|
For the past 20 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE WEEK surrounding August 19 is observed in the Philippines as “Linggo ng Wika” or National Language Week. The observance coincides with the birth anniversary of Manuel Luis Quezon, the first President of the Philippine Commonwealth, who aggressively promoted the use of Pilipino (or Tagalog, as some people argued) as the national language of the country.
And almost always, the coming of the Linggo ng Wika is marked by the revival of the debate whether the government should drop Pilipino or Filipino and adopt English as the medium of instruction in all levels of the educational system.
Proponents of English contend that for the Philippines to progress economically, we should enhance our English proficiency. The ability of majority of Filipinos to speak English well, they say, is the major reason why Filipinos are in demand as overseas contract workers and for multinational corporations’ preference to set up shops in the Philippines.
Defenders of the native tongue, meanwhile, contend that English proficiency has nothing to do with economic development, citing countries such as China, Japan and Korea, and even European countries, who have attained economic progress without mastering the King’s language. They said that Filipinos can become better scientists, engineers and businessmen if they would learn Math and the Sciences in the native language.
We say that both parties are right, and they are both wrong. We need both English and our very own Filipino.
We need English because in this era of globalization, in these times of an increasingly borderless world, it is the language that will help us communicate and connect with other peoples.
We need Filipino because in this diversely multi-cultural society, we need to affirm our identity as a people. Language is the soul of culture, the spirit of a people.
We need them both. Both English and Filipino help satisfy our intellect and nourish our soul. English helps shape what we can become; Filipino defines who we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- In previous years, at this time around, contenders to a Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) board member seat were all geared up campaigning. This year, the atmosphere seems void of any political bustle; no one has been heard of actively pursuing interest in running for either the presidency or the board.
Is there a leadership vacuum? Or have wannabes given up on PIDCI? What happened to that gathering of godfathers held in Astoria last year where a pact between two or more forces was reportedly forged? Has that been thrown out of the window? Or have they found new alliances?
Last year, when asked about their interest in the presidency, directors Dr. Emmanuel ‘Boy’ Pangan and Wilson Versoza weren’t quite direct with their answers; they simply said weren’t sure yet. Have their interest waned? Will the group Friends Indeed field its candidates? Or have they planned on trading horses with another group?
How true is it that Dr. Baby Bleza, Raul Estrellado or even former overall chair Lolita Gillberg have their eyes set on the presidency? Or is it Paul Versoza, the architect of the so-called ‘president-elect’ proposal, the best kept secret as top contender?
If Paul disliked the way his friend, outgoing president Gani Puertollano, led PIDCI, would he then face the challenge himself and prove his mettle as president? Perhaps with his leadership, Paul can find a way to plug the $23,000 deficit which he claims Puertollano incurred in his administration.
And perhaps, too, with his leadership, the proposed changes to PIDCI by-laws can be ratified. Another one is that perhaps, with all his talk and great ideas about unity and commitment of board members, he can finally win all their hearts and minds. That is, having a team act with one voice and one vision which promotes the best interest of the organization instead of their own agenda. How about that?
Paul need not worry about getting Gillberg’s nod if he decided to run. After all, isn’t he Gillberg’s “down-level” in her new multi-level-marketing venture? Or is he just helping out promote her products?
And if he has Gillberg on his side, chances are he may also get Francis Sison’s vote. After all, Gillberg is Sison’s ‘ninang sa kasal’ (wedding sponsor). With Gillberg and Sison in his camp, he may also get board member Rev. Gaudy Soriano’s backing, another long-time friend of his.
Not to be discounted joining him in his bid for president is Lita Pena, another board member. Pena worked with Paul during her term as overall chair of the Philippine American Friendship Committee, Inc. (Pafcom), PIDCI’s counterpart in Jersey City.
So as you can see, if you tried connecting one dot with another, you may be able to unveil the best kept secret. And if you are a political operative just like Paul, whose group in Union, New Jersey managed to support a mayor that won there last elections, you could also do the same in PIDCI.
Paul’s group lobbied to have two Filipino Americans become city officials --one a mayor’s aides and the other a member of the local Board of Education.
What’s more revealing in this twist of events is everyone’s belief that Paul and Puertolano, who are both from Union and the best of buddies, are supposed to have parted ways and that a rift between them is continuing.
How true is it that all this public show of his disapproval of Puertollano’s leadership is just a ruse? Remember how former U.S. vice president Al Gore was slowly distancing himself from President Clinton when he run for the presidency? Is there a similarity between the two scenarios?
As an outsider looking into PIDCI, I have become quite sensitive in reading familiar political scripts or plots. Of course everything I say is only an observation and may not really be the best kept secret unveiled, yet. There could be more revealing interpretation of events but that’s for another story.
Is there a tinge of truth to an allegation that some former PIDCI overall chairs had lunch with the consul general to discuss scrapping PIDCI and replacing it with something else because of what’s been going on? If the information is true, the suggestion has all the traces of juvenile behavior. And you call them community leaders?
A leader is supposed to face up to the challenge and do whatever he or she can to build up a foundation not raze it to the ground. As it is said, when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. The feeble ones faint and give up while the strong dares to hold on and accomplishes more.
That’s the reason why Paul Versoza needs to face up to the challenge of being a president. No more of this silliness by key people who are strong only in words but not in action. He doesn’t have to do a repeat of what happened in PAFCOM when everyone favored him to be their overall chair: Paul didn’t show up at the election.
But maybe, the other best kept secret could be: no one will come forward to run for a board seat. In which case, will that hasten PIDCI’s natural death? The same people who wanted the formation of PIDCI would now be rejoicing to see PIDCI’s dissolution.
Do you know a best kept secret? I’m sure you do, everyone does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Bush and Arroyo Play Hide and Seek
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois – Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been trying to outdo her idol, US President George W. Bush, in shying away from the media lately.
Mrs. Arroyo had expressed preference to face one reporter by granting an exclusive interview to Philippine Star publisher Max Soliven at the expense of the reporters covering Malacanang when she was confined recently at St. Luke Hospital.
If she gets more comfortable with this arrangement, Mrs. Arroyo would likely extend similar favor to other publishers or editors to give her an opportunity to make friends and cozy up with these influential decision makers.
While conducting an exclusive interview with a major personality, like President Arroyo, is a journalist’s dream, it is also a nightmare for other journalists who missed the interview.
An Arroyo aide might have a point when he promoted the idea that facing a single reporter or a press corps is personal decision of the president. But there is no doubt that holding a press conference is in the best interest of the president and the people because she is supposed to be the president of, for and by the people, not of, for and by some vested interests.
One-on-One is a No No
One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that not all Filipinos are reading Philippine Star. But it is safe to assume that more, if not, all Filipinos may be reached by members of the Malacanang Press Corps.
The disadvantage of conducting a one-on-one presidential interview was demonstrated when President Franklin D. Roosevelt invited CBS radio newsman Edward R. Murrow to the White House at a midnight meeting 12 hours after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
In that 25-minute discussion in the second-floor Oval Study in the West Wing, Roosevelt provided Murrow with something “that any reporter would kill for.” Murrow told his wife, Janet, “It’s the biggest story of my life, but I don’t know if it’s my duty to tell it or forget it.”
When Murrow was asked about it after the war by another journalist, John Gunther, Murrow replied: “That story would send Casey Murrow through college, and if you think I’m going to give it to you, you’re out of your mind.”
“Day of Deceit”
U.S. Navy man Robert B. Stinnett was prodded to conduct an extensive research in an effort to decipher the story that Murrow took to his grave. In his book, “’Day of Deceit,’ The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, (The Free Press, New York, 2000)” Stinnett postulated that FDR might have told Murrow that he had the “foreknowledge” of the Pearl Harbor attack and that FDR, himself, encouraged Japan to attack US to justify America’s entry into World War II.
Lately, the White House took advantage of “separating” itself from the White House press corps when the West Wing briefing room was renovated. This gave White House spokesman Tony Snow an excuse to isolate further the White House from the White House press corps.
Bush has been traveling out of the Washington area at least seven times this year without a press plane, including four fundraisers off-limits to the press, according to Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.
Last August 10, while the press corps was in Texas, Bush was in Wisconsin talking about Britain’s foiling of a terrorist plot to bomb U.S.-bound planes with a handful of media reporters. A poll taken afterwards found sharp gain for Bush handling of homeland security but his overall support was a dismal 38 percent.
Virtual Censorship
If Bush and Arroyo will keep themselves away from holding regular press conferences, which happened during the short-lived Estrada administration, they will find themselves under increasing criticisms that could affect the smooth flow of their administrations.
After all, by accommodating a handful of “chosen newsmen,” Bush and Arroyo will find themselves validating the thesis of linguist Noam Chomsky’s “propaganda model” that in order to control the media landscape, media play should be left in the hands of the few to marginalize or exclude other points of views. Thus, resulting in virtual censorship and depriving the people from coming up with informed opinion.
(lariosa_jso@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN HIS 1762 novel “Gulliver’s Travels,” Jonathan Swift wrote of Lilliput – a place ruled by pygmies where everything was dwarf-size And would Swift conclude this is a country skidding into Lilliputian provinces if he learned how the House Committee on Local Government voted to chop up Cebu into four?
With only 16 out of 71 members present, Rep. Emilio Macias ( Negros Oriental ) ruled the committee approved bills, filed by three representatives whose terms were ending, to chop up the 478-year old province. Rep. Clavel Martinez would slice her district into “Cebu del Norte.” Rep. Simeon Kinatanar wants “Cebu del Sur” as his fiefdom. Rep. Antonio Yapha will settle for “Occidental Cebu.”
This itch to dismember provinces is nationwide. Rep. Glenda Ecleo wants the “Province of Dinagat Island” amputated from Surigao del Norte. Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri would slice off a “Bukidonon del Sur.” Reps. Proceso Alcala, Rafael Nantes, Danilo Suarez and Lorenzo Tañada III seek a “Quezon del Norte.” Rep. Carmen Cari wants to chop a “Western Leyte” from her old province. All vow they only seek the common good.
No one is fooled. This is the latest mutation of the 194-year old plague that Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry uncorked. In 1812, he badgered Congress to reset boundaries of his district, padding his party’s votes, to benefit himself.. That spawned the “gerrymander”.
This political scam has spread worldwide. The Irish call this political con game “tullymandering” -- after Minister for Local Government James Tully.
In the mid-1970s, Tully joggled borders to ensure that then governing National Coalition win a parliamentary majority. It backfired spectacularly. Fianna Fáil won by a landslide victory. “Tullymandering” now describes a failed attempt at gerrymandering.
The Macias committee vote was “political accomodation,” explained the level-headed Deputy Speaker for the Visayas, Rep Raul del Mar. That’s a polite euphemism for the amoral trapo system. Macias scratches the back of other trapos in exchange for their scratching his.
Along with Reps. Antonio Cuenco and Eduardo Gullas, Del Mar opposes dismemberment. Congress is not a stamp pad, he told the Macias committee earlier. “The reason for the law is the life of the law... Congress must analyze the whys and implications of proposals, including the outer edges of what is acceptable to the public.”
Not much is acceptable, a Cebu Archdiocese survey found. . All 139 parishes opposed the fracture plan. Even the parishes of Martinez, Kintanar and Yapha thumbed it down. Former Finance Secretary Jesus Estanislao pointed out that modernizing states were moving towards integration, not fragmentation. The League of Provinces, in fact, has “called for a moratorium on the creation of new provinces.”
And it is clear why. None of the chop-chop squad have economic development plan for his or her Lilliputian province. . Neither have they thought through proposals on how to augment local taxes -– from real estate to business permits. Only 18 centavos out of every peso comes from local taxes, the Commission on Audit notes.
Instead, they pledge, “lean and mean government”. All that means is hiring new complete sets of employees – from provincial assessors, fiscals, health officers, agriculturists, engineers to cops and janitors. They’d fund their midget provinces from Internal Revenue Allotments from Manila.
Today, IRAs account for 65 centavos out of every peso in local government tills, a United Nations study shows. “Local governments need to reverse this trend, first to 50-50. In the long run, LGUs should aim for a 70-30 ratio.” IRAs were intended supplement local revenues, not parachutes for fading politicians.
“The IRA also is a zero sum game,” warns Economist Fernando Fajardo. New provinces in Surigao, Bukidnon, Leyte or Cebu will mean IRA cuts in to Bohol, Negros Oriental and all provinces, including impoverished Muslim provinces in Mindanao. It is a ‘beggar-thy-neighbor policy.
Creating Lilliputian one-district provinces would only clone Siquijor. There, 69 centavos, out of its every tax peso, are chewed up by salaries. Maintenance and operating expenses wipe out the rest, Nothing is left for investment or new essential infrastructure.
Of course, the fragmentation plan that Rep. Macias and cronies spur is insane. But then, “the world is full of madmen,” Goethe wrote. “You need not seek them in a madhouse.” Will such congressmen listen? Not likely. Their fortunes are on the line here. Like the’ “unjust steward,” they’re scrambling for even dwarf-size safety nets, facing dismissal.
But is time running out on the “tullymanderers”? Rep. del Mar has noted that Congress has other major bills on it’s plate: from a stalled budget to the anti-terrorsim law, not to mention the impeachment. Objections to local self-seeking bills will erupt, from plenary in the House to the Senate, if it gets that far.
We must watch. Or we’ll find midget provinces ruled by dwarf governors --- as Gulliver discovered when he waded ashore in Honyhonhmm Land.
(E-mail: juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional propagandists:Accomplices in crime
|
|
|
|
|
REPEAT the lies often enough, and they are eventually perceived by others to be the truths. The most evil liars, like the notorious Nazi war criminal Goebbels, live by this truism. The practitioners of this profession have sunk (no, not elevated) the practice of this calling to it its lowest level in the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
We sometimes wonder how they can still sleep soundly. How they could still face their wife and children the next morning on the breakfast table without being bothered by their conscience.
In the past, these professional propagandists just go about their jobs routinely, free from any pangs of conscience, isolating the practice of their skills from any considerations of professional ethics and morality. “Trabaho lang ito.” (It’s only a job). They do not care if by the exercise of their craft, they enable their masters to steal and plunder in their positions of political power, and cause untold economic and social problems for their constituents. They do not care if they trample on the human rights of the governed. Or even cause lives to be terminated unjustly.
For after all, if and when the masters they serve are booted out of power, only these masters suffer in defeat or even death. They as the “professionals” remain untouched.
They have mastered the art of political survival. They will just lie low for a while. Return to their coffee shop crowds and through their connections, snake their way into the new power circles. And wage battles in the war of ideas another day.
These propagandists could do these. They could claim, maybe rightfully so, that they never participated in the plunder their earlier masters had conducted. They never lifted a hand to hold a gun and shoot somebody in the head. They merely closed their eyes to these criminal acts and spread a different story to the people.
And they would “professionally” do exactly the same thing for their new masters. And they would continue to sleep soundly at night. Fill their dining tables with expensive food, send their children to expensive schools, and be able to afford a luxurious roof over their family’s heads.
And totally ignore their conscience. It’s only a job.
And so they help to cover up massive plunder of the fertilizer fund for the poor farmers. They help to hide the plunder of trust funds belonging to the overseas contract workers, and thus place their lives at risk in a raging war in Lenanon.
No, that war is far from over. The risk to more than 25,000 OFW’s remaiining in Lebanon is still there. The apalling probability of thousands of bodybags arriving home still exists.
If one realizes the heavy responsibility these “professional” propagandists for helping to make these things happen, they should indeed be made responsible and be made accountable also as accomplices of the actual plunderers and killers. They are just as guilty as the teams of military that kidnap and kill the militants and journalists whose lives are being snuffed out like flies.
The Best Argument for the Senate
A constitutional crisis is abuilding between the Philippine Senate and Malacanang. It is over the notorious Executive Order 464, to which the Supreme Court has attached a hazy interpretation. The new Senate President, Sen. Manny Villar, seems set to play hardball with the Palace by citing administration officials who will refuse to heed the Senate invitation to appear as witnesses and throw light on the missing Overseas Workers Fund of over P500 million.
Will they be able to cite the officials for contempt and jail them if they fail to appear before the Senators?
Or will the case just go the way of Comelec Commissioner Garciliano, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales or former Agriculture Undersecretary Joc-Joc Bolante?
Through the proposed Charter Change being pushed by GMA, it is the latter’s desire to abolish the Senate. But the treatment being administered by GMA and his cohorts in the House of Representatives is the best argument for keeping the Senate.
If the Senate goes, GMA with its compliant House, submissive Supreme Court, obedient Armed Forces and National Police, will deliver to her on a silver platter the entire country lock, stock and barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32-year old child gets green card under CSPA
|
|
|
|
IN A recent unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that a 32-year-old single alien was eligible for a green card (and adjustment of status) under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) by using the old 1983 priority date from an F-4 petition filed by her aunt for her mother (sister to sister).
At the time the aunt’s petition was originally filed, the alien was only nine years old. However, she was 22 years old when the priority date on the aunt’s petition was finally “current” in 1996, and therefore she was no longer a “derivative” beneficiary (because she turned 21). At the time of the BIA decision, she was 32 years old, seeking benefits under CSPA.
Although “unpublished” decisions are not “binding authority” on the USCIS, I would argue that these decisions demonstrate the way in which the BIA is interpreting the law, and how it would decide similar cases if USCIS denied those cases and the cases were appealed.
This decision could benefit other aliens, because it effectively would allow certain children who aged out, while waiting for the priority date, to use the old priority date on their parents’ petition (i.e. a petition filed by a grandparent, uncle or aunt many years ago.) This case indicates that the “child” can use the parents’ old priority date.
By way of background, CSPA contains a complex mathematical formula for children of non-citizens for purposes of calculating their cage. Under the formula, the child’s age is calculated by taking into account the length of time it took Immigration to approve the underlying petition, from the date of filing to the date of eventual approval.
That length of time is then deducted from the child’s age when the priority date eventually becomes current. For example, if it took three months for Immigration to approve a petition, then the child can subtract three months from his or her age when the priority date becomes current.
If it took Immigration three years to approve the petition, then the child would be able to subtract three years from his or her age. Thus, the longer it took Immigration to approve a petition, the more time a child could subtract from his or her age.
CSPA also contains another provision that if the age of the child is determined, under this mathematical formula, to be 21 years of age or older, “the alien’s petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.” It was that particular provision of CSPA that was the subject of this BIA decision.
In that case, a 32-year-old single woman claimed that she was eligible to adjust her status (be interviewed for a green card in the US) based on an old 1983 petition filed by the alien’s aunt for the alien’s mother when the alien was only nine years old. Because it took so many years for the priority date on that petition to become current, the alien was already 22 years old when the priority date became current and thus she “aged out.” The alien contended that since, under the CSPA, her category was “automatically... converted” to the F-2B category (single adult child of immigrant parent), then she should be able to retain her mother’s original 1983 priority date (on the aunt’s petition) for purposes of adjustment of status in the F-2B preference category. Since the F-2B priority date was long beyond 1983, she was eligible to adjust status.
The BIA held, “We agree with the respondent that where an alien was classified as a derivative beneficiary of the original petition, the ‘appropriate category’ for purposes of section 203(h)(3) is that which applies to the ‘aged out’ derivative vis-à-vis the principal beneficiary of the original petition.” In this case, the BIA ruled that the “appropriate category” to which the alien’s petition was converted is the second- preference category of the family based immigrants, i.e. the unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residence. “Furthermore, the respondent is entitled to retain the... 1983 priority date that applied to the original fourth-preference petition, and therefore a visa number under the second-preference category is immediately available to the respondent.” In other words, the alien’s F-4 derivative status automatically converted to F-2B, and using the F-4 priority date, she was immediately eligible to adjust status.
I know that there have been many situations where a parent was petitioned by a mother or father, or brother or sister, when their children were small. But after so many years, those children turned 21 before the priority date on the parent’s petition became current, and the child aged out and was left behind. This new BIA case would seem to bring the parent’s old petitions “back to life” by allowing the derivative child to have the petition possibly “convert” to F-2B, and apply the parent’s priority date from the original petition filed on behalf of the parent.
Again, I emphasize that it is an unpublished decision, but at least it interprets CSPA in a way that is extremely beneficial to aliens. In addition, there are other issues in determining whether CSPA applies, such as whether the alien “applied” for a visa within one year of visa “availability,” and whether there had been a “final determination” on the case. That is why it is important to seek the advice of an attorney, because if this does apply, the child you left behind could be “legal” sooner than you expected. If your family is in this situation, I would strongly recommend that you seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who can evaluate your situation, and see if it is similar to this BIA case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
