Were Secretary Martin Andanar an authentic columnist and not someone fronting for a ghost writer as some would suspect, he should create a specific bureau in his department whose main task is to simplify some terms and catch-phrases that workers in the government bureaucracy use in communicating their ideas not only to each to other but also to the public at large.
Let me state off-hand that they are free to use whatever verbs and adjectives that please them at will. It goes with the territory, including their preferences for that slang ‘yah’ rather than ‘yes.”
Nor do I take issue with the use of English as a medium of communication in conferences and meetings, never mind if most in the audience have difficulty straining their ears to get the message across.
It sets us apart as a nation. It does not make us look Third World on the surface that is.
But where I currently sit going over copies of newly-filed news reports, I think some of these verb-phrases needed to be simplified “to understand as to be understood.”
Consider this paragraph for instance:
MinDA deputy executive director Romeo Montenegro said the Department of Energy is currently rolling out the possibility of introducing a wholesale electricity market in Mindanao considering the changes it is currently experiencing in its energy landscape.
The verb-phrase ‘rolling out’ seemed to stick out like a sore thumb, because ‘raising’ was more in keeping with the context.
I heard “roll out” several times from the national conferences that this city hosted over the past few months and one of those who used it was DTI’s Art Boncato. In the context of how he used it in a press conference, ‘to roll out’ sounded more like “to implement.”
Help Secretary Andanar.
Another term that kept on popping up every time the peace talks are discussed concerned “inclusive peace.”
One news account even used “all-inclusive peace.”
Truth to tell there I would readily agree with a few Lumad elders who told a press conference in Davao City that the use of the term ‘inclusive peace’ was more of a misnomer “as it involved only the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the various armed groups—NPA, MNLF and MILF.
One Lumad elder asked: “What about us whose lands are often the sites of conflicts between these armed groups?”
Good question, matikadong. Considering that ‘inclusive’ is seen to mean widespread how come indeed that they are not part of the peace process?
For that matter, how come that the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera region of northern Philippines are not involved in the peace process when they are also victims of injustices and underdevelopment? Are they not also to be consulted in how their resources are exploited and in their right to self-determination?
Or is this not a case of Mindanao talking to itself? Did’nt President Duterte himself say it many times over that no one should be left behind?
“All-inclusive peace” for its part sounded redundant, if now overly-assuming.
“Inclusive growth” also appears to be the mantra of every government department these days. But again as in “inclusive peace” this seemed to be more of government talking to itself. There is the Mindanao Railways and the projected BIMP-EAGA development packages but again what is in it for the various Lumad communities of Mindanao?
And for that matter, what is in it for the various indigenous peoples of Luzon?
Or is government merely content on treating them as objects of oddity and charity as we witness every Christmas season?
Another term that keeps on popping up is ‘inter-connectivity” especially as used by the DTI, DOT and Department of Finance and in the stories churned out by the state-owned news agency.
My limited understanding is that it refers to some sort of a network linking railways, seaports and airports but there could be more. Maybe it also refers to people or nationalities.
Maybe it is not to be confused with ‘interlocking” as in ‘interlocking directorates’ or ‘interlocking’ connections as shown in a drug matrix.
Finally, which of the two government really intend to do—‘poverty alleviation’ or ‘poverty reduction’?
It is clear from the few speeches of President Duterte that his administration was really intent on cutting down or reducing poverty. But time and again, I hear some government officials advert to ‘poverty alleviation’ as if it were the real thing. I recall the late Urban poor Sectoral Rep. Rey Magno Teves who said ‘alleviation’ was simply inaccurate because it merely offers surface or band-aid solution as opposed to ‘reduction’ which says a mouthful.
Well, if Secretary Andanar was the media worker and not a news reader as some perceived him to be, his office should come up with a glossary of terms that would help ease the load of editors and media workers during press coverage and press conferences.
For if reporters themselves would find difficulty in understanding what news sources themselves would want to impart, how can they craft or present (in the case of TV) and end-product that is easily understood by the public at large? (JKL)
