Category: culture

luli arroyo zaps joey dv3 with a one-two punch

19 sept. around 5:30 p.m. was listening to anc’s top story while playing bejeweled 2 hyper action. pia hontiveros and tony velasquez were interviewing representative teddybody locsin on joey de venecia and the mystery man, when i thought i heard tony velasquez say that luli arroyo was calling joey a drug addict, or something like that. naloka ako. ganon?! and teddyboy was saying, we must be careful about calling people drug addicts. in every rich family (or something like that) there is one drug addict. oh what a gem! finally, a rumor confirmed! and pia was saying something to the effect that drugs are like a truth serum, di ba, you lose inhibitions and can’t help telling the truth. oh what a breakthrough! finally, altered states appreciated!

but was it true? what did luli actually say? finally caught her on the world tonight. this is what she actually said: “… i dont know if his old drug use affected his thinking, i dont know … tawa na lang kami.” well. “old” naman pala, but of course she had to dredge it up, anything to destroy the credibility of the guy. worse, the distraught unica hija also insisted it’s not true that her father left the country to avoid the consequences of jdv3’s expose: “again,  that’s grasping at straws, as thin as his hairline.” mwahaha. imbierna talaga siya. witty nga, pero cheap shot, wa class. poor little rich girl.

sacred cow, divaga

ang totoo niyan, Manila Standard Today is one of two broadsheets the newsboy delivers daily. it was Today i used to get, alongwith PDI, mostly for the counterpoints of teddy boy locsin, luis teodoro, and alejandro lichauco. also, i liked maureen dowd’s whitehouse-bashing column ‘free fire’ ba yon, linda black’s on-a-10-scale daily horoscopes , and once in a while jessica zafra’s ‘twisted’.

when Today merged with Manila Standard, naging pro-administration ang editorial slant, so nabago lahat ng kolumnista, and i kept meaning to drop it except that the new astrologer was okay naman, keeps track of planetary movements too. all right din si tony abaya, who loves to hate communists but otherwise talks economic sense. then nag-join pa da sikat bloggers connie veneracion and bong austero, puwede na rin, good to know wazzup in the web. but ‘divalicious’? i didn’t even know it was there. i may have cast an eye on a first paragraph some time or other but gone on at once to something else, cos ni hindi siya nag-register, i suppose because i’m just not into fashionistas, how boring the brand- and name-dropping, would rather read the horoscope anytime — btw, i don’t read just my sunsign, i also read my moonsign and ascendant sign, which together and apart give me a good idea of the temper of the day and the different forces at play.

but back to MST. isa pang star attraction to me has been da infamous vic agustin, whom Inquirer needn’t have fired, not after he had the gumption to guest with rc constantino on ANC and offer rc a bottle of mineral water — thought balloon: sige na, bawian mo ako, please lang — but rc refused to do him the favor, so he twisted the cap off, raised the bottle over his head, and poured the water on himself, sabay gasp for breath. what a scene that was. great television. curiously enough, this same vic agustin is not just pala a columnist but also the chair of MST’s board of editors. and write niya sa ‘cocktales’ nung aug. 31:

“despite our private, aching desires as journalists to explain the malu fernandez affair, the Manila Standard Today adheres to a certain set of protocols that prevent us from publicly discussing personnel issues.”

ano siya? sacred cow? curiouser and curiouser. what about malu antoinette can’t they tell us that would explain why they can’t / won’t accept her resignation? perhaps that she has rich and powerful backers? stockholders? advertisers? politicians? maybe the i.s.a.f.p.? the c.i.a.? mwahaha. if i know, enjoy lang sila sa publicity, never mind the issues.

Our language predicament

Philippine Daily Inquirer 15 August 1998

I HAVE a feeling that Education Secretary Andrew Gonzales was pulling his punches when he conveyed to media his concern that some 20 percent of the high school population of 5 million is deficient in the use of English as well as in math and science subjects. Only 20 percent? And which 20 percent? The rich? A cross-section?

As a writer for print and television in English and Filipino, I have had occasion to grapple with our language problems, most recently last August 1997 in the company of Gina Lopez and the production staff of ABS-CBN Foundation, producer of TV shows for children. I had been invited, along with other TV writers and teachers, to brainstorm on a 30-minute show in English that would complement English-language classes for Grades 2 and 5. This was in response, I was told, to a clamor from public school teachers who found the foundation’s programs helpful and who admitted that they needed help too in teaching English. I accepted the position of headwriter and for a couple of months sat down with public and private school teachers as well as with the program’s producers and directors to get a handle on academic requirements and creative parameters. Unfortunately the project never got off the ground (the peso fell) so I don’t know if my concept and treatment would have worked (I was thinking drills). But I do know that the problem is much bigger than Brother Andrew’s figures suggest.

My estimate is, it’s the other way around! It is not that 20 percent of 5 million high school students are deficient in English but that only some 20 percent are proficient in oral and written English. And, except for rare exceptions, these are likely to be the ones who go to private high schools where teachers speak good English and who live in homes where the elders speak English as a second language and who provide the children with ample reading fare (newspapers, magazines, books, computers) all in English, because the only way to learn a language well is to become immersed in it.

Time was when Filipinos were famous for being the only English-speaking people in Asia. From the American occupation until the ’60s, it didn’t matter if you were rich or poor. As long as you went to school, you learned to speak English, it being the official medium of instruction. I remember picking it up more quickly than most; I supposed it was because I got a lot of practice both in school and at home. In school it was all we were allowed to speak except in Sariling Wika class. At home it was the second language; I was always trying out my English on my mother who would always correct my mistakes, and my father was always asking me to read out loud the daily columns of Teodoro Valencia and Joe Guevara.

It was in the ’70s (if memory serves) when Marcos decreed a bilingual policy for education: English would still be taught and used in teaching math and the sciences but other subjects would be taught in the mutant Filipino, the Tagalog-based national language enriched with words from other dialects and languages that defy translation or require none because they’ve become part of the mainstream. At the time, it seemed like a victory for nationalists who had long been advocating such a policy in the interest of developing a truly national language that would allow full expression of the native psyche and intelligence and which would bind all Filipinos.

In the long run, however, the bilingual policy hasn’t worked. We failed to guard against problems we should have anticipated.

I submit that we took our English-speaking skills for granted. We didn’t realize what it took to speak good English and what it would take to sustain it in a bilingual environment. Perhaps we thought that we had our English too down pat to ever lose it. Maybe we thought it was so ingrained, it would get passed on through our genes. No such luck. Without sufficient practice in speaking, reading and writing, we’re losing it instead, and it’s beginning to show. Even on TV newscasts, the English is becoming sloppy, with newscasters breezing through all the wrong prepositions and mixing up idiomatic expressions.

Students are said to be doing better in classes conducted in Filipino than in English, but it could just be the natural advantage of a native language. It doesn’t mean that the bilingual policy has been good for the Filipino language. In fact, it has failed to evolve into a truly national language, what with the Cebuanos still fighting it and the authorities still insisting on what a writer friend calls ”laboratory Pilipino” na ang hirap namang basahin at intindihin, at napaka-pormal ng dating. It is so stilted, so different from the lingua franca, or the Filipino spoken at home, in the streets, and in media, that it confounds and bewilders rather than grabs, excites or inspires.

I can understand the reigning authorities’ desire to preserve the old forms and expressions, but it will have to wait until we get the hang of Tagalog again. Most of us Tagalogs who became fluent in English lost a lot of our Tagalog along the way. In the early ’80s, when I started writing in and translating into Tagalog, my vocabulary was terrible. A script that was a breeze to do in English was always a struggle to do in Tagalog, lalo na in laboratory Pilipino.

Even with help from dictionaries, I found that to render many English ideas or concepts in Tagalog I needed to do more than translate: I had to do some rethinking too. The writer-translator has to rethink the idea in terms of Filipino experience and find ways of expressing it in the kind of Tagalog that gets the message across in one reading. And even then, I found there’s no dropping English altogether because in many instances the English words (and English spellings) are already more widely used and understood than the Tagalog. In the end, I settled into a kind of Filipino that is more Tagalog than English but more Taglish than purist.

For now the President might have to settle for the same kind of Filipino. Given the admitted inadequacy of everyone’s Tagalog, anything else would slow down rather than speed up communications among government officials and between government and the people. Also, the President would have to continue working with English pa rin, given the fact that in the Visayas and Mindanao, no Tagalog or Filipino is spoken and English is the official medium of communication. So, yes, for the present, all Filipino communications should have English versions for the non-Tagalogs and all English communications should have Filipino versions for the poor-in-English. Until we get back the hang of both.

Meanwhile, we would be wise to value Taglish for its capacity to take in and keep up with the English language, and as a starting point for learning Filipino. Taglish works just fine, gets messages across in no uncertain terms. That is, as long as we don’t try to Filipinize English words spelling them Tagalog style, which only trips up readers and impedes comprehension and reading appreciation. Taglish does need reining in where it’s gone wild, but it also deserves affirming where it is correct and especially where it is effective, be it spiced by gayspeak or street slang.

The bottom line is, we can have both English and Filipino but only if we work at it. Schools should bring back drills, big time, and everyone should be encouraged to practice by reading aloud, with or without an audience. Media, specially television, should help out by making space and time for children and adult programs that teach good Filipino and good English. And it would help greatly if the language minorities would bow to the Tagalog majority and give Filipino a break, for the common good and for democracy’s sake.

In defense of tsismis

Isyu 23 January 96

Natabunan nga ba ng Jenny-Gabby scandal ang EVAT, jueteng, at iba pang isyu? Dapat nga bang lubay-lubayan ng media ang katsitsismis about the private hells of the rich and famous dahil wala naman itong katututuran except as escapist fare for the poor and obscure?

These are questions raised by media mismo, rendered schizoid as we are by showbiz scandals. On the one hand we happily hype up the Jenny-Gabby story, milk it of all it’s worth, the better to sell our papers; on the other, we are defensive about it, express distaste for the whole exercise, and righteously regret the wasted space and energy; sometimes, all on the same page.

The two-mindedness is to be expected, and it begins with the individual, that is, with you and me. Every one of us is just as divided about gossip. We enjoy it but we feel sort of guilty when we indulge. The guilt comes from social conditioning. Our elders’ position has been that, if you have nothing nice to say about a person, it’s better (classier) to say nothing. They are greatly influenced by the Church, of course, which institution discourages gossip or idle talk as the work of the devil for it evokes uncharitable (even, impure) thoughts, and sows disharmony rather than love among neighbors.

Yet gossip persists, and I had always wondered why. Is it a matter of pleasure, like sex? Or is it purely a matter of mind, like curiosity? Basta my gut feeling was, there’s more to gossip than cheap thrills. Like maybe it serves some irrepressible human need, one more intense than the need for social approval. I thought maybe it had to do with a need to connect with community, to be assured that one’s joys and pains are not all that unique, na kumbaga hindi ka nag-iisa.

Besides, as a student of human behavior, I could never help delighting in the rich sociological and psychological data that showbiz gossip provides. Trailblazer kasi ang tingin ko sa showbiz artists; they dare break rules and attempt new ways of being and relating. It’s like they’re testing the waters for us, the better maybe to show us which way to go or not go, particularly when it comes to sex, marriage, and family.

Well, the good news is, I’ve just been lent a book that confirms my gut feel that gossip is as ineradicable as sex. In The Moral Animal (1994) Robin Wright explains why we gossip (among other things) in terms of the new science of evolutionary psychology, which school of thought traces the roots of human nature to the workings of natural selection in the environment in which the minds of our ancestors evolved. According to Wright, “people’s minds were designed to maximize fitness in the ancestral environment” and trading gossip, for one, was in aid of survival.

“To judge by many hunter-gatherer societies where most behavior is public, and gossip travels fast,” Wright writes, “. . . the most common commodity of exchange, almost surely, was information. Knowing where a great stock of food has been found, or where someone encountered a poisonous snake, can be a matter of life or death. And knowing who is sleeping with whom, who is angry at whom, who cheated whom, and so on, can inform social maneuvering for sex and other vital resources.”

Darwinian anthropologists studying the world’s peoples have been finding not only surface differences among cultures but also “deep unities.” Not only Pinoys, but “. . . people in all cultures not only gossip, but gossip about the same kinds of things.” Apparently, people have an inherent thirst for tales of triumph, tragedy, bonanza, misfortune, extraordinary fidelity, wretched betrayal, and so on, which are said to “match up well with the sorts of information conducive to fitness.”

In other words, gossip has always had a place in the human scheme of things. Then as now gossip about failed marriages (especially Sharon’s, Dina’s, Princess Diana’s) and unconventional relationships (like that of Nora, Vilma, Kris) informs the way we maneuver in our own marriages and relationships.

The problem is not that we’re gossiping too much about Jenny and Gabby. I agree with Patrick D. Flores (Isyu 18 Jan), the problem is that media have failed to give the people “an intelligent perspective on what is going on, it has forfeited the chance to imbue the controversy with really useful knowledge about society and people,” in particular, about the politics of marriage and gender.

I disagree, however, with his statement (wishful thought?) that from hereon, “heterosexual couples would have to reckon with the idea that matrimony is from the outset dysfunctional.” That’s a sweeping generalization if I ever heard one. If it were so, then monogamy would not still be with us. Besides, Jenny’s and Gabby’s marriage is / was far from typical and therefore not an appropriate gauge of either the efficacy or inefficacy of marriage.

I think it’s young unmarried women who have the most to learn from Jenny’s exposé. The facts of life are not all about sex; the facts of life are also about men like Gabby and how marriage changes them. Take it from Jenny, girls, look before you leap, especially if the guy’s promising “to court you forever” (what a line!).

(Editor Iskho Lopez: We asked Gabby what his plans for the more immediate future was. His candid reply: “I guess . . . to remain single.” We took it as a joke. Gabby? Single? Instead we presented an alternative. What about an affair with a gay lover? He took it as a joke. But it seems so logical in this day and age that only a gay lover would take all that alleged abuse that Jenny turned into a public issue—and in the end, shoulder the expense and the humiliation as well—all for the love of Gabby Concepcion, that is.)