Romanticizing Filipino resiliency

COVID-19 Special Issue Volume 40, Issue 4

commentaries Romanticizing Filipino resiliency

“We heal as one”, a fitting tagline for The Bayanihan to Heal as One Act or R.A. 11469, takes into account the most prominent feature of Filipinos- a warm personality exhibited by smiles no matter the situation. That we are resilient, standing up and rebuilding a day or two after a calamity, finding alternative sources of income during quarantine in this new normal. But as much as we all smile for the camera, it doesn’t mean that everything’s fine the way it is. That instead of taking a proactive approach, we accept the bare minimum and positively accept any hardship that may come, all in the name of the “Filipino spirit”.

Resiliency, according to Merriam-Webster, means “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change”. Yet it seems that “Filipino Resiliency” does not particularly echo that definition. We often attribute resiliency to Filipinos being able to help one another get back up after natural calamities, like during the aftermath of Super Typhoon Yolanda. We admire and congratulate children who persevere in crossing mountains and rivers just to be able to get an education amidst limited resources (that are often personally provided by their teachers).

Now, with a global pandemic disrupting everyone’s lives, we have devised different ways on how to adapt and live on in a “new normal”. However, this representation of resilience has made us too independent and self-reliant that it makes complaining about the current situation frowned upon. We hesitate in saying “enough is enough” to people in positions that should be helping us but instead continue to only urge us to give donations and work together by ourselves, demanding discipline and compliance to laws enacted.

We need to stop romanticizing Filipino resiliency. Firstly, this encourages toxic positivity. Merely looking at the “bright side” and not demanding changes in the system will only continue to oppress those under it. We cannot simply move on with our lives and not process the trauma we experienced. Complaining is not a bad thing, most especially if it is within reason and with valid proof; the only way to correct what is wrong is first acknowledging it before finding the best solution. This was exhibited with the public response during Taal Volcano’s eruption early this year, as the people focused on giving immediate relief and were not easily impressed with half-hearted excuses by authorities when asked about disaster relief funds.

Second, we must know the past in order to correct its mistakes and prevent it from happening again in the future. We often forgive and forget past transgressions and do not seek to learn and improve the ever-present problem. We become too complacent and instead use this resiliency as a substitute for how the government addresses the situation. History can be our basis to understand how current events came to be, recognize patterns of events, learn from our losses and predict what comes after.

Finally, we need to choose who we put in positions of authority. True leaders must go beyond their individualistic tendencies and prioritize the people they will serve. We must demand accountability and concrete evidence of improvement must be seen. Financial transparency must also be adopted since it is the people’s money being used, and thus should be used wisely by someone who translates and solves the people’s grievances. This is a necessity most especially during this pandemic, where emergency funds are being released and constant loans are being taken by the country. After all, it will be the current and future taxpayers’ burden to pay off the country’s debts, so it’ll be best if we get our money’s worth.

Our resilience has been taken advantage of. Some think that Filipinos are resilient, therefore it is excusable if government aid and restoration efforts are delayed. It has turned into a misguidance for a better reality, clinging to this passive, positive mindset and forgetting that we also need concrete, real, and long-term solutions. We cannot just wait for various acts of our bayanihan spirit to dictate the assurance of our safety and stability, because that is the job of the government.

Don’t get me wrong, I like seeing inspirational stories of people seeing a light at the end of the road and managing to get up—that there is hope. That we can continue to find alternative ways of living, that we as a community can work together and inspire others. But the continuous flashing of such stories also makes me frustrated—'yun nalang ba? Also, those featured portraying Filipino resiliency are most often belonging to the poor and marginalized. This just highlights social inequality; we do not call the rich resilient—why would we? They never had a need for it. We’ve romanticized being victims of the circumstance that we’ve normalized coping with perceived powerlessness, or simply waiting until the problem passes.

Resiliency is not enough. Active change should be expected and implemented, not just the bare minimum. To romanticize Filipino Resiliency is to negate every reason why we are resilient in the first place. We do not live in an ideal world where romanticizing resilience is enough. The true Filipino Spirit can take everything with a smile and makes it sure that what was once a hindrance will never again hinder us in the future. Patricia Gabrielle MARQUEZ

Our resilience “

has been taken advantage of. Some think that Filipinos are resilient, therefore it is excusable if government aid and restoration efforts are delayed. It has turned into a misguidance for a better reality, clinging to this passive, positive mindset and forgetting that we also need concrete, real, and long-term solutions.

commentaries

COVID-19 Special Issue Volume 40, Issue 4

Mauren Dorothy MERCA

“If academic

freeze will be effective this coming academic year, students and educators will be free from the work load as well as academic pressure that will add on to the stress brought by the pandemic. Thus, they can focus more on their families and basic necessities.

Choosing the lesser evil

Though the semester for school year 2020-2021 is right around the corner, many students are still on the fence whether they would continue their education and proceed with online classes or delay and prioritize their welfare. Many have displayed strong opposition to the idea of distance and blended learning for the said academic year and advocated Academic Freeze.

Academic freeze will be inclusive – students, faculties, employees of both the public and private sectors. It promotes the concept of not leaving a single student behind. If academic freeze will be effective this coming academic year, students and educators will be free from the work load as well as academic pressure that will add on to the stress brought by the pandemic. Thus, they can focus more on their families and basic necessities.

Contrary to academic freeze, the government has leaned towards continuing the education in the country through blended learning and online classes. This will require gadgets, stable internet connection and a great deal of self-sufficiency from students, educators and parents. Which are all exclusive only to those who can afford it. This is one of the biggest problem in pursuing this kind of medium of education, it is only for the privileged.

If we hold this school year, everything will follow. For the private sectors and non-tenure position in the academe, many will be laid-off from work, thus increasing the number of unemployment amid the pandemic. No academic year means no graduates, which will lead to low human resource in some fields and then prompts to cripple a part of the economy. And if the economy goes down, so will we.

Also some students just can’t afford the delay. With the pandemic causing financial problems to some, there is no longer a choice for them but to push through with online classes in order to get a degree and land a job with a decent pay to help their families. However, to some education is no longer an option since their basic needs are already on the line.

In choosing which the lesser evil is, we must first acknowledge that there is no equity in education amid the pandemic.

Some LGUs set-up possible solutions regarding this, some are to distribute gadgets and some provided internet connection in places of their jurisdiction. Although these might not seem solid solutions, it must still be recognized that it is a start. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Land Bank of the Philippines are offering a study-now-pay-later loan for eligible students and recipients. Some private institutions provided their students with the resources that they need for online classes. Unfortunately this is only available to those who are within reach of these organizations, the study-now-pay-later loans from the GSIS and Land Bank are still exclusive only to those who will meet the requirement.

Many countries have move propelled in facing this pandemic. Some have flattened the curve and allowed the normal face-to-face classes. As soon as they started having children go to school, number of cases immediately increased. Have we learned nothing from them? We, who are still in the first wave and have not yet lifted the quarantine since it was first imposed are proposing that some classes will be held face-to-face in low risk areas.

Aside from health risk and financial matters, the learning competency of students is also a liability in choosing the lesser evil. Some schools have already adopted the blended learning style of education even before the pandemic. However, this is not the case for all institutions. In face-to-face classes, educators have different types of teaching in order to accommodate different learning styles of the students. They cater to the needs for the students, but with online classes most students will be forced to read and understand their modules and PowerPoint presentations on their own; it is expected that students will be provided with mere instructions. Skill-based programs will be difficult to execute in such terms. Are assessments going to be valid and effective in this type of education?

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila is one of the universities that provide free quality education in accordance with the Free Tuition Law. The said law grants the right to access to quality tertiary education. Would online classes do justice to the law? Is “quality” still on the table? Provided that PLM is known to produce competent graduates, will this still be the case even if students were taught online? How will the institution uphold kadakilaan, karunungan at kaunlaran knowing that some of its students are left behind?

This is no longer a question of which is the lesser evil. People in power will decide on how many will be victims of the crooked system.

ILLUSTRATION BY CATHERINE ESTORIL