The reality is that “efficiency” is not ingrained in our cultural fabric because we do not have a strong tradition of scientific achievement built upon an aspiration to become efficient.
Catch my drift?
i find it baffling though that you’d do an “audit” of the existence of equivalent words for efficiency across a swath of both progressive and backward societies. In no way did I assert that lack of a word for efficiency in Tagalog WHOLLY accounts for our abject backwardness. What I did do was cite it as an INDICATOR though. Big difference, mate.
The fact of course is that the swedes, danes, finns, dutch, and portuguese are progressive societies even if they lack a specific word for “efficiency”. And it is a fact that they are progressive despite this APPARENT gap. Tough luck for Pinoys, then. We share that particular property with them but the similarity pathetically ends there.
We as Tagalog speakers are in a position to know with some level of authority that Tagalog completely lacks a concept of efficiency. There is a fallacy involved in arriving at the same conclusion for other languages we are not familiar with simply because a search for a direct translation for “efficiency” in those other languages yielded zilch. However because I am not formally trained in the field of logic, I cannot name the fallacy.
Remember how you yourself struggled to define “efficiency” in Tagalog. For all we know a Swede (despite lacking a specific word for “efficiency”) given the same challenge may fare differently. But who are we non-speakers of Swedish to say?
Beancurd on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 3:25 pm
I think the problem with “efficiency” lies not in the lack of an equivalent Tagalog word but in the effort to transplant a foreign concept in the domestic setting that has specific terms for certain situations that may suffice as an equivalent for efficiency. The English term is certainly an abstract or general one, but Tagalog deals more with the concrete and specifc. That is not at all indicative of a limitation on the part of the Tagalog language.
Karl Garcia on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 5:45 pm
“But certain inconveniences arise from the commercial spirit, Men’s views are confined, and “when a person’s whole attention is bestowed on the seventeenth part of a pin or the eightieth part of the button,†he becomes stupid. Education is neglected. In Scotland, the meanest porter can read and write, but at Birmingham boys of six or seven can earn threepence or sixpence a day, so that their parents set them to work early and their education is neglected….â€
“There is too ‘another great loss which attends the putting boys too soon to work. The boys throw off parental authority, and betake themselves to drunkenness and riot.â€
“The workmen in the commercial parts of England are consequently in a ‘despicable’ condition; their work through half the week is sufficient to maintain them, and through want of education they have no amusement for other but riot and debauchery. So it may very justly be said that the people who clothe the whole world are in rags themselves.†Adam Smith .. the Wealth of Nations, describing the conditions of peasants being put to work in the early manufactures at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
A word of caution on being too harsh on pinoys who are forced into circumstances where they have no choices.”
Does this mean Filipinos and others from poor nations are not alone in having to leave school early and work instead.Even with thatmore than century old excerpt from the wealth of nations?
Yes, I believe so just look at the mighty US, were Bill Gates have to donate a huge amont together with Oprah and some ex NBA stars just to save public education.
And speaking of Oprah just a few months ago,they showed how delapidated a certain public school was and guess what,it was afew blocks from the White House.
************************************
ON EO464
I think Gen. Esperon, will get away with the denial of having a basement, on national TV.
Is General ABU still covered by the EO?
But, I think it is not newsworthy, so who even cares?
sparks on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 6:42 pm
Manolo, actualy, the word the French use to mean “efficient” is efficace – which is closer to “effective.” When they use it in the context of business, they use the word economique – again, much closer to “cost-effective.”
“Efficiency,” as a concept that means maximum productivity with as little cost (materials + labour) as possible, is a unique cultural product of the the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution – Britain.
France, which is a mere channel away from Britain, also does not have the same concept of “efficiency” as the Brits do.
So please, lets not use linguistics as an indicator of anything.
rego on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:09 pm
“If you haven’t been in the Philippines for a while, then you won’t know week after week there’s nothing else in newspaper job ads but call centre placements. Why would any thinking being choose to ignore a loud and booming employment opportunity?”
But I thought the mining industry is booming too, so there must be some jobs in this feild for teh engineer particularly, Mining and Metallurgical engineers and geologists. Oh but the problem here is that these are not very popular courses. And its a very “lonely job” too. Sa bundok ka lagi naaassign.
So siguro maiigi na rin yung call center.
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:21 pm
Benigno, the closest translation we can have for efficiency is “kahusayan.” the absence of an exact word for it doesn’t mean Filipinos do not know the meaning of efficiency.
it’s like assuming Filipinos have no word for snow bec they’ve never experience it. And yet what is “niyebe?”
Karl, the link I’ve posted is just a short excerpt from Pahlaniuk’s work. it won’t even take 10 minutes to read.
And the US’s problem on education is even worser than ours, if you’d care to believe. For proof, look no further. They elected Bush Jr. TWICE!
Watching FOX would also give quite an insight into how supposed “educated” professionals in the US think. they’re even worse than GMA and ABS-CBN when it comes to infotainment. and balanced views or news, FOX aint. As O’Reilly likes to put it: SPIN, stops here. (yeah, it definitely does stop at FOX. and stays there too! i believe it’s been homey for a long, long time) O’Reilly and Cavuto are both journalists using their access to media to preach on a high pulpit. on what ground? are journalists supposed to cross the line between delivering news and making one of their own? thank God, our mass media hasn’t come to that point yet. Imagine Korina or Mike Enriquez preaching on TV. foisting unwanted opinions on viewers…
Devilsadvc8 on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:44 pm
re call centers, not all call center jobs are “idiot-friendly” or peachy and “easy” as some may imagine. akala ng iba ang trabaho ng agents ay umangat lang ng telepono at mag hello at magdadakdak at kung tratuhin ang trabahong ito ay parang di nangangailangan ng utak man lamang para makapasok dito.
basically, those in DA (directory assistance) are the ones requiring least cerebral work, and more speaking endurance. after all, how much neurons do you need to type in a computer keywords or phrases for a search? and then simply relay that info back to the customer? no reasoning or analytical skills are required.
but specialized call center support are a different thing. that’s why they’re specifically hiring engineers, accountants, medical professionals, and IT graduates for those accounts.
i myself worked as a CSR for Verizon US(the biggest telecom in the world). and you can’t imagine the amount of skill you need to operate cross-platforms all at the same time while talking and trying to pacify irate callers. and the systems we’re using are not icon based but command based. imagine using DOS, PASCAL, WORDSTAR, DBASE (jz an example) simultaneously while searching for one tiny detail of what’s wrong with the customer’s account. (the commands, you might imagine, are so MANY) the volume of work i handled would make CPA grads crazy with stress. (and im not even an accounting grad!)
I also didn’t acquire that STARBUCKS culture that so many agents seem to fall into. (though i did relapse into smoking again after having quit for years) I’ve only been inside Starbucks twice. both times when I was meeting someone. i can’t bring myself sip coffee the price of which could feed a starving family of four.
call center jobs, basically, are not for the creative or innovative individual. it’s a dead-end. as most entry-level jobs are for their kind. (a thing I learned from reading Peter Principle from wiki) but if you’re the kind who thrives on order, protocols, and doing same stuff over and over again, you’d thrive in this industry.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 7:58 pm
Abe,
1) I am mannered too, during my lazy times. When I’m not, I am simply a bad writer. I will leave my serious literary works out of this for now. Remember, we are talking about what are supposedly our best literary producers, Nick Joaquin and the people who followed him like Dalisay and Lacaba. Remember too that the Philippines is uniquely situated between the state of being cultural lost and the opposite state of having culturally found itself. Do you think the writing of these people are relevant for our situation now? They themselves would admit, most Filipino writers are derivative, most except a certain Bautista, Jose and a few other unknowns (I am assuming that a democratic country of 85 million people can produce a lot of original writers)
2 Yes, like a painter. Have you seen one of our modern painters in “action”? I dunno, maybe I’m just jealous of all the hot girls that think they are interesting but I won’t pay 50 pesos for one of their obras. I said, he was a overacting. An artist, but an artist who, even in his old age, was not sure about himself.
3.Mannered is really just stilted style. A style that does less for meaning as it does for effect. What I’m criticizing about some of our writers is that you can actually see how much they want to prove they are good in English… while you are reading them. How pathetically embarrassing is that? Especially since these are supposed to be our best.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:01 pm
To ROM,
Hey, read Arundhati Roy. That writer is an Indian conyo. But read her book. Fantastic, eh?
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:12 pm
“mlq3, but that was PRECISELY the point I was making. The reality is that “efficiency†is not ingrained in our cultural fabric because we do not have a strong tradition of scientific achievement built upon an aspiration to become efficient.”
If there isn’t one, imagine making up a word for it in the local dialect. If you cannot do it without changing your view of Filipinos and of the Philippines then Benign0 is right, the word does not exist.
sparks on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 8:59 pm
Only someone with little appreciation of human history and who seems to have a deeply-ingrained self-hatred will say a sweeping generalisation as this.
The sovereign Filipino has only been around for 60 years. The Philippines as an independent “nation” has only been around for 60 years. “Nations” as political, social, economic and cultural units have only been around for 360 years. Europe, against which this cultural comparison is evidently being made, has only been a purveyor of intellectual dominance since the Renaissance – after centuries of aping the innovations and ideas of the East. When Arabs first landed in Spain, I bet they thought Europeans were backward too.
BrianB on Thu, 23rd Aug 2007 9:25 pm
“CSR for Verizon US(the biggest telecom in the world”
Devil, At&T is bigger than Verizon. Verizon is only second in the U.S. Deutsche Telekom is the largest, outside China, it’s subsidiary being T-Mobile.
Abe N. Margallo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 1:56 am
BrianB,
Before the Malu mania eruption, I had had the chance to product-test my own “acerbic wit†on the issue, the gist of which however is to connect the dots to my post about Nick Joaquin and Rizal. Thus the suggestion that
If we want to be on board the Pequod and go whaling (or Malu-ing), shouldn’t we be harpooning Moby-Dicks, the likes of Mr. Nick?
Dead or alive?
Subjected to laissez faire, it apparently didn’t sell.
I was likewise serious not so much because, per mlq3, of Joaquin’s incessant nostalgia with the Spanish past – possibly at the expense of our “racial memory†or the “aspirations of (our) own people, their search for social justice and a moral order†– but also as a literary icon, Joaquin set him up as a bad example for people like, well, Malu (and BenignO?), the kind of deplorable “larger point . . . which is the clannish, cliquish, extremely self-satisfied yet paranoid and therefore, vengeful but ultimately sterile, world (Brian) sees not just in the literary world but in what passes for high society in this country.â€
So, in a way, I was being acerbic again by forcing an invalid simile (which was not mlq3’s intention I guess) between “political elites†and “literary elites†because in the end, I am vaguely implying, it is their duty, by some measures in their subconscious, to serve the culture that sustains them.
Which brings me to the Gramscian formulation that distinguishes between traditional intellectuals who serve the “clannish, cliquish†culture of the dominant class and the organic intellectuals who can universalize their experience and sever themselves from the dominant culture (possibly something akin to what we may call for lack of a better label as the Joaquin-Jose literary dichotomy, although I confess like cvj who prefers non-fiction, I am not a reader of either.)
Thus, contrary to BenignO’s thesis, people not being encouraged through the institutions (e.g., school curriculum from kindergarten to higher education) to disobey or to challenge or for that matter to think for themselves is not uniquely Filipino (or Third-Worldish) but is in fact systematic in countries he idolizes, foremost of which is the US where the media, the literary community, the school system are supposed to perform their basic institutional role, that is, to instill conformity to the established order.
Several years ago, I had this online debate (before blogging was in vogue) about why according to a survey by Pulse Asia an overwhelming majority of the Filipinos welcome US military help. One of my arguments (which seems not dissimilar to yours) is as follows:
_________
I believe it is through exchange like this that respectful disagreements could be reached, not through a downward flow of information from the top to the bottom, precipitated by polls or by news practitioners or by elite figures like Cardinal Sin.
Anyway, does the result of the survey indicate “the pro-American leanings of the population†or something else? This is an excellent question because it should really challenge us to draw upon our critical sense. What I mean by this is, whether to find an answer to your question, we should go beyond the Quezonian dilemma: Is it preferable to be ruled like hell by ourselves or like heaven by the Americans? President Quezon got his wish and Filipinos obtained their “formal†independence in 1946. But indeed the struggle for liberation of the Filipino mind has just begun. The likes of Recto, Tañada, Diokno, and Salonga fought their battles within the hegemonic framework (hegemony here being the permeation of the dominant will and values in all societal aspects).
Renato Constantino, on the other hand, pursued a different route outside traditional nationalism which, although nativist in certain ways, has achieved greater “decolonizing†effects essential to genuine liberation.
Why are many of us wholeheartedly welcoming GI Joe to “train†our soldiers in jungle warfare in our own terrain?
Echoing Gramsci . . . , my sense is that the Filipinos have remained consenting participants in their continued colonization, not by force or fiat, but by the conspiracy of their unliberated mind.
Abe N. Margallo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 2:01 am
I mean “…. Joaquin set HIMSELF up as a bad example . . .”
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:55 am
BrianB,
Conyo means Cunt
Karl Garcia on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 8:02 am
Call centers:
I should react to that,although I know its quite boring and paulit ulit.
In the two accounts I have a chance to serve,one medical insurance, and the other one credit cards; you may encounter idiot callers but the Call center agents are definitely not idiots,to those whio think that it is a no brainer,go ahead,try it
Point of digression.
Although I acknowledge that there is nothing we can do with Benigno’s style, I think calling Pinoys pathetic is way to harsh. Mas magaan pa pakinggan yung tagalog version nya na kawawang pinoy.
BrianB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:11 am
“Conyo means Cunt”
Arundhati Roy isn’t one?
inodoro ni emilie on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:19 am
“I think it became an official technical term when development of steam engines started (a milestone in that the use of steam power marked the beginning of our dependence on fossil fuels).”
what?!? it took the americans this long to understand the concept of efficiency, and they have to build steam engines?!?
boy, oh boy, the bronze age people did not build the rolling wheels for nothing. they did not even have a word for efficiency.
inodoro ni emilie on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 9:35 am
okay, i got that steam engine creator part wrong. ah, this attribution to all things western.
but i stand by that eons of time differential.
benign0 on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 10:02 am
“contrary to BenignO’s thesis, people not being encouraged through the institutions (e.g., school curriculum from kindergarten to higher education) to disobey or to challenge or for that matter to think for themselves is not uniquely Filipino ”
Abe, I never asserted that (1) the dysfunctions I cite are UNIQUELY Pinoy, nor (2) that it is institutions of learning that encourage rote thinking.
What I do assert is that a lack of thinking inclination PERVADES the overall culture of Pinoy society (thus I do not single out any one particular factor or institution). This was succinctly summarised by this fellow:
http://www.getrealphilippines.com/rant/rant00020.html
If you will read the above you will find that this humble fellow’s observation highlights the fact (contradicting whatever strawman you seem to make of the U.S.) that people are GENERALLY afforded the opportunity to think freely in advanced societies like the U.S. (notwithstanding some of their issues with religious zealotry in certain “heartland” communities over there).
I do not disagree that institutions tend to attempt to enforce order, compliance, and conformity. In fact that’s what they are there for in ANY society. The difference lies in the way people RESPOND to their institutions. Whereas in the Philippines you will find resignation and (at worst) utter lack of comprehension on the issues surrounding what their institutions are up to, in advanced societies you will find active DEBATE on the NATURE (in contrast with personalities) of the way said institutions operate.
Abe N. Margallo on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 11:58 am
BenignO,
First, please don’t omit “(Third-Worldish)†after “uniquely Filipino†from the quote above to show its full context.
I hope this will help Benigs:
The evil is not that [inefficiency] exists more or less latently but that it is fostered and magnified. Among men, as well as among nations, there exist not only aptitudes but also tendencies toward good and evil. To foster the good ones and aid them, as well as correct the evil and repress them, would be the duty of society and governments, if less noble thoughts did not occupy their attention. The evil is that the [inefficiency] in the Philippines is a magnified [inefficiency], an [inefficiency] of the snowball type, if we may be permitted the expression, an evil that increases in direct proportion to the square of the periods of time, an effect of misgovernment and of backwardness, as we said, and not a cause thereof. Others will hold the contrary opinion, especially those who have a hand in the misgovernment, but we do not care . . . (Italics mine)- by Rizal
If instead we put in the bracket [heritage of smallness], that should probably help Joaquin’s followers too.
Here’s one insight, from Indian novelist Arundhati Roy that BrianB has mentioned above, about how conformity is manufactured in the U.S.:
[I]t is almost axiomatic for thousands, possibly millions, of us that public opinion in “free market†democracies is manufactured just like any other mass market product – soap, switches, or sliced bread. We know that while, legally and constitutionally, speech may be free, the space in which that freedom can be exercised has been snatched from us and auctioned to the highest bidders.
You may read my full piece here.
Benigs, I’m quite lucky having been able to observe the American schools system first hand. It’s beginning to alarm me because what’s drilled to students day in, day out: follow instruction, listen. They are basically trained to accept things and not to ask too many questions. A student easily becomes a behavioral problem if he or she doesn’t conform or show independent-mindedness, a good number of them are placed on Ritalin or some other drugs with calming effects. Ang malikot ang tawag ay ADD. Do you know why Americans fall in line everywhere, the kind of neat culture you admire? The drill starts from pre-school, kids marching on the hallway like little Marines, with fingers on their shut mouth. And do you have a guess why this behavior is important when they group up? I do, for EFFICIENY. In the workplace, where they will spend most of their waking hours as adults, there’s no democracy.
benign0 on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 3:34 pm
Abe,
Apologies for leaving out “third-worldish” as it does turns out that I did lose a bit of context in quoting your words.
That [induced] conformity you perceive to be afflicting Americans has been happening for quite some time. It’s an outcome of a science called brand marketing. And while it does to some extent rally people into certain cultural behaviours — a taste for blue jeans, Mickey Mouse, and John Wayne (and the gun culture that follows it), this is in no way the same as the way Pinoys seem to just simply lack any inclination to use CRITICAL THINKING to CHALLENGE ideas, belief systems, or approaches to doing things.
It’s also interesting to note that the successful societies in East Asia — Greater China, Korea, and Japan, are societies known for (1) possessing a far more regimented approach to education and (2) placing far more value on conformity and uniformity relative to the West.
And yet they are part of the prosperous world (not quite mainland China but at least they are getting there).
Also we seem to be in denial of the reality that our cultural predisposition to, say, lack of efficiency or lack of predisposition to think is the ultimate cause of our failure to prosper, as is apparent in your saying that they are effects “of misgovernment and of backwardness, as we said, and not a cause thereof” (a view that is in line with cvj’s thinking as well).
Don’t you think this view is a product of years of being conditioned to think that government is to blame for our inability to prosper (as such it is the dominant line of reasoning taken by most Pinoys who grasp at straws to explain our chronic failure to prosper as a society)? If so, then how does this explain how the Filipino Chinese came to dominate Philippine commerce despite being subject to the same dysfunctional governance?
sparks on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 4:36 pm
Manong Benign0, saan po ba kayo nag-aral nu’ng nasa Pilipinas pa kayo? Kasi po, sa pamantasang pinanggalingan ko, lahat ay bukas sa pagtatanong at panuri. Siguro po ay galing kayo sa henerasyong iba’ng-iba sa akin, kung kaya’t tila ’sing tigas na yata ng bato ang inyong opinyon ukol sa kakulangan ng kakayanan ng Pilipino.
Maikwento ko lang, na sa larangan ng disiplina’ng pinag-aaralan ko dito sa Australia, maihahalintulad sa galing at lalim ng mga naging guro ko sa Pilipinas. Sa ilang aspeto, mas magaling pa nga.
Ilang linggo ang nakalipas, pinag-aralan namin ang low-violence strategies ng new social movements sa daigdig. Ang Pilipinas ang modelo’ng pinagbatayan ng mga bagong demokrasya sa dating Soviet Union. Ang Pilipinas nga naman ang una. Pinatunayan ng ating lahi na kaya ng isang sambayana’ng ipaglaban ang kalayaan sa pamamagitan ng People Power.
Kung wala na po tayong ibang ma-iaamabag sa pangkalahatang kaalaman ng sangkatauhan, kuntento na po ako.
BrianB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:44 pm
“Echoing Gramsci . . . , my sense is that the Filipinos have remained consenting participants in their continued colonization, not by force or fiat, but by the conspiracy of their unliberated mind.”
I’ve never really thought how Gramscian I am becoming. He makes too fine a point on everything to really appeal to me. He, he, he actually thinks more like many people here than me. As far as his concept of one ruling culture’s trickle down effect on the middle class and the masses, you are absolutely right. I mean Gramsci was.
But then, I think Filipinos just need one thing, a democratic education from elementary onwards. Nothing dramatic, just the Bill of Rights being memorized by heart by school kids.
And another thing about our Gramscian ruling culture: I am imagining a poor boy having the ear of the U.S. and Europe and then using that influence to humiliate the Philippine elite. Won’t that go far in undermining their hold on the masses?
BrianB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:46 pm
@Abe, my answer to your comment above.
BrianB on Fri, 24th Aug 2007 7:49 pm
I mean, Abe, American influence works both ways. It used to be to the advantage of the Harvard educated, but it could easily be turned around. One writer, one intellectual who has the ear of the world, can pull down the veil.
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 12:43 am
BENIGNO: That [induced] conformity you perceive to be afflicting Americans has been happening for quite some time. It’s an outcome of a science called brand marketing. And while it does to some extent rally people into certain cultural behaviours — a taste for blue jeans, Mickey Mouse, and John Wayne (and the gun culture that follows it), this is in no way the same as the way Pinoys seem to just simply lack any inclination to use CRITICAL THINKING to CHALLENGE ideas, belief systems, or approaches to doing things.
ABE: When what’s being sold are blue jeans, soaps and chewing gums, the science may be called brand marketing, if ideology or ideas, use of “soft power†(basically propaganda) and/or “hard power†(war, economic incentives/sanctions or “low intensity conflict†aka counter-insurgency or sometimes called “peacemakingâ€) are resorted to. If you can get others to want what you want, it costs you much less in terms of using economic incentives or going to full-scale war. You got the right word for it. EFFICIENCY.
Please try to get this one Benigs. Political dissenters in the US dissent “within range†and therefore stop short at CHALLEGING the core belief system. In my town in Bikol, we call them “palaâ€; in Wall Street jargon it is more akin to “manipulated trading,†the consequence of which is in fact the façade of dissent works to reinforce the system in place that is supposedly being challenged. So in the U.S., there’s no such political animal as radical as Crispin Beltran, Satur Campo or Teddy Casino running around Congress actively participating to reshape the system itself. Thus, in democratic terms, I believe that the Philippine political system is superior to the American political system.
BENIGNO: It’s also interesting to note that the successful societies in East Asia — Greater China, Korea, and Japan, are societies known for (1) possessing a far more regimented approach to education and (2) placing far more value on conformity and uniformity relative to the West.
And yet they are part of the prosperous world (not quite mainland China but at least they are getting there).
Also we seem to be in denial of the reality that our cultural predisposition to, say, lack of efficiency or lack of predisposition to think is the ultimate cause of our failure to prosper, as is apparent in your saying that they are effects “of misgovernment and of backwardness, as we said, and not a cause thereof†(a view that is in line with cvj’s thinking as well).
Don’t you think this view is a product of years of being conditioned to think that government is to blame for our inability to prosper (as such it is the dominant line of reasoning taken by most Pinoys who grasp at straws to explain our chronic failure to prosper as a society)? If so, then how does this explain how the Filipino Chinese came to dominate Philippine commerce despite being subject to the same dysfunctional governance?
ABE: What should probably interest you more is that all these successful East Asian countries (and now China) have been very fortunate to have the chance to adopt the same economic strategy that had propelled America (as well as the European economies of the first Industrial Revolution) into being the economic power that it is today. I call it the Hamiltonian system or otherwise State-coordinated economy. What makes these economies successful is that the bureaucrats/technocrats (e.g. the Hamiltonian wisemen or the MTTI in Japan) predominates the private sector.
What we have in the Philippines is what Manolo is kind of suggesting in his latest entry, per Joe Studwell, as the Godfather system (the mestizo/taipan system is probably more descriptive) con WTO/IFM/WB market prescriptions. And there’s the rub, successful economies employ the “mutated†market system. We are under “prescription†to swallow the bitter pill of the “pure†market variety. Now, what makes the Godfather system stinks is that the Godfathers (some whose “sense of country” may be questionable) predominates the bureaucrats/technocrats.
I have tried to explain the myth of Amy Chua’s “market-dominant minority†(Amy Chua is a tsinay Yale Law School professor and author) this way:
The economic success of the ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia—by the argument of some adopting the Weberian thesis—is attributed to Confucian ethics, while others consider it as owing to certain cultural factors such as saving habits or attitudes toward education. I don’t buy these theories for, otherwise, there would have been no Chinese Revolution by millions of hungry and humiliated Chinese people.
My two cents on the causes of this disproportionately high economic performance of overseas Chinese are: First, a key success factor is the immense pressure to succeed “outsiders†imposed upon themselves once in far-off land; second, newcomers were normally provided with the “benefit of head start†by those who had come earlier and made it. (One fitting example is taipan John Gokongwei, Jr., who delivered a speech at the Ateneo de Manila University on “entrepreneurship†in July 2002, tracing his rags-to-riches story ala Horatio Alger but admitting he was given a head start by then China Bank Chairman Dr. Albino Sycip, and DK Chiong, then the Bank’s president, an opportunity often denied to other struggling start-ups.); third, those who opted for the life of exile—the Jews who wandered everywhere, America’s founding fathers and the Pinoy immigrants and OFWs are, I think, of the same variety—are generally, and maybe “genetically,†risk-takers, and just like the “pirates and the pariahs†of the ancient, they are not only survivors but among the “cream of the cropâ€; and fourth but not least, being explorers as well as exploiters, they benefited greatly under the dominant economic system of “survival of the fittest.â€
SPARK: Ang Pilipinas ang modelo’ng pinagbatayan ng mga bagong demokrasya sa dating Soviet Union. Ang Pilipinas nga naman ang una. Pinatunayan ng ating lahi na kaya ng isang sambayana’ng ipaglaban ang kalayaan sa pamamagitan ng People Power.
Kung wala na po tayong ibang ma-iaamabag sa pangkalahatang kaalaman ng sangkatauhan, kuntento na po ako.
ABE: Sparkling! I have written something like that before, like this:
“Filipinos must continue to revisit the gift of People Power and fathom the depth of resources it offers regardless of how many times the Supreme Court in the context of procedural democracy attempts to defang, or certain other misguided Filipinos misuse, it.
“People Power is too precious to be squandered because it is probably all the Filipinos have for now.â€
BrianB: One writer, one intellectual who has the ear of the world, can pull down the veil.
ABE: It probably takes a village. Right Tingog?
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 2:12 am
ill-mannered writing: predominates(2x) shd be PREDOMINATE.
BrianB on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 5:18 am
“It probably takes a village. Right Tingog?”
Back to Gramsci. I was thinking. Philippine communism is failing because it cannot dissuade the masses from espousing the values of the rich: respect for wealth, church and Americans (i.e. foreigners from an advanced culture). But what if there is no communism, and mass culture takes the Church and the Americans for its own. Wealth they don’t have and can do nothing about, but they do have their resentments for it, and envy is a powerful feeling. Take away communism and you will have a mass that can actually take over.
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 8:11 am
BrianB, what do you mean when you say you are a humanist?
BrianB on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 12:31 pm
Well, Abe, I suppose besides the usual definition I root for more humans instead of fewer humans, and I don’t mean I don’t like condoms.
Abe N. Margallo on Sat, 25th Aug 2007 11:59 pm
Mannered writing?
Bencard on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 2:24 am
“How does this explain how the Filipino Chinese came to dominate Philippine commerce despite being subject to the same dysfunctional governance?” Abe Margallo.
simple, abe. the chinese came here not expecting any help from the “dysfunctional” government you’re talking about. they have to rely on their own grit, determination, and native ingenuity, i.e. “efficiency”. they didn’t ask much – only the freedom to sell anything from taho to mami & siopao. the same is true with the expatriate jews all over the world prior to world war ii. they had absolutely nothing in terms of political and economic aid from their hostile hosts but they prospered, becoming bankers, professionals, scientists and artisans of world renown. they are not the whimperers, bellyachers, complainers, self-justifying people that the average pinoy is. they believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Abe N. Margallo on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 6:40 am
Bencard,
I’m just really curious, would you consider benignO and yourself as “average Pinoy.â€
Or would anyone whom you have exchanged views with in this forum an “average Pinoy,†for example, jaxius, cvj, Shaman, mb, KG, rego, schumey, BriaB, inodoro, Devilsavc8, DJB, jeg, John Marzan, naganueño, The Ca T, mlq3, Nick, watchful eye, sparks, vic, Jon Mariano, etc?
Otherwise, who would an “average Pinoy†be?
btw, the quote in your post is benignO’s not mine.
Bencard on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 8:14 am
abe, my apologies for the wrong attribution. to me, “average pinoy” is one who, generally, blames the government for every misery he suffers in life, one who thinks the government is reponsible to make him “happy” and self-sufficient as a matter of natural entitlement. anyone who fits this description, including myself, is “average” in my estimation simply because it is a pretty common trait. basis: read and analyze every single post in this blog.
benign0 on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 10:58 am
Abe,
Those four items you mentioned highlight the very point I’ve been making since time immemorial (or at least since 2000). As a matter of fact they form, as cvj put it, my “template” analysis of Pinoy dysfunction.
Regardless of how or why the Chinese got that way or how or why Pinoys got the way we did, the REALITY is that’s our collective character TODAY. We did not have the history of Chinese therefore we are not like them. We did not have the history of the Japanese, that’s why we are not like them. We do not have the history of the British, that’s why we’re not like them.
Kung baga, we are an unfortunate product of OUR OWN history.
My challenge is to come up with a strategy to play the UNFORTUNATE hand we were dealt by OUR history. But you have to clearly understand and ACCEPT this hand before you can forumlate such a strategy.
sparks on Sun, 26th Aug 2007 5:29 pm
Manong Abe,
Salamat po sa papuri. Katawa-tawa nga, na tayo mismong mga Pinoy, minamaliit ang People Power. Kasi nga naman, parang hindi dumating ang pagbabagong inaasam-asam natin, kahit 2 dekada na ang lumipas.
Pero kung iispin mo, ibang-iba na ang Pilipinas ngayon. Nitong nakaraang linggo lang, nakahalu-bilo ko ang ilang iskolar mula sa iba’t-ibang bansa sa Asya-Pasipiko. Kagulat-gulat na karamihan sa kanila, ang inaasam-asam pa rin ay isa autokratikong pamumuno.
Napag-isipan ko’ng mahirap ang ginawa nating mga Pilipino. Kung ano man ang mangyari sa hinaharap, dapat nating pakaingatan ang atin na’ng naitaguyod. Alam ko ang iba, matapos ang 2 dekada ng demokrasya, handa na’ng isuko ang ilang kalayaan para mag-”move on.” Ngunit dapat siguro nating tanungin ang ating sarili kung kanino at kung bakit isusuko ang mga kalayaang tinatamasa ngayon – ang kalayaang batikusin ang pamahalaan, ang kalayaang magpahayag ng saliwat na kuro-kuro, ang bukas na balitak-takang tulad nito sa blogosphere.
Abe N. Margallo on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 4:44 am
BenignO,
I normally don’t blame the government (although I consider myself as an average Pinoy). However, I agree with your claim that the Filipinos have been “conditioned to think that government is to blame for our inability to prosper (as such it is the dominant line of reasoning taken by most Pinoys . . .)†EXCEPT that, that to me, the process of conditioning that has produced this “dominant line of reasoning†is not self-imposed.
Let me explain.
Our state of affairs today is such where the government is too weak it only plays second fiddle to a greater power – concentrated in about 60 families who dominate the Philippine political economy. These families, aside from controlling a wide range of economic activities including manufacturing, retail, infrastructure supply, petrochemicals, aviation, agri-business, constructions, telecommunications, real estate, banking and services AND owning about half of the national debt, also own the means of “conditioning†– principally the print (newspapers and magazines) and the electronic (radio and television) media and therefore are mainly responsible in the formation of our “collective character.†It has taken foreigners like Paul D. Hutchcroft and Joe Studwell to speak loud of this societal flaw, i.e., of “booty capitalism†in the Philippines and the “Asian Godfathers,†respectively. The media bias against Muslim Filipinos is another dimension of this conditioning.
The common tao, the government, the politicians, and even the science of politics itself get the thumping all the time as convenient scapegoats for the simple reason that they don’t own and control the media that allows these handful of families the ability to frame the issues and the national agendas on their own terms to protect their image, position and interests. Hence we don’t hear and read commentaries critical of their laggardness, inefficiency and lack of competitiveness vis-à -vis their regional counterpart as frequently as we do when it comes to the “average Pinoy,†the politicians and the government. And because of the subtlety of the conditioning, even sparks who appears to share the views being expressed here has gotten used to saying in terms of kalayaang batikusin ang pamahalaan as a matter of course (no offense intended , sparks).
The crisis of the Philippine Oligarchy, if you recall, was one of the main reasons Marcos placed the country under martial law. It’s also been the same band of oligarchs Erap disparaged as the “Makati rich†and Arroyo herself lashed out at as the “powerful, selfish interests (who) are able to exploit poverty and ignorance to maintain the status quo or impede open, progressive development.†The national scourge once prompted Ninoy to call the Philippines an “entrenched plutocracyâ€; whereas, FVR has cited the “unholy alliance†and “perverse symbiosis†between these “greedy rent-seeking†families and certain politicians to whom the latter are beholden, as the “mother of our problems†throughout our history. All these unfortunate plaints however are no less confirmation that even a succession of strong political leaders and presidents have been no match to the powers of the powers that be.
The economic elites and those with whom they form this “unholy alliance†have determinedly built on their capacity to preserve the system of “perverse symbiosis†under which they protect their powers and privileges regardless of the immense privation of the rest of the society.
BenignO, this is the “UNFORTUNATE hand†that you will have to play hardball with because to protect the system in place under which the powers that be enjoy their position, they will hang tough and ignore or reject any “strategy†for reform unless they realize, when the little drops threaten to make an ocean, that the stalemate may end up in the loss of their grip on power.
You seem to be an assiduous hound, Benigs, but I think you are sniffing out the trail of another game.
To be back on track, I guess the first big step is to “clearly understand and ACCEPT this hand,†using your own metaphor. The next big step is to develop the average Pinoy’s capacity to put up a countervailing force potent enough to direct the powers that be along the path of what Bencard calls “PERSONAL [as well as, I think, “publicâ€] RESPONSIBILITY.â€
UPn asked this question before: . . . how do you inspire the “self-sacrifice†of forbearance . . . of the same group being derided, not because they can create wealth, but because of “lack of… this†or lack of that?
My answer was:
It could be one or a combination of any of the following motivations:
1. Not to act is to put all that they have or built for themselves at risk.
2. “There’s something (more than meets the eye) in it for me,†if it succeeds.
3. Injured elite pride (or national pride, if they have “a sense of countryâ€). “If the Thais or the Malaysians can, why can’t we?â€
4. Agape (a mission of love for others). “These 35 million poor Filipinos are also my brothers.â€
In the meanwhile, and this where I agree with you, Benigs, the “average Pinoys†must seek higher standards of public duty for themselves, probably through exchanges like this. The Malu Fernandez controversy could be a good case study for this exercise.
sparks on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 6:53 am
Manong Abe,
No offense taken. Isa lamang ang pamahalaan sa marami ko na’ng napuna sa ating lipunan.
Reklamador ba tayo, ayon kay Manong Benign0? Haysus. Pano’ng di ka magrereklamo, ultimo pagkuha ng lisensya sa pagmamaneho inaabot ng 1 araw.
Ang mukha ng gobyerno ay ang byurukrasya. Mula tayo ipanganak hanggang mamatay, wala tayong kawala. Kung ang kapalit ay isang byurukrasyang mananagot sa akin bilang mamamayan, hala sige reklamo!
Mayroon yatang pakiwari si Manong Benigs na ang ekonomiks ay hiwalay sa pulitika. Na katawa-tawa, dahil dito sa Australia ngayong panahon ng halalan, ang palaging pinag-uusapan ng mga pulitiko, maliban sa tubig (dahil tagtuyot) ay Industrial Relations – ang relasyon ng mga kapitalista, manggagawa at pamahalaan.
benign0 on Mon, 27th Aug 2007 8:10 am
Abe,
Actually I find that you and I don’t differ in our views.
You mention that the elite…
“[...]own the means of “conditioning†– principally the print (newspapers and magazines) and the electronic (radio and television) media and therefore are mainly responsible in the formation of our “collective character.†”
This is the FIRST part of the equation that could comprise the fundamental solution to Pinoy dysfunction. The SECOND part is what you said below:
“[...]to develop the average Pinoy’s capacity to put up a countervailing force potent enough to direct the powers that be along the path of what Bencard calls “PERSONAL [as well as, I think, “publicâ€] RESPONSIBILITY.†”
.
Regarding the first, I’ve cited this many times and is evident in my attacks on Wowowee, Tito Sotto (and his track record of contributing to the propagation of national stupidity), etc.
A contributor of mine wrote extensively about how the Elite is the SOURCE of (and therefore largely responsible for) thought leadership in Pinoy society:
http://www.geocities.com/benign0/3-00_Makati/enlighten1.html
I also wrote in my book that:
“Philippine cinema has an immense influence over Filipino minds and is, bizarrely, the single biggest factor to consider – primarily because it may be the easiest to change. As shown in the section on Technology, a huge proportion – 61 percent – of on-line discussions in PinoyExchange.com is accounted for by topics on Philippine cinema and television. It is a number that dwarfs all the rest, which is not a surprise because watching movies and television are disproportionately affordable forms of leisure activity in the Philippines”
Note in bold that, as one of my “template” analyses asserts, the solutions are obvious. In fact i go further to say that:
“However, the fact remains that between the Filipino masses and the captains of the entertainment industry, it is the latter – the producers, studio owners, and artists – who are in a position to be agents of change.”
Which demonstrates that I do acknowledge that the impetus best comes from those who have control of the most resources. This why it is such a disgrace to be seeing in the Pinoy blogosphere (a hangout presumably populated largely by the Pinoy elite) content and discussion that is ONLY MARGINALLY better than talk on the mounds of the Payatas and on the bleachers of the Wowowee.
As to the second part of the equation, my entire Solution Framework is precisley about this; i.e. equipping the currently vacuous mind of the Filipino to regard the mind games of the elite with a critical eye.
Foremost among these is espousing use of ENGLISH to impart and articulate ideas so that Pinoys are more efficiently able to tap the wealth of advanced thinking (all articulated in English, AND the languages of societies with EXTENSIVE TRACK RECORDS of contributing to the COLLECTIVE INTELLECT OF HUMANITY). There are others beyond language but apparently, just on the question of language alone, there is already a lot of foolish nostalgia woven into the counter-arguments.
How can we expect the masses to put up a shield against the stupidity fed to them by the elite-controlled media if they do not have the tools to evaluate ALTERNATIVE information and are instead imprisoned by a language that limits them to Tito-Vic-and-Joey humour and the “insights” provided by shows like Wowowee?
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 28th Aug 2007 5:13 am
Benigno,
Your site is a lot more impressive now than it was during your debate with Jojo Abinales and Pedro at PCIJ (I really hope that Jojo and Pedro will continue to have some meaningful exchanges with us at least here at mlq3’s). I like your presentation too.
If you are also interested in what my thoughts are on the relevant issues we have covered in our debates, you may check my entry here. It is an essay I wrote last year on the 20th commemoration of EDSA 1.
There are at least three important questions raised in the essay:
1.On personal leadership: Who among the contending aspirants for national leadership has the singular qualification of the power of the will to break up the long-standing “unholy alliance†and “perverse symbiosis†of the wealthy and powerful without breaking the nation apart?
2. On the challenge to the governing elites: How to summon up the will and marshal the skills to overcome oppositions and disagreements through negotiations and compromises among the workers, private business and the government with a view to working out a national consensus, in a Bayanihan pact of sort, for some grand economic arrangement better than the alternative that either leads to the domestic wealth holders exporting their financial assets (the gargantuan value of which is estimated, at least anecdotally, to approximate the national debt today) or to their own financial crisis because of debt defaults, or both.
3. On the Filipino alternative: As the Filipino alternative to the Americans’ robber baron, the Japanese zaibatsu, the South Korean chaebol or the Taiwanese countryside industrialization model is: Whether the gateway to equitable accumulation and ultimately national development could also be accessed by way of the power of consensus of people power democracy that’s willing to learn from the best practices that work and, based on ongoing experience and rising above ideologies, eschew things that don’t, or change even established notions and practices when concrete realities and the complex necessities for change in the service of the common good require.
Conclusion: To build a strong republic, the entrepreneurial spirit must lead the pursuit of aggressive growth-oriented strategic goals by: aspiring not only for the short-run objective of a domestic market patronizing Filipino products but for such products with fewer export components to attain the competitive edge for the export market; taking the risk to explore the nation’s great potential for sustainable alternative sources of energy to produce those products without undue reliance upon imported sources; investing enough in our human capital, through quality training and education, as part of the goods of the future; or essentially, producing the right goods the right way doing the best with what we have or potentially should have so that the national vision informed by the consensus upon such societal aspirations as decent standard of living for the greatest number, supported by high-income employments that keep our “best and brightest†home, could come into fruition. These goals and visiondemand vigorous entrepreneurship with a sense of national purpose first and foremost.
More specifically, this would only mean that beyond some short-run government bureaucratic measures (such as new tax schemes), the wealth creators at the firm level must lead the march toward competitiveness and productivity growth, the intuition of the now famous “UP 11†that it would be “no more than whistling in the dark†notwithstanding. Therefore, rather than despair, Filipinos must take the course that remains wide open for them — build and produce to earn enough to pay debts, provide basic needs, keep an efficient bureaucracy and build even more. When government capital expenditures are at a minimum, the private sector must take up the slack in investment to boost employment and enable the citizens to pull through a sense of confidence in the future.
Specific model for economic takeoff: I have recommended Walt W. Rostow’s model for economic takeoff in the following discussion:
Many parts of the country still retain the basic features of the so-called traditional society. A traditional society is one whose structure has limited production functions because of its incapacity to manipulate the environment through science and technology. To break from the conditions of a traditional society that put a ceiling on its attainable output, new types of enterprising men willing to take risks in pursuit of profit or modernization must come forward. The risk-taking must happen in conjunction with the appearance of institutions for mobilizing capital like banks, the investment in transport, communications, and in raw materials in which other societies may have an economic interest, and the setting up of manufacturing enterprises using modern methods. These are the “preconditions for take-off,†the stage that the Philippines notwithstanding has already reached.
Takeoff however may not occur if the transition is proceeding at a limited stride in an economy still primarily typified by “traditional low-productivity methods,†by dated societal institutions and values, and by parochial political institutions.
The key to economic progress is somehow attitudinal too and this happens when economic men and political animals judge such progress to be good not only for the material comfort it brings forth for their pioneering spirit but also for national identity and dignity, the welfare of the next generation and the common good.
Historically, the decisive ingredient during the transition is the building of an “effective centralized national state†imbued with a “new nationalism†versus regional interests, the colonial power (if any), or both. When growth becomes steady and normal and institutionalized into habits and social structure and dominates the society, takeoff is said to occur.
Takeoff is spurred not only by the investment in “social overhead capital†(such as in railways, ports, roads and education) and the expansion of technological development in industry and agriculture, but also by the rise to political power of a group dedicated to the proposition that the modernization of the economy is a national goal of paramount order. Guided by the wisdom and knowledge of this group who trust each other, takeoff happens (parsing or interpreting Rostow) when:
1) Heavy investment in “social overhead capital†takes place;
The economy exploits untapped natural resources and discovers new methods of production;
2) The rate of investment and savings rises to about 10% of the national income;
3) Imports of capital goods form a high proportion of total investment;
4) There is rapid expansion in new industries, generating profits a sizeable proportion of which are reinvested in new plants;
5) The new industries, in turn, spur (through their rapidly expanding requirement for workers, support personnel, and for other value-added goods and services) a further expansion in urban areas and in other modern industrial plants;
6) Expansion in the advance sector yields returns in the hands of those not content with rent-seeking but who place their savings at the disposal of those engaged in modern sector activities;
7) The new breed of entrepreneurs emerges and expands; and it places and directs the increasing flows of investment in the private sector;
9) Agriculture is commercialized, and more farmers are educated to accept and apply the new methods and the transformative changes brought forth;
10) The economic, social and political structures of the society are transformed to allow for a steady and sustainable growth.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 28th Aug 2007 5:32 am
While my reply to Benigs is awaiting moderation, let me post something on the comment below by sparks.
Mayroon yatang pakiwari si Manong Benigs na ang ekonomiks ay hiwalay sa pulitika. – sparks
It may be pakiwari (perception) as to Benigs, but to Ate Glo it looks more like pag-kukunwari (deception).
Consider these sound bytes by courtesy of SONA 2005 and my response:
GMA: Here’s the divide: One is Philippines whose economy, after long years of cumulative national endeavor, is now poised for take off. The other is the Philippines whose political system, after equally long years of degeneration, has become a hindrance to progress.
ABE: Where there should be talk about dealing with the broader issue of “political economy†(whose two-fold objectives I suppose are: to provide subsistence for the people and produce revenue for the state), there’s hairsplitting for some deceitful, albeit dramatic, effects.
. . . As usual the politicos are made the whipping boys and girls again (although many of them deserve the whip), but she, being a “US-schooled economist†and certainly a politica herself, now “kinder, gentler,†gets credit for half of her supposed being.
Meanwhile, in GMA’s blaming environment . . . whereas the political system is getting the heavy axe, escaping unscathed is the longstanding incompetence and/or laggardness of the economic elites who seem simply content with driving productive and available Pinoy human capital overseas; and as “paper†entrepreneurs, are the most to gain through their banks from the money remitted by heroic OFWs who risk being raped, held hostage, or murdered in the dessert to earn a living (Aren’t Pinoys really toughies? Think now of our supposed “damaged culture†or “indolenceâ€).
No wonder these “rent-seeking†elites (meaning they rather rent their wealth by buying government treasuries at guaranteed interests or otherwise tending their “paper†industries) and taipans are not risking enough to build factories that create the all-too important value-added. They also play-all-too-safe by just building malls, investing in real estates and similar ventures, while the media they control (and that gives us bloggers a good reason for being) frets about declining foreign direct investments, not domestic direct investments, or plays blind about the gargantuan money safely salted away abroad.
GMA: I specially refer to our recent titanic struggle to enact the three laws that comprised the biggest fiscal package in our history, the biggest revenue increase in a generation that will break the vicious cycle of financing development by borrowing and having to borrow again just to service those loans. This is the one reform that will snap the chain that has bound our future to a profligate past and the debt-burdened present.
ABE: Titanic? When GMA (or the next leadership) starts dangling the debt-moratorium card in the face of the country’s creditors, or telling the domestic rentier regime to take up the slack in government spending and build this and that industry or else (bad “tips†for the messiahs in the barracks?), that’s when the “struggle†can be called titanic or fundamental or radical. But right now, it’s business as usual, meaning after debt service, still no monies would be left to serve the objectives of the political economy such as to pump prime and stimulate the economy in the Keynesian fashion when needed, or for human capital enhancement (not to speak of the minimum requirements for education, healthcare, welfare and similar initiatives) so that when the next batch of OFWs are dispatched (those “average Pinoysâ€), they get the better-paying jobs and remit home more.
That was 2005.
benign0 on Wed, 29th Aug 2007 10:29 am
Abe,
Thanks I did a bit of cosmetic “re-engineering” on it to make it more intuitive. That “debate” with Abinales was a classic for me (a guy with lots of jargon at his disposal but ultimately possessing no substance), but I don’t recall any extensive debate with anyone named “Pedro” on the PCIJ though…
I had a bit of trouble opening your blog at work. But presumably the three points you wrote in your MLQ3 comment captures the essence of your essay (which i will check out from home later).
I am inclined to make a sweeping summary of the ten conditions you outlined based on your interpretation of Rostow in a two-word phrase:
CAPITAL EXPANSION.
The disposal of OFW remittances exemplifies the current dysfunction and unsustainability of the way Pinoys manage these windfalls (and it mirrors the way we employed our natural resources in the past — our forests, our agriculture, our minerals, etc.). Rather than invest the billions worth of forex remitted by OFW’s in fixed capital goods, we are squandering them on karaokes, celphone trinkets, cheap Chinese-made RTW’s, Starbucks lattes, and — you guessed it — ocho-ocho CDs and DVDs.
First it was abundant timber, then it was abundant rice, now it is abundant labour we are exporting RAW — spending the principal/capital instead of employing said principal/capital to generate sustainable INCOME. Kung baga instead of living modestly off the INTEREST we use the ORIGINAL DEPOSIT itself to strut around like royalty.
I agree that all societies have the equivalent economic elites that monopolised wealth. The difference between basket cases like the Philippines and achievers like the U.S., however is that whilst these elites thrived and enriched themselves, the wealth somehow trickled down to the masses as well and slowly — but surely — resulted in perceptible improvements in quality of life for them too.
Why can’t that happen in the Philippines despite monoliths like San Miguel, SM, and countless other MNCs employing millions of Pinoys (not to mention millions of others employed overseas and propping up the economy to the tune of 10%)?
It goes back to our lack of inclination to use capital properly (for enterprise RATHER THAN consumerism). 10% of the economy is propped up by OFW remittances. But beyond pathetic jeepneys (the proverbial ‘katas ng Saudi’s) we haven’t really seen any OFW-remittance-capitalised major enterprises, have we?
Chaebols and robber-barons infested Korea and the U.S. back when they were emerging economies. But what small proportion of the phenomenal wealth (think the late Standard Oil, the Hyundais, Petronas, Microsoft) trickled to the masses was prudently SAVED and wisely USED.
I don’t think Pinoys possess the characteristics that enabled the average turn-of-the-century American or the average Korean of the 60’s to 70’s to CREATE so much with so little at the start.
benign0 on Wed, 29th Aug 2007 10:31 am
Abe, my response to you is yet again “awaiting moderation”
kookoomonster on Fri, 21st Sep 2007 11:45 am
sa tingin ko mas ok kung Filipino ang gagamiting medium ng mga manunulat sa pagsulat ng mga nobela…ang hirap kasi sating mga Pilipino eh gusto agad natin na mapansin at mahanay bilang isang international writer…masyado na kasing global agad ang hangarin…alam natin na kailangan ng universal appeal ang literature sa kahit anong medium…pero dapat siguro eh mabasa muna ng mga kababayan natin ang mga sinusulat natin bago ng mga banyaga…kaya nga pumatok si Bob Ong dahil nahuli niya ang kiliti ng mga mambabasa at yon ay dahil sa naiiintindihan namin ang mga gusto niyang ipahayag…
at kung sasabihin niyo na novelty lang ang mga ganitong babasahin ay hindi kaya discrimination na ang tawag dyn?
atleast nagkaron ng interes ang mga tao na basahin yung mga gawa niya…
pero cympre di naman masama kung magsusulat tayo sa ingles…