MC2020
On 19 September 2018, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III proposed to change the last line of Lupang Hinirang, the national anthem, from ang mamatay nang dahil sa'yo to ang ipaglaban kalayaan mo, since the prior reflects a “defeatist” attitude, according to his notion.
This suggestion received instant flak from different kinds of people including netizens, which made Sotto back out from his initial proposal on the evening of September 20 through a post on Twitter.
However, even if he already conceded to the backlash, it is still important to understand why a large number of many people, including us, were against the amendment.
Above all else, any change done to the anthem, no matter how small, is still a change. Such change to the lyrics, language, or arrangement of the song risks creating a different meaning entirely, possibly leading to the loss of its essence.
It can be said that this is no less different from revising the whole song, but this option is also arduous and inefficient.
It is still possible to amend the National Anthem without risking the meaning though. By this, we must take into account the history and the circumstances of the song’s creation.
The history of the anthem goes way back to the Spanish colonization era when Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned Julian Felipe to compose the march for the First Philippine Republic in 1898. It was only in 1899 that Jose Palma wrote the poem “Filipinas” which became the lyrics for the anthem. It then went through multiple changes and revisions until the version we use now was made by Felipe Padilla de Leon in the 1960’s.
In connection to the mentioned changes, Dr. José Victor Torres, a professor of history at the De La Salle University, said, “Any changes can be proposed, but the question is, tama ba 'yung ginagawa? It is not right. Kailangan makita ang buong konteksto ng kanta. Bakit 'yan nilagay diyan?"
He also added that the line subject to revision does not reflect a defeatist attitude; rather, a patriotic one, since dying is the highest form of sacrifice one can make in the name of their country.
If the line was changed to the proposed one, the sentiment of the anthem would become tepid compared to the historical version. It is also downright insulting to those who are actually offering their lives for the country, such as policemen, soldiers, and national heroes. This makes the suggestion an insufficient alternative.
With Sotto’s proposal, the issues on modernization and misinterpretation were also brought up.
The prior issue is clearly unnecessary if it is understood that the anthem depicts a historical expression. For the latter, such misinterpretations are quite negligible considering that a majority of Filipinos still understand the essence of the lyrics. Despite this, proper education for the citizens can solve any misunderstanding regarding the anthem.
Thus, Sotto’s proposal is unnecessary for the country's current situation since it does not require any immediate action. Instead, other urgent and more important economic issues such as the tumbling stock market and costs resulting from natural disasters should be addressed.
The saying “If it ain't broke, don't fix it,” perfectly captures the triviality of this proposal. Instead of wasting time adding changes to a stable national anthem, it is much more productive to focus on other pressing matters that actually need solutions.
To say the least, the only change we need right now is for our government officials to not make distractions and competently handle our country's problems instead.
Editorial: A not-so problem solved
 |
| Photo Credit: Media Center Batch 2020 |
On 19 September 2018, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III proposed to change the last line of Lupang Hinirang, the national anthem, from ang mamatay nang dahil sa'yo to ang ipaglaban kalayaan mo, since the prior reflects a “defeatist” attitude, according to his notion.
This suggestion received instant flak from different kinds of people including netizens, which made Sotto back out from his initial proposal on the evening of September 20 through a post on Twitter.
However, even if he already conceded to the backlash, it is still important to understand why a large number of many people, including us, were against the amendment.
Above all else, any change done to the anthem, no matter how small, is still a change. Such change to the lyrics, language, or arrangement of the song risks creating a different meaning entirely, possibly leading to the loss of its essence.
It can be said that this is no less different from revising the whole song, but this option is also arduous and inefficient.
It is still possible to amend the National Anthem without risking the meaning though. By this, we must take into account the history and the circumstances of the song’s creation.
The history of the anthem goes way back to the Spanish colonization era when Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned Julian Felipe to compose the march for the First Philippine Republic in 1898. It was only in 1899 that Jose Palma wrote the poem “Filipinas” which became the lyrics for the anthem. It then went through multiple changes and revisions until the version we use now was made by Felipe Padilla de Leon in the 1960’s.
In connection to the mentioned changes, Dr. José Victor Torres, a professor of history at the De La Salle University, said, “Any changes can be proposed, but the question is, tama ba 'yung ginagawa? It is not right. Kailangan makita ang buong konteksto ng kanta. Bakit 'yan nilagay diyan?"
He also added that the line subject to revision does not reflect a defeatist attitude; rather, a patriotic one, since dying is the highest form of sacrifice one can make in the name of their country.
If the line was changed to the proposed one, the sentiment of the anthem would become tepid compared to the historical version. It is also downright insulting to those who are actually offering their lives for the country, such as policemen, soldiers, and national heroes. This makes the suggestion an insufficient alternative.
With Sotto’s proposal, the issues on modernization and misinterpretation were also brought up.
The prior issue is clearly unnecessary if it is understood that the anthem depicts a historical expression. For the latter, such misinterpretations are quite negligible considering that a majority of Filipinos still understand the essence of the lyrics. Despite this, proper education for the citizens can solve any misunderstanding regarding the anthem.
Thus, Sotto’s proposal is unnecessary for the country's current situation since it does not require any immediate action. Instead, other urgent and more important economic issues such as the tumbling stock market and costs resulting from natural disasters should be addressed.
The saying “If it ain't broke, don't fix it,” perfectly captures the triviality of this proposal. Instead of wasting time adding changes to a stable national anthem, it is much more productive to focus on other pressing matters that actually need solutions.
To say the least, the only change we need right now is for our government officials to not make distractions and competently handle our country's problems instead.
0 comments: