By ANTONIO P. CONTRERASJ CONTRERAS June 17, 2014 3:35pm
I already anticipate that I will be criticized for writing this piece in English. Indeed, if I bleed for the Filipino language, one can easily mock me that I should be writing this in Filipino, and not in English. The fact that I have to write this piece in English tells a lot about how we have become as a people. I write this in English since I have to speak to the other side of the debate. I do not need to talk anymore to those who are fluent and adept in Filipino, since they are already believers in the cause. I am addressing this to the crowd that is not comfortable with our own language, a crowd that would not even spend time to read a blog article written in Filipino, perhaps due to its being an unfamiliar language to them. Worse, it may even be due to being downright hostile and dismissive of a language which is considered inferior. I write this for those who would look down on the Filipino language as the language of the uneducated, the jologs and the hoi polloi. It is not “sosyal.” To the “inglesirong” academics, it is not academic enough. I write this for those who take pride in our having a comparative advantage in English. These people would look at Filipino as a
lost cause, if not a baggage that needs to be discarded as we face the era of globalization and ASEAN regional integration. These are the people who would argue that to push for Filipino at this time and age would be a backward step, considering that all the other countries in the region are now encouraging their citizens to learn how to speak English. One has just to look at the horde of Korean students that descend on us to believe this line of argument. I also write this for those who assert that Filipino is simply Tagalog, and that insisting that Filipino be spoken all over the country is an internal form of imperialism over other regional identities that should be resisted. It is this continuing resistance to the Filipino language, whether stemming from unfamiliarity or from contempt, which provides context to why we have to still devote a month to remind ourselves that there is a national language after all. We have to be reminded always, since we constantly face the threat of forgetting it, even as many may continue to ignore it. One of the tragedies of a colonized society like ours is the absence of a solidlyfounded national narrative that permeates our lives. This is aggravated by a lingering fetish at everything that is Western, leading one to prefer the language and lifestyle of the colonizers. Colonization is indeed a process of identity displacement, since it has effectively rendered our former selves as our new “other,” even as our colonial
“other” becomes now part of our postpost colonial selves. In this context, English is no longer seen as the language of the colonial “other.” In fact, to many, it is speaking Filipino that is now the unfamiliar “other.” I, for one, am horrified to know that many of our younger generations do not know how to count in Filipino, and would understand “one hundred” but not “isang daan.” I have always scolded my children, for example, for not knowing their colors in Filipino. While this may be the failure of how Filipino is taught in basic education, it does not negate the fact that we do really have a big problem when the manner our national language is taught is itself problematic. Indeed, the fault may also lie in many unimaginative and ill-prepared Filipino teachers. But then again, this is symptomatic of the level of attention and support the educational system gave the teaching of Filipino. After all, Filipino was just taught as a course, and as a medium for instruction in some subject areas, but not as the medium upon which all forms of knowledge will be engaged by the students. One just has to compare our situation with the poor-in-English but richer countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Japan where the medium of instruction is their national languages, to know how tragic the colonial legacy of fetishizing English was for us. The other tragedy of being colonized lies in the lingering shadows of disunity seen in a country that is divided, and that cleaves
along regional identities. This reveals the ironic reality that despite its might, our colonization was not totalizing after all, as it left a deeply fractured domain of identities, now finding a space in a postcolonial world expressed in the form of regional movements for autonomy not only in politics, but even on the issue of language. Cebuanos are in fact very vocal about their assertions of their own language and culture, with them even attempting to draw their own adaptations of national symbols and discourses such as the National Anthem. The hurt felt by Cebuanos, and of other regions, of being forced to speak a language not their own, and to further inflict on them a national language that for all intents and purposes is an imposition from imperial Manila, is a highly charged discourse. It is a highly emotional issue that even enlightened academics I know who are non-Tagalog speakers and are based in their regions would gravitate towards a hostile attitude at the Filipino language. The ultimate tragedy left by a colonial experience that conquered by dividing us on the very base of our indigenous selves is that it solidified Western templates of who we should be, seen in Western modes of faith embodied in the dominance Catholicism, and in alien modes of expressing ourselves seen in the dominance of English. It is terribly disconcerting that those who oppose Filipino to become the language that can hope to unite us have no qualms in elevating English as a better
alternative for us to communicate with each other. The ultimate curse of colonization that lives even up to now is when the language of the colonizer is deemed as a more acceptable unifier of our multiple selves, rather than the Filipino that is so resented for its being the language of the Tagalogs, who are in fact one of us. Tagalog as language then becomes more “other” than English. Indeed, how tragic. The 1987 Constitution has declared that Filipino is our national language. But in recognition of the diversity of our languages, the Constitution has also declared its fluidity and evolving nature, and sets these as the framework for its growth and intellectualization. Section 6 of Article XIV states that: “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.” This fluidity, which ideally should assuage the resentment felt by adherents of other regional languages, is however also a cause for vulnerability and uncertainty when paired with the succeeding provision which states that: “Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.” The vulnerability lies in the phraseology of this provision, where the propagation of Filipino as an official language for communication
and instruction is subjected to that now familiar escape clause—the notorious “subject to the provisions of law and as Congress may deem appropriate.” To date, while the 1987 Constitution specifies Filipino as the national language, Congress has not passed a law where it “deemed appropriate” to make Filipino the medium of official communication and as a mandatory medium of instruction in all levels of the educational system. It is in this context that we now see the unfolding of a very precarious situation for the advancement of the Filipino language triggered ironically by a policy move in a domain where its protection and intellectualization are supposed to be nurtured. I am referring to the sector of education, particularly on the implementation of the K to12 curriculum, and the corresponding formulation by CHED of the new General Education (GE) curriculum for tertiary education. In this new educational policy regime, Filipino will no longer be taught at the tertiary level, even as Higher Educations Institutions (HEIs) have the option of teaching the GE courses, or some of them, using Filipino as a medium of instruction. One should however take note that this is just an option, and not mandatory. Such move will not only threaten the job security of many Filipino teachers at the tertiary level. More fundamental is the serious implications it will have on the further intellectualization of the national language. Teaching Filipino as a subject
area and using it as a medium of instruction at the basic education level may help in its intellectualization, but these are not enough. Intellectualization requires research, and a faculty equipped with the ability to conduct research. This can only happen at the tertiary level, where faculty members advance in their career paths by conducting research and publishing their findings. Without a course to teach, Filipino Departments in colleges and universities across the country, except perhaps those that offer major programs in Filipino, face the specter of closure, with their teachers forced to transfer to Grades 11 and 12. In this scenario, it is not only the salaries and job securities of these teachers that may be jeopardized. Also put at risk will be the stable base for the advancement of the Filipino language as a scholarly field of inquiry. Indeed, no thanks to K to 12, and the new GE curriculum, the ground from where the Filipino language stands on has now been destabilized. Our colonial experience has rendered the process of strengthening and intellectualizing the Filipino language as a challenging and difficult one. Among all the institutions in society, it is the educational institutions that are supposed to be the home for such endeavors, and it is in the tertiary level that intellectualization can be deepened. It is therefore ironic that in the pursuit of enhancing our basic education to be at par with the rest of the world, and in adopting a revised GE curriculum at the tertiary level in the context of what CHED has now elevated as an outcomes-based
approach to learning, that the educational system in fact betrayed the Filipino language, by unwittingly throwing its advancement and intellectualization into a sea of uncertainty. Already, and in response to the moves by Filipino teachers to petition CHED to amend its Memorandum Order to now require Filipino at the tertiary level, we now see the emergence of counter-voices that deploy globalization and ASEAN integration, the same warrants that were used to justify K to 12 and the new GE curriculum, as the same argument to support a stay in the decision of abolishing Filipino at the tertiary level. The abolition of Filipino at the tertiary level threatens not only the advances made in its institutionalization as an academic discipline, but also the political openings for a policy dialogue towards the strengthening of our national language. It will resurrect the fractious and divisive debates. Instead of resolving the issues, which I consider as otherwise valid, from the perspective of a language policy that would respect the process of a healthy dialogue among all Filipino languages, what is rekindled is the contentious domain of debate that is about to reopen wounds of division between the Tagalogs and the rest of the archipelago. And here, any appeal to a remedy that would try to invoke the Constitution faces the risk of a lethal blow from a court that may even lend judicial ammunition, in a possible favorable ruling, to those who
decided to transform the existence of Filipino in the tertiary level into becoming a mere pedagogical device one can opt to use. The court can simply rule that the Constitution is not violated since Congress has yet to pass a law confirming the Constitutional intent of elevating Filipino as an official medium of communication and instruction at all levels. And passing that law in Congress faces the risk of delay, if not protracted debates where politicians representing non-Tagalog speaking regions can throw a monkey-wrench at any move to install a national language. Hence, we will be back to square one. Those who oppose the move of retaining Filipino as a course always argue that Filipino will remain an option in teaching of GE courses in college. But this is an unreliable proposition in the context of the elevation of globalization and ASEAN integration as new mantras for institution building and policy-making. As a mere option, this policy does not carry a lot of weight. The global imperatives are just too compelling, and when combined with the reality of colonially-minded school and university administrators, this can only but lead to the preference of English over Filipino. In this scenario, Filipino should have been protected. The sad fact is that it wasn’t. One can but cry out loud at how can some educators of this land who were responsible for crafting such policies, some of whom even take pride in self-labeling themselves as allies of the Filipino language, could
have in fact become Trojan horses for its possible demise. Would it hurt so much had our educational planners simply included one course, just one course on Filipino in the revised GE curriculum? Would we suffer as a people? Would we face a major setback in our march towards globalization and ASEAN regional integration? Indeed, the Filipino language is now under threat and on the defensive. We now find it hanging in the balance courtesy of those who are supposed to be bearers of enlightenment but who have unwittingly betrayed it. For a country that is so sensitive to its culinary delights or its quirks being criticized, and whose passion to rally around popular heroes and personalities is almost legendary, how we will react to this betrayal would reveal a lot about us as a people. The author is a former dean of De La Salle University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/366 049/opinion/blogs/betraying-the-filipinolanguage.
By MARK ANGELESJune 14, 2014 12:32pm
College professors who teach Filipino and supporters of the Filipino language in general are contesting a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) memorandum that will remove the teaching of Filipino from the General Education Curriculum (GEC). According to the CHED Memorandum (CMO) No. 20, series of 2013 , Filipino will no longer be part of the GEC by 2016 and the teaching of Filipino at the college level will be limited to Filipino majors and Education in Filipino majors. The CHED justified its removal of collegelevel Filipino by saying that the subject would be covered in Grades 11 and 12 under the new K-12 curriculum. “Hangga't maari, pagdating mo sa college, mga major subjects na lang,” explained CHED Executive Director Julito Vitriolo. The National Commission for Culture and the Arts' National Committee on Language and Translation (NCCA-NCLT), however, believes otherwise. Last May 23, its members unanimously signed a resolution asking the GEC be revised again, but this time to include nine mandatory units of Filipino for all courses at the tertiary level. The Pambansang Samahan sa Linggwistika at Literaturang Filipino, Ink. (PSLLF), an organization that promotes the use of
Filipino, has thrown its support behind the NCCA-NCLT resolution by promoting a change.org petition which asks the CHED and Congress to include the nine Filipino units in the GEC. The online and written petition letters were initiated by De La Salle University Filipino professor David Michael San Juan. According to the petition, the CHED memorandum violates Article XIV, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, which says “the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.” The memo also contradicts the College Readiness Standards, which includes Filipino, that the CHED released in 2011 through Resolution No. 298-2011.
San Juan, the principal author of the resolution, estimates that implementing the CHED memo will cause over 10,000 full-time and 20,000 part-time Filipino professors to lose their jobs or get less income. This estimation is based on the data given by the National Statistical Coordination Board, which stated that 3,317,530 students enrolled in the higher education for school year 2012-2013. According to San Juan, 10,290 full-time instructors were needed to teach Filipino in the tertiary level for S.Y. 2012-2013.
“The crusade of our professors in nurturing our native language plays a vital role in battling the miseducation of the Filipinos under the colonial system which failed to uplift the lives of the majority,” San Juan said in an interview. San Juan also criticized the K-12 curriculum as speeding up training in workers’ manufacturing for foreign businesses and their local subsidiaries. “The K -12 program was not designed for the needs of the country, but for developed countries,” he added.
Angelo Barra, a concerned netizen, said, “Sana paigtingin na lang and pagtuturo ng wikang Filipino sa elementary at high school. Hindi naman ito masyadong kailangan sa college kasi basics lang din ang itinuturo kaya parang inulit lang. Para na rin makapag-focus na lang sa kinukuhang kurso. May K-12 naman [na pinahaba pa] para matutunan and wikang Filipino.” However, PSLLF president Aurora Batnag pointed out that there was a need to retain Filipino subjects at the tertiary level. “Sa mas mataas na level ng edukasyon nagaganap ang intelektwalisasyon ng wika na kailangan para lubusang magamit ang wikang ito sa lahat ng antas at disiplina,” she argued. “Binura ng K-12 ang ipinaglaban noong 1970s para magkaroon ng 6-9 units ng Filipino sa kolehiyo,” Batnag added.
DLSU professor Dolores Taylan said that in the context of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI), which is working towards narrowing the development gap among ASEAN nations by the time the ASEAn single market is implemented in 2015, there is a growing need to reinforce the national language to uphold the Filipino identity. “Hindi dapat mawala ang Departamento ng Filipino sa mga kolehiyo. Ayon nga kay [former DLSU president and former Department of Education Secretary] Br. Andrew Gonzales FSC, walang kolehiyo sa Pilipinas na walang Departamento ng Filipino,” Taylan said. The NCCA-NCLT's resolution was received by the office of CHED chairman Pa tricia Licuanan last May 2, though the chairman has yet to respond to it. Nevertheless, a dialogue did take place last June 2 between CHED Commissioners Alex Brillantes and Cynthia Bautista and professors from DLSU-Manila, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), University of Santo Tomas, Miriam College, and Marinduque State University. DLSU-Manila Political Science professor Antonio Contreras, had arranged the dialogue. DLSU-Manila's Filipino Department, meanwhile, is organizing a consultative forum for June 21. —
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/365 618/lifestyle/artandculture/professors-offilipino-breaking-bad-over-ched-memo
| ANC – Tue, Jun 17, 2014
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF) chairman and National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario is opposing a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) memorandum that effectively removes Filipino as a form of teaching in the general education curriculum. Almario explained that under CHED Memorandum No. 20, which was issued as early as last year, old general education subjects taught in both English and Filipino have been removed. The new subjects introduced, however, make the syllabus available only in English. This is a result of the K-12 curriculum as, according to CHED, the old college-level general education subjects, which include Filipino, will be transferred to the K-12 curriculum. Meanwhile, Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. assured Filipino teachers, who may be affected by the changes, that they will not go unemployed. He indicated that they are "doing the necessary steps" to prevent such a scenario.
new general education curriculum. Photo by Jee
which introduced a new curriculumthat will
Almario, on the other hand, is awaiting replies from CHED and Congress as to KWF suggestions that other subjects in college be taught in Filipino. The KWF sent the letters detailing the said suggestions to the two entities two weeks ago, but they have not gotten a reply yet.
Geronimo/Rappler
be implemented in school year 2018-2019.
MANILA, Philippines – A group of college
Tanggol Wika spokesperson David Michael San
professors introduced on Saturday, June
Juan said the Commission has been silent on
21, Tanggol Wika – an alliance of educators
their concerns since they sent their first letter in
from more than 40 colleges and universities in
May 2013, calling for the revision of the CHED
the country opposed to “attacks against the
memorandum.
According to Almario, the KWF has already created four Filipino syllabi out of the eight subjects that will be taught in the new general education curriculum.
national language."
https://anc.yahoo.com/news/is-the-filipinolanguage-being-kicked-out-of-college103034066.html
The curriculum should include 3 to 9 units of
Tanggol Wika or Alyansa ng mga
Filipino subjects, San Juan said, especially if
Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang Filipino (Alliance
Filipino is to be widely-used as a medium of
of Defenders of Filipino) is calling for the
instruction.
following:
Panatilihin ang pagtuturo ng asignaturang
Bienvenido Lumbera lamented that more
Filipino sa bagong General Education
students will choose English over Filipino as a
Curriculum (GEC) sa kolehiyo (Retain the
medium of instruction because of the
teaching of Filipino subjects in the new GEC in
“inferiority complex” brought about by the
college)
education system itself.
Rebisahin ang Commission on Higher
"Laging nakayuko ang ating mga ulo dahil
Education (CHED) Memorandum Order 20 The newly-created alliance says it will bring its fight all the way to Malacañang Jee Y. Geronimo
But today, National Artist for Literature
series of 2013 (Revise CHED Memorandum Order 20 series of 2013)
Gamitin ang wikang Filipino sa pagtuturo ng
pinatanggap sa atin na mas mababang klase ang mga Filipino. Kailangang kilalanin na ang malaking dahilan bakit may [ganitong] problema ay ang ating kolonyal na pinanggalingan ,” he added.
iba’t ibang asignatura (Use Filipino as a (Our heads are always bowed down because we
Published 10:11 PM, Jun 21, 2014
medium of instruction in different subjects)
Updated 11:21 AM, Jun 22, 2014
Isulong ang makabayang edukasyon (Push
need to understand that the primary reason
for nationalistic education)
why we have this problem is because of our
were made to accept that Filipino is inferior. We
The alliance was formally introduced during a FIGHT CONTINUES. About 400 of supporters
consultative assembly Saturday after weeks of
from 44 colleges and universities show their
public clamor over a 2013 CHED memo
support for retaining the Filipino subject in the
colonial history.)
During the assembly, San Juan presented his
that the focus in higher education will be on
teachers – including those who teach Filipino –
paper which showed the memorandum
interdisciplinary courses. (READ: PH basic
can teach in senior high school.
“targets" the Filipino subject, and the senior
education: 'Cramming' toward ASEAN 2015)
high school curriculum will not include many
If they do, they can be at ease especially with the Department of Labor and Employment’s
topics previously taught in college.
"non-diminution of compensation and
(READ: CHED is not targeting Filipino
About 400 people were present during the
language instruction)
benefits,” where an employee cannot be
assembly, a bulk of them professors worried not
stripped off benefits he/she has been receiving
only for their national language but also for
for a definite amount of time.
With the signing of the Enhanced Basic
Education Act of 2013, two years have been added to the basic education system of the
their employment.
General education teachers are also San Juan projected more than 10,000
Philippines. The Department of Education
projected to bear the brunt of the
professors will be affected by the
nationwide implementation of senior high
(DepEd) recently completed the senior high
memorandum.
school in 2016. Starting school year 2016-2017
school curriculum which provides students
up to school year 2021-2022, HEIs expect a drop
specializations for employment.
in enrollment because of the K to 12 program.
But San Juan pointed out the impracticality of teaching collegiate Filipino subjects in senior high school. "Kami na 'yung nagtuturo ng mga ganyang
subjects or components. Ngayon, anong gagawin nila [DepEd], gagastos sila ng pagkalaki-laki pagproduce ng materials, pag-
FILIPINO. Professors and supporters of the
(READ: 5 leaps in 2013 that make PH
national language show their support. Photo by
education promising)
Jee Geronimo/Rappler "It's safe to say more than 10,000 will either lose their jobs, get less number of loads, be
Tanggol Wika will continue to lobby for the
transferred in another department or another
inclusion of Filipino subjects in the new general
school," he said in a mix of English and Filipino.
education curriculum, and San Juan said they’re
ready to bring it to Malacañang if necessary.
mass training ng teachers ,” San Juan told
In an informal survey conducted during the
Rappler.
assembly, representatives from 19 higher
(We are already teaching these subjects or components. Now, what they will do is spend a lot to produce materials and mass-train teachers.) While CHED has yet to issue a statement on the matter, Malacañang this week said the Commission is working closely with
DepEd to rationalize Philippine education so
education institutions (HEIs) said their schools
"'Pag uminit lalo yung issue, mapipilitan
yung gobyerno na mag- decide in our
have no definite plans yet for the Filipino
favorkasi kung walang public pressure ay
subject under the new curriculum, while 24 HEIs
tingin ko hindi kami magtatagumpay.
have yet to come up with a plan for their
Pinakamahalaga, pag- sustain ng public
Filipino teachers.
pressure,” he said.
Palace Communications Secretary Herminio
(If the issue heats up further, the government
Coloma Jr earlier said general education
will be forced to decide in our favor because without public pressure, I think we will not
succeed. The most important thing is to sustain public pressure.) San Juan, an associate professor of the De La Salle University-Manila, also started a
Change.org petition which has gained 1,444 supporters as of this posting.
Tanggol Wika also plans to work on a set of syllabus they can present to CHED in future dialogues. San Juan said the fight is just beginning, and Lumbera explained why their fight is necessary. “[Ito ay] pagpapahalaga na ang buhay natin
bilang isang bansa ay nakasanding sa pagkakaroon ng isang wika na siyang gagamitin upang hubugin ang isipan ng kabataan, hubugin ang isipan ng matatanda, lalo na 'yung mga matatanda ang may kapangyarihan sa ating sistema ng edukasyon,” Lumbera said. (This is giving importance to the fact that our life as a country depends on having one language which will be used to shape the minds of people, young and old – especially the old ones who wield power in our education system. http://www.rappler.com/nation/61234tanggol-wika-general-education-college
