close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

FEDERALISM-opinions please

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by atmarcella, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. atmarcella

    atmarcella

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    overwatch....
    1. Unitarianism vs. Federalism:
    There are only two forms of government structures in the world.

    Unitarian or Federal.

    Unitarianism (the structure of government that the Philippines presently has): All state powers and functions emanate from a center and can be rescinded unilaterally by the center.

    Ex: Educational curricula for the whole country is determined by one organization, the Department of Education, based in the center.

    Federalism (what we want): State powers and functions are divided into two levels, as mandated by the Constitution or basic law of the land. One level by Constitutional law cannot encroach on the powers of the other level.

    One: Local, state, republic level (these are synonymous terms in the context of Federalism).

    Two: Central, federal, or national level (these are synonymous terms in the context of Federalism).

    Ex: Education is a local state function, and its implementation, within the guidelines of the Federal Constitution, is the responsibility of the local state.

    There are usually 4 common functions in Federal countries that remain within the scope of the Federal or central government:

    Foreign Policy.
    National Defense
    Immigration
    Regulation of trade and commerce between local states

    2. Disadvantages of a Unitarian government:

    One: The oppression and eventual extinction of the provincial peoples: In a Unitarian set-up, there will always be the so-called ‘captive peoples’, ‘provincials’, or ‘4th world’. These are synonymous terms denoting those who live in the peripheral areas of a Unitarian country. In the Philippines, and also in the Roman Empire of old, they are called ‘provincials’ or ‘probincianos.’ Historically, when the Westerners left their former colonies (presently composing the so-called 3rd world, inevitably governed in a Unitarian set-up) in Africa and Asia, the colonial center from which the Westerners governed was usually taken over by an ethnolinguistic group, that usually simply continued the colonial rule, thus reducing the peripheral areas of these former colonies into a 4th world. The peoples living in these peripheral areas are captive peoples, who do not have the freedom to govern themselves, lead their residents into economic prosperity, nor protect their local ethnolinguistic identity from extinction, should the center decide on a policy of imposing a monocultural linguistic identity over them.

    Two: Decision overload. One central organization, no matter how good and efficient, cannot possibly decide for all localities in a big country, for each locality will inevitably have its peculiar conditions and culture. Thus, local problems are usually given over to blueprint solutions, which almost inevitably are not the best solutions because almost every new problem is unique.

    Three: Corruption due to a huge bureaucracy with little check and balance. If some of the bureaucrats and leaders of the controlling central governing body are bad eggs, and some inevitably will be, there is hardly anything that a locality can do about it. Peoples in the peripheries (the so-called ‘captive peoples’, provincials, and 4th world) are at the complete mercy of the viscitudes of the center.

    Four: Political instability. Inevitably, a person or a clique will always want to grab all that concentrated power in the center. Thus Unitarian countries are often fraught with coup de etats, revolutions, and so on. In the old Roman Empire, the new Emperor often arose to power through violent means; isn’t this a familiar scene nowadays in Unitarian countries?

    Five: Dictatorships and authoritarian systems of government abound in Unitarian countries, because of the extreme concentration of political power in a center.

    Six: Economic poverty in the peripheral areas. Provinces in a Unitarian country often exist as milking cows for the center. Tribute (honey-coated as ‘taxes’) is levied unilaterally for the sake of the enrichment of those in the center. The center often exists as an area of riches amidst provinces wallowing in dire poverty. The whole economy is designed to siphon the natural resources and manpower of the provinces into maintaining the existence of a primate city from which the central government rules. In the Philippines today, the center’s economic dominance is fueled by:

    A. The taxation system which every year instigates the capital flight of billions from the provinces into MetroManila (a phenomenon which is so debilitating to the provinces that it should be properly called institutionalized plunder);

    B. Manila-based Corporations which operate in the provinces but suck in their profits into the center;

    C. An upper class that owns much of the provinces’ lands and industries, but who make their residences in MetroManila;

    D. The tendency of the central government to encourage major industries in the MetroManila area while neglecting the provinces, and thus value added to raw materials taken from the provinces and processed into higher valued finished products in MetroManila is retained there.

    3. Advantages of a Federal Government

    One: Allows unity in diversity: The captive peoples in a Unitarian country can easily be given freedom so as to protect their ethnolinguistic identity. Specifically, the function of Education is taken over by the local state, within the guidelines of the Federal Constitution. Thus, the study of the regional languages as an academic subject can easily be introduced into the educational curricula, without interference by the center, thus ensuring that these languages survive. Each local state can easily enact laws that recognize its languages as official.

    Two: The local governments are able to take care of most of the local decision-making. Inevitably, such direct participation of the local government results in flexibility, rapid decision-making and action, innovativeness, and efficiency in solving societal problems.

    Three: Corruption can be more easily checked by the local populace themselves, because their government leaders are next-door-neighbors so to speak. The huge inefficient bureaucracy of Unitarian systems is also trimmed down as functions devolve to the local governments.

    Four: Political stability: In any given geopolitical area, Federal countries are always more stable politically than adjacent Unitarian countries. No coup de etat or revolution has ever succeeded in a modern Federal country; indeed there are hardly any attempts at all.

    Ex 1. Archipelagic Asia: No coup de etats in the Federal countries of Australia and Malaysia. On the other hand, coup de etat attempts abound and sometimes succeed in Indonesia and the Philippines.

    Ex 2. Indian subcontinent: No coup de etats in the Federal country of India. On the other hand, coup de etat attempts abound and sometimes succeed in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Ex 3. Latin America: No coup de etats in the Federal countries of Brazil and Mexico. On the other hand, coup de etat attempts abound and sometimes succeed in the other Latin American countries.

    Five: Democracies are the rule in Federal countries. Indeed, the very set-up of a non-centralized Federal country is the closest widespread political system that tries to approximate participative democracy, by allowing local peoples to participate in governing their societies.

    Six: In any given geopolitical area, Federal countries are always more economically prosperous than adjacent Unitarian countries. Going back to the examples above, Australia and Malaysia are more economically prosperous than Indonesia and the Philippines, India is more economically prosperous than Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Brazil and Mexico are more economically prosperous than most of the rest of Latin America. The flexible, participative, balanced, and innovative political structure of Federal countries translate to economic efficiency. Local states also retain most of the taxes coming from economic activity in their territories, and have enough political autonomy to encourage and maintain their economic progress without the center’s interference; thus spreading out development all over the country. In the end the individual strengths of the local states makes for a much stronger Federation.

    3. Unitarian banalities and bogeys:

    A. Giving peripheral areas political freedom results in armed conflicts among their peoples. Empirical facts show that this is simply not true. More than half of the world is federal, and in all cases, there are more armed conflicts in their Unitarian neighbors, because: One, all the concentrated political power in the center leads to persistent attempts by all kinds of persons and cliques to seize it by violent means; and two, the dire poverty experienced by the provinces often results in armed rebellion. Let us put it in another way: Why fight each other when we respect each other? Conflicts are usually the result of oppression and discrimination, inherent in a Unitarian system. Take away the reason for conflict, and there will be no conflict. (Unless the root cause of a conflict is a thought-system, for conflict is inherent in the contents of some, and their followers tend to promote conflict even amidst economic prosperity, but this is not our topic.)

    B. If given freedom, a province cannot stand by its own economically. This is a hypothesis that is disproved by empirical facts. Empirically, while almost any change is accompanied by economic difficulties, the experience of other Federal countries show that this is only temporary.

    (For example, the transition of Unitarian Germany into Federalism after WW II, or the transition of India, which Britain ruled in a Unitarian set-up, into Federalism after independence.)

    Here are two statements that demonstrate the absurdity of the above hypothesis: One, cut off Metro Manila totally from its provinces, all trade, communication, and transportation; and Metro Manila will rapidly collapse, while the provinces, while experiencing some initial difficulties, will survive. Two, history is replete with provinces desiring to secede from their centers, but there has never been any center that had wanted to secede from its provinces.

    C. The problem lies in the people in the government, not the system; reform or kick out all the corrupt individuals in the government and it will change for the better, and there is thus no need to change the structure of the government. This is a simplistic hypothesis that simply is not true. Concentrated power has been shown to corrupt even previously upright individuals, or as an old adage says, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    In addition, decision overload and bureaucratic inefficiency will occur in an overly centralized system even if the individuals in the system are of angelic disposition. Going to a concrete example, Australia, a Federal country, was founded as a penal colony for assorted exiled criminals and scum of Britain, yet it is now a politically stable and economically prosperous country. Next-door Indonesia, an epitome of Unitarianism, was no penal colony, but is now the most corrupt country in Archipelagic Asia. The next most corrupt country is Unitarian Philippines. Even if you place the best racer in the world in a busted car, there is no way the car can win a race and it will remain a bust.
     
  2. isuzu

    isuzu

    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    North America
    I'm for Federalism. Negros Occidental has been pushing for a Federal form of government since the late 80's. We learned our lesson during Marcos' rule. Philsucom and Nasutra were created and monopolized the sugar industry. While we were paid a fixed price of about P380/picul (http://www.sizes.com/units/picul.htm) of sugar, Philsucom, Nasutra and Marcos were enjoying the high prices of the world market of sugar. This is when the insurgency also rose in Negros.

    During Cory's time, there was smuggling of sugar. During FVR's time, there was also smuggling of sugar. Same during Erap's time. It's only on GMA's terms that sugar farmers were able to breath a sigh of relief not only because anti-sugar smuggling is high on her priority list, but also due to the high prices of fuel that countries like Brazil and Thailand have focused on ethanol; and also the damage brought to sugar farms in Louisiana by Hurricane Katrina. She also has been firm on keeping the tarrif on imported sugar so that industrial users will be forced to patronize our local sugar. Even Kraft is challenging the tarrif imposed by the government: http://www.visayandailystar.com/2006/July/18/business.htm

    And now the senate didn't even pay attention to the proposed Biofuels Act being pushed by Congressman Zubiri.:upeyes:

    With almost 80 million Filipinos now, I think it's time to decentralize the government.
     

  3. charlie-xray

    charlie-xray Gunpowder Adik

    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Location:
    Pugad Baboy
    Let's say I'm a pessimist

    I think what the country needs is Martial rule like the ruling style of Singapore maybe that will work for us, changing the style of government does not solve the bottomline problem of this country. Tigas ng ULO at walang disiplina. Maso-solve ba ng federalism yan or parliamentary hindi dapat sa ating mga pilipino pinaghihigpitan at turuan ng rule of law, tignan mo na lang sa ibang probinsya patayan anong klase ang justice gantihan, nakakasuka ang uri ng komunidad natin sa ganyang lagay daig pa natin ang mga 4th or 5th world countries sa africa.

    Kaya ang dapat sa atin KAMAY NA BAKAL, na walang sasantuhin, ang sira ulo sa mental ilagay ang hindi marunong sumunod or gumalang sa batas sa preso ilagay pero that is wishful thinking philippines 2050 kaya nga ang daming nagma-migrate na lang kasi HOPELESS CASE na ang tingin ng ibang tao sa pinas. Saang bansa ka ba naman nakakita ng corruption up to the security guard kayang i-pending ang negosyo mo pagka hindi ka nag-abot ANO BA NAMAN YAN.
     
  4. rhino465

    rhino465

    Messages:
    1,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    I'm for Federalism, specifically the Consitutional Republic that America was before our War Between the States (WBTS) in the 1860s. At that point, our wonderful experiment began to decline toward the Unitarian model and continues to do so at an increasing rate today.

    The basis for any healthy and righteous society absolutely and unequivocally must be the individual. The dignity, freedom, and liberty of the individual are sacred, and this coincidentally is a fundamental (albeit often unspoken) basis for Christianity.

    From that, the powers held by any governing body in a Constitutional Republic result from those individuals choosing to delegate their authority via elections.

    The highest law must always remain the Consitution, and that Consitution must serve never to put restraint or restriction on the individual (except where one's actions would infringe on the rights of another individual), but instead serve to delineate and protect the individual and his rights FROM any government by narrowly restricting what any level of government is allowed to do and not to do.

    We actually had that before the 1860s, then we had our WBTS and now our Constitution is weak, prostituted, and disgraced. Some would maintain (with significant justification) that the "wrong side won" the war, or more appropriately that both side suffered an immeasurable loss even while the Union received what they believed they wanted in the end.

    Okay ... enough pontificating from me! I get excited about this stuff sometimes!

    If there were any chance in the world (and there may be, albeit small) for you guys to establish a system that even remotely resembles what started America in the late 1700s, it would be better for all of you in every way, including economically.
     
  5. rhino465

    rhino465

    Messages:
    1,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    It's hard to believe there were only 13 million in the Philippines when my father left in the mid 1950s. And it was probably too crowded then!

    I think your only hope for decentalization of government will rest in getting the majority to believe The Truth that the "people's power" is not just a phrase, but a mandate and destiny based on the dignity and liberty of the individual.
     
  6. isuzu

    isuzu

    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    North America
    Blame the population explosion on the church. They try to blackmail the government if the government tries to implement birth control programs. Our economy surely is affected by overpopulation and not enough jobs for the populace.

    And the church blames the government for not creating enough jobs for the people. Duh!:upeyes:
     
  7. bulm540

    bulm540

    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Location:
    TN
    We tried it once, it didn't work.
     
  8. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    We don't have Unitarianism. We don't have Federalism. We have Feudalism.

    All surveys show that the degree of dynastic politics - both local and national offices being held by successions of RELATIVES -has increased over the last 30 years, not decreased.

    Anti-dynasty bills have been filed, and the political dynasties in power have killed every one of these anti-dynasty bills.

    There are political dynasties, and money is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of a limited number of families, many of whom are members of these dynasties. Feudalism.

    And the Church is inordinately strong, for what is supposed to be a secular democracy. Feudalism.

    Binay is the Hari ng Makati, the Estradas are the Dukes of San Juan, the Gordon and the Magsaysay families battle for control of the Duchy of Subic/Zambales, etc. etc.

    Pathetic. If we go to Federalism, the local populations will supposedly be able to control the local nobles? Don't count on it.
     
  9. atmarcella

    atmarcella

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    overwatch....
    i agree... i also blame the church for our population problem:frown:
     
  10. Allegra

    Allegra

    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines

    No , last time , we didnt have a choice

    I'm all for charlie xrays idea
     
  11. Allegra

    Allegra

    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines

    Patronage politics kasi e
    Those w/ the gold make the rules
    I've helped during sa local elections
    People will give their votes kung sino magbibigay ng pera
    I've argued that mas importante they vote for the right guy who'll do the right thing, hindi yung kung sino magbibigay ng pera sa presinto.
    They say , they might not live that long. Kasi wala na sila kakainin that day pa lang. I guess their tired of the promises na wala naman nangyari
    I dont blame them and I who can eat 3 times a day have no right sisihin sila
     
  12. isuzu

    isuzu

    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    North America
    Don't think this would work. My opinion is that in time, we will be able to correct ourselves. Painful as it may seem, we will have to find where we actually stand. Just like the US. It was so divided that it took a civil war to make them a strong nation.

    Now, I'm not asking for a civil war for the Philippines. Filipinos living in the Philippines may not notice the gradual change for the better. There are a number of significant things I noticed when I went home in May:

    1) There's not much tambays in the streets. Konti na lang ang umiinom sa kalye, and that explains why the hard drink market has been hit with low liquor sales.

    2) People generally prioritize what they buy, unlike before na kahit hindi maka afford, uutang ng pambili ng cellphone para maging "in."

    3) The people are now conscious not to get easily swayed by some stupid politician or groups out to grab power; they just simply want to focus on earning a living. Alam na nila na ginamit lang sila, so, ayaw na nilang magpagamit.

    I'm delighted to have observed that the majority of the Filipinos now have come to terms as to where they stand, and they have become responsible enough for themselves. These are baby steps, but we're getting there.
     
  13. jasonub

    jasonub

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines
    Singapore does not allow citizens to have guns in their homes:freak:
     
  14. bulm540

    bulm540

    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Location:
    TN
    Yes we did, that's why people power 1 happened. If we didn't, Marcos would still be in power.
     
  15. rhino465

    rhino465

    Messages:
    1,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    Actually, the War Between the States did not make us a strong nation. It only made the Federal Gov't the king of United States. America lost that war, and that was the beginning of the loss of America itself. The world in general was diminished by it.
     
  16. Allegra

    Allegra

    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines

    That govt was corrupt and it profesionalized corruption simula sa tanod hanggang sa highest office ng bayan

    Spend time here , and maiinis ka din sa lack of discipline
    No it's not that our character is flawed , pero it's just like a dog that has been caged. pag nakawala , magulo
    People just have no fear of the law , and we still do not wear our freedom very well
     
  17. jundeleon

    jundeleon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Whatever form of government we institute here, it wont work especially pag hindi nalagay sa pwesto ang rightful rulers ng bansa tulad ni Eddie Gil, Ely Pamatong, Amay Bisaya!
     
  18. atmarcella

    atmarcella

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    overwatch....
    For the Iloilo Informer column LANGUAGE TRADITIONS & FEDERALISM

    Excerpts from ALLIANCE FOR LANGUAGE TRADITIONS & FEDERALISM (ALFED) and SAVE OUR LANGUAGES THROUGH FEDERALISM (SOLFED) Literature:

    The Importance of our Languages, the Tagalista Campaign to Kill them, and How We Could Help Save Them


    I. Languages
    Unity in diversity vs. Unity in uniformity. It is the basic morality of our cause that we deem the diversity of Creation as natural and good.
    Philippine schools for the most part teach only two languages, ‘Filipino’ and English, Filipino because of a nationalist ideology rooted in the idea of unity in uniformity, and English because it is beneficial to the economy being the international language of the business world and a necessary language for income-rich overseas workers. What about the survival of our rich array of native Philippine languages? History had repeatedly shown that in multi linguistic areas, any government policy that officially uses only one or two languages eventually drives the neglected languages into extinction (as for example in the Roman Empire whose policy of using only Latin in government communication killed of most of the languages used around the northern Mediterranean, or in the Caliphates whose policy of using only Arabic killed off most of the languages in Northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula).

    We are against any national policy that tries to impose unity in uniformity, such as ‘isang bansa isang lahi’, because pursued to its logical conclusion it means killing of all our ethnolinguistic peoples except one. We are many peoples, and always have been, not one people. There are at present 159 ethnolinguistic peoples in the Philippines according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics, with 3 or 4 having become extinct in the past few generations. Our peoples have existed since before the Spaniards’ arrival, even before there was a Philippines, and do not owe their existence to the Philippines. There must be respect and equality among our peoples for us to make a strong country.

    Language defines a people. A Visayan who cannot speak a Visayan language, even if he has been born and grew up in the Visayas-Mindanao area where there have been Visayans for more than a thousand years since the area first came under the influence of the Sri-Visaya Empire, is not a Visayan. Such a person has been cut off from an ancient cultural identity that remains one of the oldest in the world. Or how can a person be an Ilocano if he cannot speak it? Without language, we have no culture, no identity, and we are nothing.
    No one can artificially create an ethnolinguistic people. Only the Creator can. The survival of our ethnolinguistic peoples in a Creation of diverse beauty is not even a matter of right or wrong but a matter of existence or oblivion. A hundred years from now, any debate as to whether the existence of an ethnolinguistic people is right or wrong when it has already ceased to exist is completely inutile because what is being discussed is already dead. Likewise, any discussion on so-called ‘ancestral lands’ loses its essence when the ethnolinguistic people involved has ceased to exist because of the death of its language. For example, a Manobo is by definition as a person whose native language is Manobo. So how can you talk of ‘saving’ the ancestral lands of Manobos when the Manobos have been obliterated with the death of their language? How can you talk about a people’s ancestral lands if the people do not exist?

    Will you uniformize your faces with that of your neighbors and seatmates just because an ideology says we all would look nicer if we had the same face? Of course not, as we were created with different faces and personalities. Similarly with languages, will we uniformize all Philippine languages just because an ideology says we ought to? Of course not, instead we must accept that there is something wrong with that ideology, even if it has been taught to us since elementary school by a system that does not respect its own peoples.

    The basic argument for preserving an ethnolinguistic people is the same as that of preserving a species, and stems from a conscious decision to stand for the diversity of Creation. A renowned paleontologist once said: I can see and study the fossil bones of now extinct birds, but never will I see the colors of their feathers nor hear the sweetness of their songs.

    Costumes and artifacts are dead things we keep in museums and show to tourists, but the living soul of a people is its living identity carried by its language. A government that makes a minority people wear native costumes and dance around in front of TV cameras for the sake of attracting tourists but does not teach its language in schools is utterly hypocritical and exploitative. If we are really sincere in helping an ethnolinguistic people to survive, we must teach their language in the schools of their traditional areas. Once a people is dead our descendants will never see the bonds that they formed, nor ever hear the melody of their tongue.

    There is another argument for preserving the diversity of Creation, albeit a more practical and perhaps selfish reason. We can never know the possible future uses of a specific species or language. A plant that seems to have no practical uses now may suddenly be the source of an important antibiotic in the future. As examples of the use of a specific language:

    1. Some languages, which are intrinsically difficult to learn, can form the basis for codes. During World War II, the Americans suddenly found Navaho (a native North American tongue spoken by the Navaho people) a useful language in creating a code that the Japanese never broke, because Navaho is an intrinsically difficult language to learn and no Japanese knew Navaho.
    Some languages, which are intrinsically user-friendly, can form the basis of a trade or scientific language in the future if the need arises. A few examples: One, Latin is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than English, mainly because English has so many irregular verbs. Two, almost any Philippine language is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than any Chinese language because of the tonal characteristic of Chinese languages, wherein differences in pitch distinguishes different meanings in what are otherwise the same words. Three, some Philippine languages are more user-friendly than the ‘national language’. For example, the simple conjugation pattern of the Negros dialect of Hiligaynon [almost all verbs being conjugated by ‘nag’, ‘naga’, ‘mag(a)’ and ‘gin’, ‘gina’, ‘un’ in order to denote past, present, and future tense] makes it much easier for an outsider to learn than ‘Filipino’.
    3. Some languages have intrinsic value as a tourist attraction because of the attractive melodious quality of their intonation. For example, many people like to hear French, Spanish, and Italian because of the musical quality of their intonation. Among Philippine languages, almost every outsider gets enchanted by the singsong characteristic of the Ilonggo-Capiceno dialects. One of these dialects (Ajuy) may be a candidate for the sweetest sounding tongue in the world (yet it is unrecorded and unprotected, spoken only in a small area, and liable to go extinct anytime).
    2. Tagalogs vs. Tagalistas
    The Tagalogs are an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and develop their language. In the same context, so are the other ethnolinguistic peoples in the world. For example, the Kapampangans are also an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and develop their language. Tagalogs and Kapampangans are equal, and are equal to the other Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples. The State should not institute laws and practices that will make one of them in social majority over the rest, as this will mean that the rest will become social minorities and second class citizens. More seriously, such a discriminatory policy eventually pushes the neglected languages into extinction.

    Thus we are not against Tagalogs as an ethnolinguistic people. If by a twist of history, the Tagalog language becomes endangered sometime in the far future, the successors of ALFED and SOLFED will surely come to their succor. On the other hand, Tagalistas are different. Tagalistas desire to spread the ideology of Tagalog nationalism, unity in the uniformity of the Tagalog language. Tagalistas do not have to be Tagalogs themselves; there are many Visayan Tagalistas for example, native Visayans who adhere to Tagalog nationalism.

    We love the Tagalog ethnolinguistic people for what they are. However, Tagalistas are our ideological enemies who do not respect the language rights of the peoples of the Philippines and who, if they have their way, will kill off all the other ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines in the name of their perverted sense of nationalism.
    3. Language vs. Dialect. Is Filipino a separate language?
    Dialects are mutually intelligible versions of a language and cannot exist outside the context of a language. For example, Batangueno and Bulaceno are mutually intelligible tongues, and thus are dialects or versions of the same language, which we call Tagalog.

    Similarly, Cebuano exists as several dialects. Thus Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are clearly different in accent, vocabulary, and idioms, but are mutually intelligible, meaning their speakers can understand each other without previous language lessons. Thus, Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are dialects of the same language, which is called by linguists as Cebuano.

    On the other hand, no Tagalog dialect is mutually intelligible with any dialect of Cebuano. Thus Tagalog and Cebuano are two separate languages, and co-equal to each other.

    All international linguists (including the linguists of the highly regarded Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines), adhering to international standards, agree that Filipino is a Tagalog dialect. Filipino is mutually intelligible with all Tagalog dialects and mutually unintelligible with all non-Tagalog languages. Given the differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, conjugation patterns, and even accent and intonation that make each language unique, it is impossible to create a Filipino from all the Philippine languages without retaining each component language’s unique identity. Unity in diversity means giving freedom to the peoples that these languages define to preserve and develop their own languages. Unity in uniformity means killing all of them except one, whether that language is an existing one or an artificial one.
    4. Are our languages really dying?
    Yes.

    One, there is a dearth of literature and official use of the provincial Philippine languages. Many of these languages do not even have a written literature, and are not used in government and schools in their own territories. Residents can hardly read and write in their own language. New songs, movies, TV shows, essays, poems and books are not being composed in the provincial languages, and the few that are being made, because of the minority status attached to them by state policies, are not being patronized by most of their own speakers.

    Two, National Statistics Office surveys shows that every Philippine ethnolinguisitic people is decreasing in percentage of the Philippine population, except the one that speaks ‘Filipino’ as its native tongue. When the natural birth rate of these peoples finally approaches zero, as is the trend at present, their absolute numbers will also decrease, eventually to extinction if we do nothing now.

    Three, related to the theme above, when the center’s ethnolinguistic group reaches half of the Philippine population, which is fast becoming a reality, it will be very difficult to change the Constitution into one that protects the languages of the minorities because they will simply tend to get outvoted.
    Four, minority peoples are losing territory fast to the center’s ethnolinguistic group. For example, Puerto Princessa in Palawan, which used to speak Cuyonon, no longer does, and the Cuyonons (a Western Visayan people) are being confined to a small group of islands off Palawan and will inevitably die out should we do nothing. Likewise, the rich array of native languages of Romblon (including Romblomanon, Unhan, Asi, Odiongon) are dying out. There are numerous other examples.
     
  19. atmarcella

    atmarcella

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    overwatch....
    5. Banalities and bogeys of Tagalistas.
    A. Filipino is not a Tagalog dialect. Wrong. It is. This had been answered above. Tagalistas often use this bogey, honey-coating one Philippine language (Tagalog) as ‘Filipino’, in order to justify imposing monolinguistic uniformity in a way that avoids hostile reaction among the non-Tagalog peoples.

    B. We need ‘Filipino’ as a national language because we are one nation. There are three models that refute this banality.
    One: It is an empirical fact that the USA does not have a national language (because any national language in the minds of the founding fathers of the USA infringes on an even more fundamental freedom, that of the freedom of speech and _expression), and each local State is free to choose its official languages, or none at all. Thus there is no legal barrier to, say, the teaching of Spanish or a Native American language like Navaho. Many such native languages in the northern American continent, and also in the State of Hawaii, are now being taught in the schools, and as a result their native speakers are fast increasing in numbers. This clear-cut teaching of the minority languages in American schools has saved their peoples from extinction.

    Two: Many countries with a keener sense of justice have multiple official languages, in recognizance of their native peoples. For example, India has almost 20. Switzerland has 4. Etc… Why can’t we?

    Three: Many areas of the world, including pre-WW II Philippines, use a neutral language as a common means of communication for its leveling effect. (A neutral language is an outside language that is not spoken as a native language by any of the ethnolinguistic peoples in a common area.)

    Tagalistas always insist that we need one common national language in order to communicate with each other, and this is simply false. It is an empirical fact that the peoples of the Philippines have been communicating with each other for more than 300 years before there was a national language. How did 20th century Filipinos communicate before WWII? (It was ironically the Japanese who actually popularized ‘Filipino’ in Philippine schools in an effort to wean us off from English; and not surprisingly, Tagalog nationalists like Laurel and Recto were accused of being Japanese collaborators.) We used English, which happened to be the language of the American colonizers but which also fortunately happened to be the international language of Science and Trade, and multiple Philippine languages. If you were an Ilocano and went to trade in Cebu, you quickly learned Cebuano, and so on. Filipinos, including Tagalogs, respected the local culture of the region that they went into, by learning the native tongue. The usage of a neutral language like English also made for a ‘leveling effect’ among Philippine languages; not one was in social majority over the rest. (Today, in many multilinguistic areas in Africa and Asia, English and French are being used for their leveling effect, thus protecting the status of smaller ethnolinguistic peoples who would otherwise be pushed into oblivion had a neighboring tongue been imposed on them.

    Because there is no indigenous ethnolinguistic people that speaks English or French in these areas, use of these neutral languages places all of the native peoples in a linguistically equal level, and affords protection for the smaller groups.) Did using English as a common tongue make the Philippines poor? Obviously not; and we were more economically well off at this period. The peoples of the provinces also took pride in their local languages, and thus their ancestral identities, which made it more difficult for the center to step on their economic and political rights.

    C. To learn English is to stop being patriotic. Again, false. English is the international language of Science and Trade. There have been precedents. Before English, Latin was the international language of Science and Trade for perhaps 1500 years. Before Latin, it was Greek. Science classes were often taught in Latin until the early 20th century. The great seminal works of Science, including Newton’s Principia Mathematica and Linnaeus’ taxonomic naming of various species, and many early medical books were in Latin. Newton was definitely a patriotic Englishman, but in order to communicate to the rest of the Scientific world, he used Latin without a qualm.

    D. The ‘Filipino’ that is being rammed into the minds of all Filipino children is easy and convenient to learn, as evidenced by most Filipinos having learned it. This is twisted reasoning. Everyone who has gone under the Philippine’s Educational system knows ‘Filipino’ not because it is easy and convenient to learn, but precisely because it is being taught in the Educational system. Any language taught to elementary and high school children as an academic subject will be learned by them. Furthermore, the reason why the national media is in ‘Filipino’ is because everyone has been forced to learn it by an Educational system that flunks you if you don’t. Going to the role of Devil’s Advocate, even if we accept Unity in Uniformity, and ease of teaching is the basis for teaching a national language, the present ‘Filipino’, which is a Tagalog dialect, should not be the language being taught in schools, because there are other Philippine languages that are more user-friendly and easier to teach and learn.
     
  20. charlie-xray

    charlie-xray Gunpowder Adik

    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Location:
    Pugad Baboy
    AMEN and the church must know it's place in society and that is inspire and guide and not MEDDLE AND MANIPULATE. Population control is a sane approach, but why does the church disagree with it well let them disagree all they want but don't meddle with policy.