menu Menu
You're right
By mlq3 Posted in Daily Dose on March 31, 2009 122 Comments 9 min read
The Long View: Brains without bodies (2) Previous The Long View: Brains without bodies (1) Next

Reyna elena dot com is absolutely correct to take me to task for presuming to catalog people without their permission, something Victorina attributes to a cultural disconnect. Both are absolutely correct: my criticism of those criticizing Chip Tsao was arrogant: unthinking, unfeeling, and unpardonable on my part, because, while entitled to my own opinion, there was absolutely no justification for me to make a sweeping judgment about my countrymen. A negative judgment based on nothing more than my own writerly biases: in other words, a bigoted, prejudiced comment fully deserving of condemnation.

Every reader makes up his or her own mind about whatever it is they read; your opinion is as good as mine; and when enough are of the same opinion, well, if there’s smoke, there’s fire.

That Hong Kong columnist deeply offended many Filipinos and instead of castigating my countrymen, I should have recognized the outrage as a manifestation of our collective sensibility, grounded in deep grievances about what drives so many of us to work overseas, under degrading circumstances, and in the face of often insurmountable obstacles that get in the way of securing a decent, dignified, place in the world for so many of us.

I had no right to pass a dismissive, disparaging judgment on fellow Filipinos, merely because they hold an opinion contrary to mine. Not all of us write, but all of us read, and each one is capable of rendering judgment on matters of taste or the lack of it, concerning anything they read. The writer has a particular responsibility to trust the reader, and if a reader reacts in a particular way, one must accept criticism just as one would accept praise.

I thank these two bloggers in particular for putting me in my place, and I hope they will accept this apology, which I extend not only to them, but to anyone offended by my comment on FaceBook.

For what it’s worth, and purely in the spirit of fostering discussion, let me put forward some of my views concerning satire in general, and Chip Tsao’s piece in particular.

I personally believe that we are a nation born of satire, because it was one of the most effective weapons used by our Founding Fathers as they waged two campaigns: first, to convince their countrymen that they were precisely that, a people with a country they should call their own; and second, to assert before all peoples in all climes, that we are a people the equal of any in the world.

That satire was, at times, quite funny, at other times, quite cruel; that satire lampooned Filipinos and foreigners alike, and Filipinos who had a prejudice against their own countrymen that matched, or even exceeded, the prejudice held by foreigners. It didn’t matter if the satirical pen wielded by our Founding Fathers produced sophisticated or crude, tasteful or rude, pleasant or revolting prose. The point is, they used it, and in particular, the two novels that are in a sense, the founding documents of our country, were satirical works meant to hold up a mirror to reveal, as Rizal put it, the social cancer afflicting the Philippines of his time: and he knew full well the fate in store for those who dare to hold up mirrors for others to see themselves in, whether they want to or not. It got him shot; and before that, it got his books banned and garnered imprisonment and exile for those who dared, not even to take up arms against the authorities, but to laugh at them.

If we hold up as heroes those who wielded their pens -often cruelly- and as much against their own countrymen as the foreign officials and churchmen they opposed, I don’t see how we can deny others the right to take up their pens and do unto others as our heroes have done unto ourselves (for they continue to hold up that mirror to every generation that bothers to re-read what they’ve written). I also don’t see how we can call for the same intolerance -to the extent of demanding some sort of retribution, or even cruel and unusual punishment- when it comes to opinions that we find deeply offensive.

The Founding Fathers fought words with words, opinions with contrary opinions, and demanded of those whom they viewed as prejudiced and bigoted nothing more or less than a fair hearing, a chance to rebut their arguments, and an opportunity to disprove wrong facts with true ones. All the while being careful to point out what they most definitely could not and would never tolerate: silencing dissent with force of arms, and the kind of fanaticism that led to Inquisitions and book-burnings.

To my mind we have a kind of historical obligation to recognize that, perhaps more so than many other countries but at least as much as some countries familiar to us, we are a people and a country that owe our very existence to the commitment of writers to challenge, irritate, offend, and outrage others.

It is for this reason that I oppose our existing sedition and libel laws; and calls for declaring people persona non grata may be all right in places like Singapore, but I think such blacklists have no place in a country whose national hero was once blacklisted on the basis of his writings.

And it for related reasons that I opposed demands for Justice Cruz or Malou Fernandez to resign: it would have been a kind of censorship.

At the same time, every reader has a right, indeed, a duty to react to anything that a writer puts forward and with which the reader disagrees. And, if the writer and his publisher are dependent on the public for their livelihood, the public has a right to take its business elsewhere if its objections remain unheeded by writer and publisher.

Now, with regards to Chip Tsao’s piece, I approached his piece with these questions in mind.

Was he presenting his own opinions, or was he writing a satirical piece? There is a difference between writing, “I, Chip Tsao, think the Philippines is a nation of servants,” and putting those words in someone’s mouth for effect, which is what satire is. It seemed to me that what he was trying to do, is to put on paper what you or I might do when making fun of someone by assuming the character of an exaggerated blowhard. This assumes, of course, that the reader knows he does this on a regular basis; a flawed assumption as it turned out (would it have been different if every single statement that caused Filipinos offense, was attributed to a fictional character who employed a Filipina? Perhaps; it might also have given Tsao a way out).

Was the point of the piece to slander Filipinos or to take Tsao’s fellow Chinese to task? I thought that his main purpose was to paint a highly unflattering picture of his fellow Chinese as cowardly chauvinists who wouldn’t dare tangle with anyone except the Filipinos, and only because the Filipinos happened to be in a financially dependent situation. Chip Tsao in blowhard mode, doesn’t dare question the Russians but happily picks on Filipinos, as do all his household-help-employing Chinese chums. The picture he paints of these employers is a disgraceful one: they have no problems with underpaying and overworking Filipinos, and then they castigate them for daring to assert their country’s sovereignty; the treatment he describes is fully in keeping with the brainwashing and bullying the Chinese themselves endured during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. The whole thing is an indictment of the false sense of superiority of modern-day, wealthy Chinese, who forget, not so long ago, “No dogs and Chinese” signs were posted in Hong Kong (similar signs were posted in Manila), that once upon a time the Chinese provided coolie labor for the world, and that poverty was endemic in Hong Kong and all of China not so long ago, either.

I don’t know if I’d go as far as Indolent Indio, who says Tsao’s on our side; I would definitely go as far as to point out his primary target was his fellow Chinese; that he took them to task for acting like the kind of arrogant Western colonizers the Chinese used to hate; and what’s worse, they’re being prejudiced to fellow Asians while the Chinese remain meek in the face of say, the Russians. What I think happened was that he failed to consider that not everyone would consider his portrayal of a Filipina as either warranted or permissible. Connie Veneracion, pointing to this piece, doesn’t think Tsao holds Filipinos in affection; I think the most he did was simply to make a nod at the wretched working conditions of many Filipinos but that from first to last, the main focus of his attentions -because they are also his readers- are his fellow Chinese.

But this was the root of my folly: to step into his shoes, to the extent that what took over was a feeling of solidarity as a writer, forgetting my first duty to always uphold solidarity with my countrymen. In the end, much as I happen to feel positive about anyone who dares to challenge his fellow Chinese and their monolithic, increasingly aggressive state, that is Tsao’s fight and not mine.

Some blogs and their own take on the whole thing: Ricky Carandang; The Marocharim Experiment; baratillo @ cubao; The Tao of Pao; Manila Bay Watch.

Chip Tsao commentary OFW opinion Philippines public opinion reyna elena dot com satire Sino-Philippine relations writing

Previous Next

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “We haven’t just become a nation of servants, we’ve become a nation of illiterates.”–c. de quiros, pdi,4/6/2009

  2. Conrado de Quiros on, “We haven’t just become a nation of servants, we’ve become a nation of illiterates.”

    Res ipsa loquitur. Nobody can argue with that having Conrado De Quiros admit himself as illiterate, another self-inflicted wound.

    In essence, nobody needs a Filipino apologist like Conrado De Quiros and the rest of satire believers, because they cannot be counted upon to make a difference and made it possible for an opinionated Hongkong writer to apologize.

    That I can LOL!

  3. Like most bloggers who apparently have never worked for foreigners or dealt with bullies in their lifetime, these noisy pretenders still believe they can make a difference by pouncing on someone who does not agree with their insecurities, even to the point of getting personal with the comments, hair? sexual orientation? education?
    After working for colleagues that have at least 2 Filipinas as domestics, you learn to earn respect by merit and not by demanding for it. You earn respect by advancing to the level or even beyond their level, let them realize they were mistaken in their earlier perception and feel silently silly with their biases.
    Dealing with bullies in real life is not like what it is in the movies, where you stand up and duke it our ala Fernando Po, because it doesn’t end there. You just make sure you’re focused on your purpose, finishing school, with honors…bullies seldom have that type of focus and will move on to the next victim, until he tires himself silly or drops out of school.
    Its ridiculous celebrating this apology, when we don’t know what is not being said in the homes where these domestics work in, or how they will be treated in the days to come. I wonder if these noisy group have ever won any cases against HK homeowners who maltreated their domestics? Or will they be interested then?
    These bloggers acted like bullies in their reaction to a different opinion but I guess they didn’t notice that because it wasn’t written in plain and simple English? I give a lot of credit to Manolo for handling it well, let them find someone else to pick on and life goes on…

  4. Ramrod, you got your bully backward. Bully by nature, initiate a condemnable act with arrogance that he can get away with it and from position of power or strength. Only when sensible people stood up to him and made him accountable for his disparaging write-up, then the bully relented and apologized.

    There is only one bully so far by that descriptions, Chip Tsao. Second, there is no celebration. Third, there is no sense of asking respect from a bigoted writer as you had imagined demand of respect. Dismissing the noisy pretenders as not having your experience working for foreigners, reveals your own insecurities.

  5. Manolo – sorry, I didn’t realise you’d already written about this.

    But you’ve got it right. Angel C de Dios has it right, and Conrado de Quiros has it right. And Indolent Indio and onetamad also have it right.

    The indignation rests on a cultural and linguistic misunderstanding.

    Frank Tsao was not trying to attack Filipinos, he was attacking great-China nationalist attitudes. Now Tsao is not a great writer, and I do not defend him from the charge of clumsiness. What I do protest against is the idea that his intention was to attack Filipinos, because quite to the contrary, his intention was to defend Filipinos.

    He was defending Filipinos by using satire.

    It’s worth reading the Wikipedia entry on satire (

    Second paragraph:

    “A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that “in satire, irony is militant”. This “militant irony” (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.”

    An example (given by Wikipedia) is Swift, who in his ‘A Modest Proposal’ suggests that poor Irish parents be encouraged to sell their own children as food.

    Of course, Swift did not mean this. He was not demeaning the Irish. He was not actually encouraging them to sell their children as food. So why did he say it? Because he was satirizing the heartlessness of the governing English – and defending the Irish against English callousness.

    Tsao, similarly, is satirizing Chinese attitudes, and defending the Philippines.

    To any English person who lives in Hong Kong, this is completely obvious. The fact that Tsao carefully points out that his maid is enormously well-educated, is, for instance, an indicator. What blinkered racist would have noticed that his maid was intelligent and well-educated? Yet Tsao, through satire, contrasts the (high) intellectual quality of his Filipina maid, with the (low) intellectual quality of the nationalist persona which he satirically assumes.

    Read the text: “Some of my friends told me they have already declared a state of emergency at home. Their maids have been made to shout “China, Madam/Sir” loudly whenever they hear the word ‘Spratly’.

    In the popular mis-interpretation Tsao would be reporting fact, he would actually have friends doing these absurd things.

    But of course, that is not the case. Hong Kong people do not teach their maids to shout ‘China, Sir!’ whenever they hear the word Spratly. Tsao is satirising nationalist attitudes, by putting in an anecdote which he must have assumed would be immediately recognizable as a piece of mad whimsy, totally incredible and over the top – a satire on unacceptable Chinese attitudes.

    Sadly, he didn’t count on his words falling into a context with little live tradition of political satire (whatever may have been the case with the Founding Fathers). A context in which, instead, his words have been interpreted entirely literally. Tsao has said these words! Oh awful, wicked, racially bigoted Tsao! Let us demonstrate against Tsao! The level of anger is high. Commentators on blogs talk of waiting outside Tsao’s apartment to punish him physically.

    Yet it is all a misunderstanding. Tsao’s target is Chinese nationalism.

  6. Matthew P on, “The indignation rests on a cultural and linguistic misunderstanding.” “What I do protest against is the idea that his intention was to attack Filipinos, because quite to the contrary, his intention was to defend Filipinos.”

    Another sweeping accusations of Filipino misunderstanding -this time blamed on language and culture. It would help Matthew’s POV if he can pinpoint and support in substance that Chip’s Tsao interest is in the Filipinos as opposed to Chinese.

    The only misunderstanding here is Matthew’s wild assumption of a patriotic Chinese defending Filipinos.

  7. TonGuE-tWisTeD wrote, “Satire, written competently, need no explanations.”

    Please read the book “Satire: Spirit and Art” by George Austin Test (you could preview this on Google Scholar) – The following is a sentence from this book:

    “….Perhaps that is because satire in the minds of many people is misunderstood….”

  8. dodong must not be living in the Philippines, if he is, maybe in Mandaluyong (loob).

    How would any decent domestic here and abroad take this uproar in their defence seriously? Lets look at reality here? How much are we paying our domestics locally? slave wages right? how much are the HK domestics being paid? In my opinion, these so called defenders are hypocrites. Can we honsetly say we are treating our domestics better here than abroad? Can we clean up our backyards first before commenting on others’?

    On being insensitive to other races? Have you ever been in an elevator with Filipinos and Indians? Almost always you’ll hear snickers from our Pinoys, as if its not obvious that they are poking fun at the unique aroma coming from some armpits, even daring to talk about it in tagalog for all to hear.
    Observe a person with polio walking, almost always you’ll see/hear a fellow Filipino make fun of him.

    Insecurities are for people with egos small enough for others to step on, thats where the childish tantrums or outcries come in handy. We can take the high road, shake it off, and work harder, work better, smarter, and quietly succeed…do a better job than anyone else to make way for fellow Filipinos…
    If we listen to these pretenders/hypocrites, we’ll never mature, as someone pointed out we will always be “a nation of hecklers.”
    Deeds count more than words…

  9. I believe Manolo was sincere in his apology and this picking on him by another blog should stop. Regardless of what others say about him, I believe he has BALLS, and he stands for what is right.
    …unfortunately he is much smarter than some people, is that a fault?

  10. Ramrod on, “Lets look at reality here? How much are we paying our domestics locally? slave wages right? how much are the HK domestics being paid? Can we honsetly say we are treating our domestics better here than abroad? Can we clean up our backyards first before commenting on others?”

    Ramrod, you wanted us to look at reality and yet you and others (like failed miserably to grasp the economic reality of between Hongkong and Philippines in terms of earnings and so the wide disparity in countries’ ability to pay corresponding wages. In addition, you are imputing that such low scale ability to pay in the Philippines is maltreatment. Perhaps, the treatment is better left at Mandaluyong mental to which you were very familiar with.

    The bottomline, economic difficulties in the Philippines is not a reason to fall silent and accept human indignities from a foreign writer. In essence, you believe that a poor person has no human dignity to begin with until he can succeed. It is clearly wrong and lacking maturity either.

  11. below is the excerpt lifted from posting at

    Starting with James Fallows’ 1987 Atlantic article, “A Damaged Culture,” Filipinos have been thrust (often by their own intellectuals) into a sort of national inferiority complex by the foreign press. These protests were step in the right direction.

    As a long-time foreign resident, I am actually quite proud of my adopted countrymen’s refusal to sit back and take it. God bless Pinoy pride.

    Weldon McCarty
    Manila, Philippines


    From a Filipino who lived in Hongkong for more than a decade and yet do not understand the disincentive Hongkong policy to set a higher wage minimum for foreign workers. The local protectionist policy is taken literally as protection of foreign workers as opposed to employing its own citizen from mainland China without any minimum requirement.

    His “love of satires and hate of hypocrisy” is a better cover to his misguided subservience to a foreign country for its mistaken policy. He described in detail everything wrong with Philippines, subtly speaks his own inferiority complex ready to laugh at his and his own country’s expense.

    If that is not enough already, he offered his low self-esteem and self-inflicted injury that “the reason there are no Filipina domestic servants in the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and similar First World countries, is not because the Philippines does not want to export its servants there but because they do not accept Filipinas as servants.” The true reason for not having a Filipina as servants has nothing to do with particular race but there is just no employment petition category for foreign domestic helper.

    People start at misconceptions and assumes them as gospel truth.

  13. I have this Cantonese friend who went to Boracay. Coming back home to HK she posted on facebook: “Back from the Philippines, I’m so dark I look like a maid”.

    A couple months after the Philippine trip she went to Thailand. I just had to ask her what she looked like as a result of her Bangkok weekend. “What else but a prostitute”, was her answer. Hilarious. So…what’s worse? None of our Thai friends freaked out about her very public comment, just like I didn’t freak out about her “maid’s tan”.

    I’m not in any way defending Tsao but I think it must be pointed out that Pinoys have been reacting so strongly to what he said in one article when the snobbery at home, here in the country, is just as, if not more intense. It’s certainly ubiquitous. I’m sure some of you were discouraged by your parents to be behavioral equals of your household help. Who here wasn’t raised to be more educated, have better table manners, speak better, in general not act like maids? Who here isn’t guilty of ever thinking, “she looks like a maid/he looks like a driver”? Seriously. Does it hurt more when a non-Filipino speaks of our realities?

    How about the uproar over that actress who, after filming in the country, commented that Manila was “filthy, polluted, a slum city”. Some of the indignant people were a bunch of my Mom’s friends, upper-class, educated, ersatz aristocrats. Mom and I couldn’t figure out what their problem was. Were they contesting the fact that Manila IS filthy, polluted, and slummy? Can ANYONE deny it? Or were they pissed off because some foreign cunt vocalized these truths? It’s as if this actress (who she is is completely incidental) was violating a gag order by describing the city.

    What I think is that we as a people are pathologically melodramatic; it cripples us. So much time and energy are wasted wallowing on shit that at best gives our realities a cheap, trivial, and temporary varnish and at worst keeps us just the way we are. Sinking.

  14. ……as he calls this a country of maids I realize that I and many of my kind grew up in environments that believed and declared “Chino, cochino”. I would really be a hypocrite for thinking he shouldn’t be calling us a country of criadas when I unapologetically and stubbornly believe they’re all cochinos, whether from China, HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Chinatown [insert country here].

    If you were brought up in a similar environment you know what I mean. If you weren’t, then you won’t ever understand.

    The point is, he’s no worse than me and my people.

  15. MLQ3 I cringe when I imagine the pressure you must have felt to apologize for that comment you made about Pinoys and their obvious mastery of satire. Too bad you can’t stick to your guns protected by the shield of anonymity.

  16. If it hurts, it should. If it doesn’t, good for you. If it’s true, be thankful. Love your enemies, they tell you your faults.
    If it’s untrue, so what? Does an unjust accusation diminish our stature in anyway? If it does, it should. It shows how fragile we are. I WAS for the ban. Thanks Manolo, and all the other commenters.