The use of language to reinforce a sense of identity is a well established strategy not only for cementing unity among various groups but also for the process of nation-building. This is particularly made more urgent when the political body that is being imagined is drawn from a complex multilingual landscape, as in the case of the Philippines. The debate on the necessity to have a national language started early. In 1908, during the Philippine Commonwealth, the Philippine commission crafted a proposal to establish an Institute of Philippine Languages to help craft an indigenous Filipino language, but such proposal was defeated by forces in the Philippine Assembly, under the leadership of Leon Ma. Guerrero, who chaired the Assembly’s Committee on Public Instruction, who feared that adopting the proposal would mean the displacement of English as an official medium of communication (Rubrico, 1998).
Despite this early setback, proponents of a national language based on the local Philippine languages continued their advocacy, notable among which were Lope K. Santos and Manuel V. Gallego. In 1932, the vernacular was adopted as a medium of instruction in the primary and secondary levels. The 1935 Constitution enshrined the ideals of the proponents for a national language in Section 3, Article XIII, which mandated for the development and adoption of a common language that will be based on one of the existing languages. In 1936, the National Language institute was established to implement the Constitutional mandate. Based on critical comparative linguistic analysis, using as standard for selection the language which it deemed most structurally developed, with an equally developed associated body of literary genres and which had the widest acceptability and usage, the Institute recommended Tagalog to become the national language. Over two decades later in 1959, the Education Department changed the name of the national language to Pilipino (Rubrico, 1998).
Despite the decision, the debate continued, with regional groups challenging the propagation of Pilipino. Nevertheless, and over the objections of the oppositors, the Board of National Education mandated in 1970 the adoption of Pilipino as medium of instruction initially in the primary level but gradually progressing until the 4th year of the secondary level. It also mandated the use of Pilipino in teaching Rizal and history courses at the college level. In 1973, the Board shifted to the adoption of a bilingual approach in education, in which the vernacular was used in the first two grades at the primary level, Pilipino for the next two grades, and Pilipino and English for the last two grades at the primary level up to the tertiary levels. The 1972 and 1987 Constitutions both reiterated the development of the national language, now referred to as Filipino, even as they also both directed for the continuation of both Filipino and English as official languages (Rubrico, 1998).
The selection of Tagalog as the core of the national language, while sanctioned by law and gradually gaining acceptance, continues to be a sore point particularly from the perspectives of regional language advocates. At the same time, the globalization paradigm and the opportunities which it has opened to the Filipino labor force, presumably employable due to its relative proficiency in English, given more impetus with the demand for an English-proficient workforce required by the call-center industry, has resurrected the move to go back to English as a medium of instruction even at the primary levels. In 2006, Executive Order 210 was issued by Malacanang which directed the Department of Education (DepEd) to strengthen the use of English as a medium of instruction in all levels. DepEd eventually issued Department Order 36 in compliance of the Executive Order. Both EO 210 and DepEd Order 36 were challenged by several groups for their violation of the 1987 Constitution which specifically declared Filipino as the national language and mandated for its continued use as medium of official communication and instruction (Coalition for a Correct Language Policy, 2007).
In the 13th Congress, House Bill 4701 was filed by Rep. Eduardo Gullas of Cebu, proposing for the enhancement and strengthening of English as the sole medium of instruction from the fourth grade at the primary level up to the tertiary level. Meanwhile, it provides for the use of English and Filipino or the vernacular as medium for pre-school and the first three grades of the primary level. The Bill was certified as urgent by Malacanang, and was approved by the House of Representatives in 2006 but was not acted upon by the Senate. After his reelection in 2007 to the 14th Congress, Rep. Gullas has since re-filed his Bill in 2008, now referred to as House Bill 5619 after it was consolidated with other similar bills. While the Bill has gained significant supporters in the House of Representatives, it was challenged by another group of legislators led by Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo of Valenzuela City, now assisted by language experts in academe, who filed an alternative Bill, House Bill 3719 which was premised on the child’s first language principle at the primary level progressing into multilingualism at the higher levels. Specifically, under the Bill, the vernacular will be used as the primary medium of instruction in all subjects from the pre-school until the third grade of the primary level. Furthermore, the vernacular, English and Filipino will also be taught as separate subjects at these levels. At the higher primary levels, English and Filipino will now be introduced as medium of instruction in some subjects. Beginning at the secondary levels, English and Filipino will now be used as medium of instruction, with the vernacular being used as an auxiliary medium. Language experts have expressed their support to the Gunigundo Bill on the ground that the use of the vernacular as medium of instruction particularly at the early years of a child’s education has been proven in many scientific studies to be more effective (Llanto, 2009).
Scientific studies aside, the Gunigundo Bill has also captured the support of regional groups that have long challenged the use of Filipino as medium of instruction at the primary and secondary levels. Politically, the Gunigundo Bill becomes a rallying point that gave another face to the seemingly regionalistic resistance to the propagation of Filipino as the national language. What further amplifies the political usefulness of the Bill is found also in how it coincides with the agenda of those who have long advocated for the idea of regional autonomy, which for many will be realized through a shift to a federal form of government. However, while the Bill is laudable in its promotion of an appropriate approach to education that is warranted by scientific studies, there is no provision on adequate resources that would ensure the smooth implementation of its intent. It is here that the roots to the discomfort of many people, who may not be hostile to the adoption of multilingualism as a principle but is wary of the consequences of a legislated language policy that is not matched by adequate resources, are anchored. For example, supporters of Filipino as a national language and a medium of instruction fear that lack of resources may eventually undermine the spirit of multilingualism and may in fact unwittingly lead to the strengthening of English as a medium of instruction (Anonuevo, 2008). Worse, it may end up not improving English proficiency even as it undermines the development of proficiency in Filipino and the local languages. As it is, there are not enough resources allocated by the national government for the development and intellectualization of the Filipino language. In the event of a passage of the Gunigundo Bill, all other regional languages, and even local dialects that are considered as the child’s first language, will have to be given resources to be used for the development of textbooks, teaching manuals and materials, as well as for teacher training. This will create an enormous strain on available resources, made particularly even more critical considering the prevailing economic crisis.
The fear is also founded on the possible appropriation of a very laudable movement to recognize regional languages by those whose interests are less on the language, but more on the real political agenda of constitutional reform towards a federal form of government, which in the end may serve the self-interests of some political players who may seize the opening to insert other non-linguistic and non-federal form related amendments and revisions. Meanwhile, we are now seeing the specter of a revival of the painful language debates, albeit now casted in a different discourse, in which wounds that are gradually healing from the fractures that emerged when Tagalog was chosen to be the core of the national language are now again re-opened and rubbed. There is political sense in juxtaposing the language issue with the form by which sovereignty is crafted in relation to the unitary state, as it may just provide the necessary institutional mechanism to enrich our systems of governance in the face of our multiple ethnicities. However, this may also create a dangerous scenario in which dubious political agenda will now hijack the organic cultural processes and appropriate this in ways that would not serve the interests of regional autonomy nor of the promotion of the regional languages. Worst, it may open spaces for movements that far from consolidating the process of nation building, may in fact lead to its fracturing and fragmentation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment