Is Gretchen Barretto really The Filipino's friend?

Dear Filipino,

I just want to say that I am really enjoying reading some of your posts and most of the time I am laughing my ass off.  But are you really friends with Gretchen Barreto?  Dannnnggg!

Keep up your good work, my friend!

Ray G.

Dear Ray,

Thanks for the luv, kaibigan!  Thanks for the luv!

Now, the topic of your question -- i.e., my friendship with famous Philippine actress Gretchen Barretto -- is a profound and complicated one.  So in order to answer it, I first broke it down into its logical components: whether we can be friends, whether she's qualified to be my friend, whether we chose to be friends, and whether we can remain friends. 

Then, I sought the wise counsel of the learned from across the globe and throughout human history.  I looked at the "rules" they have laid down on the issue and I "applied" it to myself vis-a-vis my friendship with Gretchen -- the friendship which you now question.

So let's look at these rules one by one.

First Rule: The wise and great Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 BC) advised us:

"Have no friends not equal to yourself."

Application of the Rule:  According to my mother, I'm really, really good-looking.  People, of course, say Gretchen is very, very beautiful.  In my book, my mother's opinion on this issue carries the same weight as all others.'  So I guess, it's fair to say that Gretchen is my equal, right?  In other words, she can be my friend.

Second Rule: For his part, the American poet, essayist and leading figure of the Transcendentalist movement, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), opined:

"A friend may well be reckoned the masterpiece of Nature."

Application of the Rule: With Gretchen, I reckon we can take the Emersonian advice literally, don't you think?  I mean, hey, she's Nature's beautiful creation, right?  If so, then she  qualifies to be my friend.

Third Rule: Then, the French poet extraordinaire, Jacques Delille (1738-1813), commanded us:

"Fate chooses your relations, you choose your friends."

Application of the Rule: Now, I think this mandate is the hidden genius behind the idea of Facebook which the founder, Mark Zuckerberg, who is single and is only 26, has impressively figured out early on in his life.  I mean, it's really brilliant because what Delille is saying is this: I may have no say who gets to be my mother-in-law, but I get to choose who I want as my friends.  I chose Gretchen so I requested to be her friend on Facebook; irresistibly drawn to my online charm, she accepted.  Ergo: we're friends because we chose to be friends.

Fourth Rule: Here's the tough part: The British poet and leading figure in Romanticism, the great Lord Byron (1788-1824), required thusly:

"Friendship is love without his wings."

Application of the Rule:  Like Aristotle before him, Lord Byron was really comparing friendship with romantic love when he said that.  And what he really meant is this: That while friendship is usually between people of the same sex, a friendly relationship between a man and a woman is also fine. However, if one party has unrequited sexual feelings towards the other, it can cause the withdrawal of the desired party from the relationship, and friendship will therefore disintegrate because of that.

What this means is that as long as Gretchen does not fall in love or exhibit any sort of carnal desire towards yours truly, we can remain friends; if she does, I'm out.  In other words, the burden really is on her.

Now, admittedly, it's going to be a heavy burden for her to bear, but I'd like to think it's doable.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Dear Reader: Want to become friends with The Filipino?  Look him up on Facebook where he's known as "Ask ThePinoy," send a Friend Request, and if you're good-looking enough, he might just accept your request.  Mabuhay!  ;-)

Does Prof. Amy Chua have any other "connection" to the Philippines?

Prof. Amy Chua, author of the new book entitled "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother," is probably one of the most talked about persons in the world right now because of a purported "essay," which is actually a collage of sentences and paragraphs from her book taken out of context and probably put together by some people working for the Journal or the book's publisher to create a sensation. New revelations show the book is much more nuanced and thoughtfully written.

In 2003, Prof. Chua had also written a thoughtful book entitled "World on Fire," which "explores the ethnic conflict caused in many societies by disproportionate economic and political influence of 'market dominant minorities' and the resulting resentment in the less affluent majority."  In the book, she relates a very personal and engrossing story involving her extended family in the Philippines.  The following paragraphs are excerpts from the book:

One morning in September 1994, I received a call from my mother in California. In a hushed voice, she told me that my Aunt Leona, my father’s twin sister, had been murdered in her home in the Philippines, her throat slit by her chauffeur. My mother broke the news to me in our Hokkien Chinese dialect. But the word “murder” she said in English, as if to wall off the act from the family through language.

The murder of a relative is horrible for anyone, anywhere. My father’s grief was impenetrable; to this day, he has not broken his silence on the subject. For the rest of the family, though, there was an added element of disgrace. For the Chinese, luck is a moral attribute, and a lucky person would never be murdered. Like having a birth defect, or marrying a Filipino, being murdered is shameful.

My three younger sisters and I were very fond of my Aunt Leona, who was petite and quirky and had never married. Like many wealthy Filipino Chinese she had multiple bank accounts, in Honolulu, San Francisco and Chicago. She visited us in the US regularly. Having no children of her own, she doted on her nieces and showered us with trinkets. As we grew older, the trinkets became treasures. On my tenth birthday she gave me ten small diamonds, wrapped in toilet paper. My aunt loved diamonds and bought them by the dozen, concealing them in empty Elizabeth Arden moisturiser jars. She liked accumulating things. When we ate at McDonald’s, she stuffed her Gucci purse with free packets of ketchup.

According to the police report, my Aunt Leona, “a 58-year-old single woman,” was killed in her living room with a “butcher’s knife” at 8pm on 12th September 1994. Two of her maids were questioned, and they confessed that Nilo Abique, my aunt’s chauffeur, had planned and executed the murder with their assistance. But Abique, the report went on to say, had “disappeared.” The two maids were later released.

My relatives arranged a funeral for my aunt in the prestigious Chinese cemetery in Manila where many of my ancestors are buried. After the funeral, I asked one of my uncles whether there had been any developments in the murder investigation. He replied tersely that the killer had not been found. His wife added that the police had essentially closed the case.

I could not understand my relatives’ almost indifferent attitude. Why were they not more shocked that my aunt had been killed by people who worked for her, lived with her, saw her every day? Why were they not outraged that the maids had been released? When I pressed my uncle, he was short with me. “That’s the way things are here,” he said.

My uncle was not simply being callous. My aunt’s death was part of a common pattern. Hundreds of Chinese are kidnapped or murdered every year by ethnic Filipinos. Nor is it unusual that my aunt’s killer was never apprehended. The police in the Philippines, all poor ethnic Filipinos themselves, are notoriously unmotivated in these cases.

My family is part of the Philippines’ tiny but economically powerful Chinese minority. Although they constitute 1 per cent of the population, Chinese Filipinos control about 60 per cent of the private economy, including the country’s four airlines and almost all of the banks, hotels, shopping malls, and big conglomerates. My own family runs a plastics conglomerate and owns swathes of prime real estate – and they are only “third-tier” Chinese tycoons. They also have safe deposit boxes full of gold bars, each one the size of a chocolate bar. I myself have such a gold bar. My Aunt Leona sent it to me as a law school graduation present a few years before she died.

Since my aunt’s murder, one childhood memory keeps haunting me. I was eight, staying at my family’s splendid hacienda-style house in Manila. It was before dawn, still dark. Wide awake, I decided to get a drink from the kitchen. I must have gone down an extra flight of stairs, because I stumbled on to six male bodies. I had found the male servants’ quarters, where my family’s houseboys, gardeners, and chauffeurs – I sometimes imagine that Nilo Abique was among them – were sleeping on mats on a dirt floor. The place stank of sweat and urine. I was horrified.

I mentioned the incident to my Aunt Leona, who laughed affectionately and explained that the Filipino servants were fortunate to be working for our family. If not for their positions, they would be living among rats and open sewers. A Filipino maid then walked in; she had a bowl of food for my aunt’s Pekingese. My aunt took the bowl but kept talking as if the maid were not there. The Filipinos, she continued – in Chinese, but not caring whether the maid understood or not – were lazy and unintelligent. If they didn’t like working for us, they were free to leave.

Nearly two thirds of the roughly 80m ethnic Filipinos in the Philippines live on less than $2 a day. But poverty by itself does not make people kill. To poverty must be added indignity, hopelessness and grievance. In the Philippines, millions of Filipinos work for Chinese; almost no Chinese work for Filipinos. The Chinese dominate industry and commerce at every level of society. Global markets intensify this dominance: When foreign investors do business in the Philippines, they deal almost exclusively with Chinese. Apart from a handful of corrupt politicians and a few aristocratic Spanish mestizo families, all of the Philippines’ billionaires are of Chinese descent. My relatives live literally walled off from the Filipino masses, in a luxurious, all-Chinese residential enclave, on streets named Harvard and Princeton. The entry points are manned by armed guards.

Each time I think of Nilo Abique – he was nearly six feet tall and my aunt was 4’11″ – I find myself welling up with a hatred and revulsion so intense it is actually consoling. But over time I have also had glimpses of how the vast majority of Filipinos, especially someone like Abique, must see the Chinese: as exploiters, foreign intruders, their wealth inexplicable, their superiority intolerable. I will never forget the entry in the police report for Abique’s “motive for murder.” The motive given was not robbery, despite the fact that jewels and money were taken. Instead there was just one word – “revenge.”

My aunt’s killing was just a pinprick in a violent world. But there is a connection between her murder and the Serbian concentration camps of the early 1990s, the murder of 800,000 Tutsis by ordinary Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the mobs in Indonesia in 1998 which looted hundreds of Chinese properties leaving nearly 2,000 dead and even the terror attacks of 11th September. The connection lies in the relationship among the three most powerful forces operating in the world today: markets, democracy and ethnic hatred. There exists today a phenomenon – pervasive outside the west yet rarely acknowledged, indeed often viewed as taboo – that turns free market democracy into an engine of ethnic conflagration. I am speaking of the phenomenon of market-dominant minorities: ethnic minorities who, for varying reasons, tend under market conditions to dominate economically, often to a startling extent, the indigenous majorities.

Market-dominant minorities can be found in every part of the world. The Chinese are a market-dominant minority throughout southeast Asia. In 1998, Chinese Indonesians, only 3 per cent of the population, controlled roughly 70 per cent of the private economy, including all of the big conglomerates. In Myanmar, the Chinese dominate the economies of Mandalay and Rangoon. Whites are a market-dominant minority in South Africa – and, in a more complex sense, in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala and much of Latin America. Indians have historically been a market-dominant minority in east Africa, the Lebanese in west Africa and the Ibo in Nigeria. Croats were a market-dominant minority in Yugoslavia, as Jews are in post-communist Russia (six of the seven biggest “oligarchs” are of Jewish origin). India has no market-dominant minority at the national level but plenty at the state level.

Market-dominant minorities are the Achilles heel of free market democracy. In societies with such a minority, markets and democracy favour not just different people or different classes but different ethnic groups. Markets concentrate wealth, often spectacular wealth, in the hands of the market-dominant minority, while democracy increases the political power of the impoverished majority. In these circumstances, the pursuit of free market democracy becomes an engine of potentially catastrophic ethnonationalism, pitting a frustrated indigenous majority, easily aroused by opportunistic politicians, against a resented, wealthy ethnic minority. This conflict is playing out in country after country today, from Bolivia to Sierra Leone, from Indonesia to Zimbabwe, from Russia to the middle east.

Since 11th September, the conflict has been brought home to the US. Americans are not an ethnic minority. But Americans are perceived as the world’s market-dominant minority, wielding disproportionate economic power. As a result, they have become the object of the same kind of popular resentment that afflicts the Chinese of southeast Asia, the whites of Zimbabwe, and the Jews of Russia....

Click here to read the remainder of the essay in Prospect Magazine.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Are Chinese mothers really superior in raising kids?

Dear Filipino,

Hey, thanks for sharing with me that Wall Street Journal article about "why Chinese mothers are superior."  I'm torn about it because there are definitely merits to both "Western" and "Eastern" styles of parenting, and of course, there's a wide spectrum of sub-styles under each.  Personally, I just hope that we keep working and trying to be good parents so that our kids will grow up to be happy, healthy and successful individuals. 

But what about you -- what do you think of the article? 

The Filipina

Dear Ina Ng Aking Mga Anak,

I shared that with you because in all my years reading the Wall Street Journal online, I've never, ever seen an article which has garnered as much comments as it has in such a short period of time.  So I'm glad you found it thought-provoking.

(From WSJ.com: Amy Chua with her kids.)

But let's not overlook the obvious:  The author, Amy Chua, wrote that provocative title and big teaser of an article because she's looking to sell her latest book, "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."  And despite the withering criticisms engendered by that article in the comments section, it definitely has some gems, especially because she seems to be successful at everything she does.  I mean, she's a Yale Law professor who writes books and spends that much time with her high-achieving kids too?

In any case, one thing I know is that it's really tough to be a parent.  It's particularly more difficult for me: I didn't grow up with a father because, as you know, he died when I was just a baby.  So, yeah, it's very difficult.  I mean, you're always wondering whether you're doing a good enough job for the kids, being there enough, preparing them well enough for life, shielding them enough, exposing them enough, letting them find their own selves enough, educating them enough, disciplining them enough, pushing them enough, hugging them enough, showing them we love them enough, etc.  And that's just for starters! 

So you're right: We can only try to do our best.  And I'm just actually thankful that you're there to serve as the Ilaw Ng Tahanan, among the many other things you do for our family. 

By the way, I think the following poem on parenting by Kahlil Gibran, the third best-selling poet of all time behind only Shakespeare and Lao Tzu, is instructive:

On Children

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you. 

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

NOTE:  This is still a developing story so I will be posting updates on this topic in the comments section.

Here's Prof. Chua in her appearance at The Today Show:

Q: How do you know you've achieved global immortality and rare celebrity status?
A: If you've had an animation clip made about you by Taiwan-based NMA.



Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

The Filipina's Take
(15 January 2011)

After reading several articles that discussed the essay, I was left with a very ugly feeling about our very sensationalist American media which obviously put together controversial parts of a book in order to get increased readership by portraying a very explosive angle, regardless of how different it is from what the author originally intended.

The huge number of comments is obviously caused by so many factors. One thing I noticed though is that the most passionate comments came from females. Maybe some will say that women are catty by nature, but it’s obviously more than that. (Actually, without having to open her mouth or write, I’m sure Chua was already making a lot of women feel much less accomplished and small. After all, she’s a fit, good-looking working mom, an Ivy League graduate with a great career as a law professor, who writes books on the side and claims to spend a lot of time with her kids; now, she's also portrayed as having a “superior” parenting style, too?)

It's tough to be a woman in today's modern world.  As discussed in an academic paper entitled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, a study found that “[t]he increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions [for women] have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up.” In other words, women today are faced with ever-increasing pressure to do well across several fronts, which leads to additional stress and unhappiness. Whether intended or otherwise, Chua’s article, despite her subsequent disclaimers, actually makes things worse for some women because it now introduces a purported superior parenting standard that they somehow need to measure up to.

Without reading the book and just judging from the articles and blogs I read, I can say that Amy’s story actually shows the challenges of a parent who was raised with a different set of values ("Chinese") and was faced with the choice of embracing the values of another culture, i.e., those of the larger American society. And by writing about the stark differences of the two “competing” philosophies, Chua, through the article, may have inadvertently hit women belonging to several camps: the stay-at-home moms who now have to contend with another “role model” whom they feel they will inevitably be compared to; the working moms who already feel guilty that they are not doing enough by their kids or spending more time with them; the Asian women who hate their Asian mothers for subscribing to similarly strict parenting techniques; the permissive moms who are already tired of being lectured to for being unable to control their kids; and the other so-called Western moms who are now probably feeling some pressure to rethink their fundamental values. And with China having an economy growing blindingly fast and seemingly accomplishing modern feats which shame the US, Chua’s timing could not be worse for these women. It’s almost like being in a kindergarten playground with a kid sticking her tongue out saying, “See, you’re not good enough!”  It's almost not surprising that Chua is getting death threats!

Because each culture comes with its unique traits, passions, values and set of priorities, stereotypes are legion. But these stereotypes, by definition, are not entirely unfounded. Personally, I’ve seen Korean parents, known for being hard-nosed when it comes to academics, shuttle their children to after-school learning centers so that their kids can do extra assignments and stay ahead of the curve. I’ve witnessed a white suburban father, who, to many Asians, represents that baseball-obsessed Caucasian, yell at his 5-year-old in little league, calling the boy an ‘a--’ because the child appeared to have a very low attention span on the field.  I’ve seen African American parents, thinking of sports scholarships and pro careers for their kids, shuttle their pre-teens between basketball and football, as well as travel across the country to watch their sons play in tournaments. I’ve seen parents who choose to coach just so they can dictate the number of practices and have better control over picking the team rotation so their kids are paired with the better players. In other words, I’ve seen parents of different colors bend over backwards for their kids because they valued something which they wanted to impart to their children, hoping, like all parents do, for their children to get ahead of their competition.

I do see merit in being strict and teaching your children the value of hard work and perseverance. I also subscribe to the notion that there is no skill that cannot be learned over time; with enough practice, one born without talent can match someone with inborn talent.  And I don’t think it helps parents when we take our kids to, say, baseball and at the end of the season, all the kids get a trophy just for participating, ostensibly so that they don’t lose their morale. Whatever happened to giving trophies only to the most valuable player and certificates of participation to the rest?

As a parent, if you don’t teach your kids that it’s not good enough to get a B, what happens when they get their first job and realize that rating, ranking and pay are dependent on their performance?  Do you just sit back and encourage mediocrity and hope that they will always just fall in the middle of the pack? Or worse, see them come back home to you because they got fired for underperformance?  At that point, it’s already too late.

My point, of course, is that you can’t expect to do well without putting in any effort.  Of course, I don’t subscribe to the extreme techniques because I think that at some point you have to strike a balance. Of course, there’s room for creativity and allowing the children to explore other activities. After all, if you want to instill the passion for music, piano and violin are not the only instruments; if they were the only ‘right’ instruments and everybody only played them, none of us will ever enjoy the orchestra. If no one was allowed to go to school plays, none of us will enjoy West End or Broadway musicals.

In any case, being a mom is very difficult, period, and no matter what parenting technique you subscribe to, there will always be a criticism that you will find.  We all want the best for our kids and to a certain extent there is a tendency (knowingly and unknowingly) to mold them in our ‘own image and likeness’. In some cases, there is also the burden and hope that they can improve on our lot.  The fact that we bother reading about other people’s parenting styles indicates that the topic is important to us, at least enough to look at the debates out there, perhaps hoping to gain a nugget or two from them or get some validation that we are doing something right.

When I was pregnant with my first child, everyone and her grandma were quick to share their opinions about everything, and somehow the advice just never stopped coming, even well after the kids were born.  The best advice that I got was to listen to what the other person has to say, think about my personality and own unique ways, and then decide to use or discard the information received as necessary.  Because at the end of the day, decent parents will indeed do what they think is right to care for their kids' needs and equip them with the tools and skills they will need for the future.  Beyond this, parents can really only just hope that they will end up fortunate enough to have raised happy, healthy individuals who have a good sense of moral, ethical and social values.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Why is DOTA more important to a Filipino teenager than his GF?

Dear Filipino,

Teenage boys in the Philippines are so fond of playing the online game DOTA [Defense of the Ancients]. Some even got addicted. 

Here's my question: If you were a teenage boy, who would you choose: GF [girlfriend] or DOTA? Why?

Thank you!

Jesicca L.

Dear Jessica,

Does your L stand for Lost-to-DOTA too?  Is this the underlying reason behind your question? 

If so, I feel for you.  I really do.  But this also means you don't really care about what I would choose if I were a teenager again, right?  In fact, I think you're really just looking for some validation that what happened to you or someone you know who's close to you is a fairly common occurrence nowadays among GFs.

And if this makes you feel better -- guess what? -- I have news for you: You're not alone because from what I have gathered, the state of romance among the young right now is really dismal.  No, make it abysmal.  Actually -- no -- the right adjective is more like funereal! 

Why?  Because of -- you guessed it -- DOTA!

Yes, DOTA -- that online multi-player role-playing game where you get to be a pretend-hero doing pretend-fighting along with other pretend-heroes who are part of your pretend-team whose pretend-objective is to pretend-kill the pretend-opponents who, like you, are also pretend-heroes pretend-guarding pretend-structures called Ancients!

I'm not pretending nor kidding.  It's true: Long forum threads and online chatter on the topic by a legion of teenage GFs, ignored or dumped outright because of DOTA, are filled with rancor and resentment despite a veneer of calm.  And songs of melancholia are also aplenty on YouTube because of it.

And what about the boys -- what do they do?  Do they at least feel repentant?  Regretful?  Remorseful? 

Heck, no!  They instead put out banners comparing the two -- GF vs. DOTA -- with an ending that cannot be mistaken for anything other than a vicious, pernicious, hideous laugh.  See the below:

[English Translation: DOTA is one of a kind in the world; there's plenty of GF material. GF will leave you, DOTA will not. GF gets angry when you do DOTA; DOTA doesn't get angry when you're with GF.  DOTA is happy with 20 pesos [low maintenance]; GF is unhappy with 200 pesos [high maintenance].  If you find another hero, DOTA does not get angry; if you find another girl, GF gets angry. If you leave GF, it's hard to return to her; if you leave DOTA, it's still ready to accept you.  Who do you prefer?! DOTA or GF?! Think hard!!! Hahaha.]

Did you see the "hahaha"? 

Now, I don't really believe in multo, but our ancient romantic forebears must be rolling in their graves right now and getting ready to go on the offense because of this -- this Defense of the Ancients thingy!

And by the way, are these pretenders now members of some conspiracy -- maybe a secret society or something?  What's up with this so-called Oath of Allegiance to DOTA, their Panatang Maka DOTA?



(Source: Playdota.com)

[English Translation: Oath of Allegiance to DOTA: I love DOTA.  I was born to play DOTA.  This is the game I will pass on to my next generation.  She cares for and helps my hero to be strong, courageous and useful.  In return, I will butcher my opposing heroes.  I will serve the base I chose.  I will defend my base even if it's mega creeps.  I will not press F10 even if we're about to lose.  I will strive to be a true DOTA lover in thoughts, in words and in deeds. Oh, DOTA first.  hehehe. ]

Now did you see the "hehehe" this time?  How vile, don't you think? 

And yet you say they're just "fond of playing the online game"!  Fond?  Even afer Internet cafes had already been turned into ponds by Typhoon Ondoy and they were still playing, still inseparable from their computer stations, you still just call them fond of it?
 

(Source: Technogra.ph)

What's wrong with you, girlfriend?!?

Let me tell you exactly what: It's your fault.  Yes, you Filipino teenage girls -- so-called mga mayuyuming kayumangging kaligatan ng bayan, the demure browns of town.

Why?  Because anecdotal reports have reached me saying that many of you gals in the Philippines have changed!  You've watched way too many reality shows on TV and you're probably thinking whatever is on those shows ought to be the new reality now, too!

So, yes, you're at fault because you said YES to teenage boys who probably never even bothered learning the kundiman and the harana to court you.  (And besides, you were not even supposed to have BFs yet,* just BFFs at most and definitely without benefits!)

And you gals probably did not even employ the age-old Filipina art of the pagpapakipot.

In other words, you probably were too easy!  Too undemanding! 

In other words, you probably did not challenge the boys enough! 

And most importantly, unlike the game dynamics in DOTA, you gals probably did not even put up any defenses whatsoever.  Instead, you just allowed the boys to roam free with their key to the passageway which held The Ancient Secret -- the secret which caused men of yore to do battle in Troy.

In other words -- and here you have to forgive my being too upfront and too conjectural -- you probably did not even require, well, a Trojan!

And this is the problem -- the big problem:  Because we all know many teenage boys, who saw the same reality shows on TV you did, just seek the pleasure of the conquest now.  And then they want to tally the score, and then "level up," and then brag about it to friends. 

That's the sad, unvarnished truth, girlfriend.

So here's the deal: If you gals don't want to be just another statistic to your unfeeling boyfriends, you better learn to defend your base.  You better enforce traditional Filipino parental batas and Bar Access to The Ancient Secret (BATAS)!

If you do, you will be happier (and your parents, especially your tatay, even moreso).

Why?  Because you will own your boys again, turn them into your heroes, and get them to divorce DOTA for good.  And if you want to, maybe you can even get them to play sungka with you again.

*The Filipino's daughter, who's turning 6 this year, is only going to be allowed to have a BF at age 2130.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Feature Post: What are the pros and cons of dual citizenship?

Dear Filipino,

Do you know the history of the enactment of the Philippine Law that allows former Filipino Citizens to reacquire their lost Philippine citizenship? Is there any group or individuals who lobbied for the passage of the law, be it in the Philippines or abroad? Please explain the benefits or disadvantages of the Philippine Dual Citizenship law. Thank you.

Always a Filipino

Dear Always,

This is a very good question and I want to give that extra effort to answer this.  The reason for this is because I really haven’t seen a comprehensive discussion of the Philippine Dual Citizenship law anywhere, especially the pros and cons part, to enable folks to make an educated decision.

In any case, since your question touches on some legal issues, first things first.

DISCLAIMER: The material presented herein [not just in this blogpost but the entire blog!] is intended for information purposes only.  It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such.  The services of a competent professional should be sought if legal or other specific expert assistance is required.  Any unauthorized use of material contained herein is at the user’s own risk.  Transmission of the information and material herein is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an agreement to create an attorney-client relationship with that good-looking sample of the human specie otherwise known as The Filipino who is licensed to practice law in California but not in the Philippines or anywhere else.

Additionally, please note that while most of the discussion here applies to all Filipinos -- or should I say ex-Filipinos? -- regardless where they got their foreign citizenship, some parts of the discussion here are US-specific.

With the above out of the way, we can now begin.

I.  Overview

Citizenship is commonly defined as “the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen,” who is “a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community.”  It is widely believed that the concept was first introduced to the West by the ancient Greeks who implemented it in small communities and who distinguished their citizens from the non-citizens – i.e., the slaves, the “barbarians” and the women.  It was then expanded by the ancient Romans to cover their entire empire and in so doing legitimize their rule over their conquered territories, and further refined by the French, who, by staging the French Revolution, did away with a “caste system” for their citizens so that the commoners would have the same rights as the nobles.

The modern concept of citizenship has of course developed further, and countries and supranational entities (e.g., the European Union with their concept of an EU citizen) are up to now still debating related matters.  Complicating things a bit is the issue of citizenship versus nationality: The former is deemed “more exclusive” while the latter is afforded those people from colonial territories who do not enjoy all citizenship rights.  (Because of the size of the former British Empire, the UK has probably the most interesting and most confusing citizenship and nationality laws.  When I was living in London, I was surprised to find out a very long list of qualified Commonwealth citizens hailing from about 50+ countries who are entitled to register to vote if they meet certain requirements.)

There is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of citizenship and an individual may actually acquire multiple citizenships by automatic operation of law of the relevant countries.  For instance, a person may acquire multiple citizenships through (a) the jus soli principle (“right of soil” or citizenship by virtue of just being born in the nation’s territory like what the US famously has); (b) the jus sanguini principle (“right of blood” or citizenship based on ancestry); (c) marriage; (d) the process of naturalization; (e) his country's membership in supranational communities or signing of treaties (i.e., some countries have dual citizenship agreements with other countries).

II.  The Philippine Experience With Dual Citizenship

Because the Philippines was a US territory during the period starting in 1898 when the US bought the country from Spain until 1946 when the US granted it independence, all Filipinos were considered US nationals but were never US citizens.  This meant Filipinos could go in and out of the US, reside and work without restrictions, but not vote or hold elective office.  Citizens of Puerto Rico -- which is also a former Spanish colony which was acquired by the US in the same deal with Spain in 1898 -- were in the same position until 1917 when they were collectively made US citizens as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act passed by the US Congress.

The Commonwealth period was the closest Filipinos got to enjoying dual citizenship as an entire group of people, and nothing comes even close to that period.  The new legal regime currently in place in the Philippines is at best a distant second in terms of substance.

This newly established legal regime is due in no small measure to the Marcos dictatorship.  According to Prof. E. San Juan, Jr. of Washington State University: “There was no real Filipino diaspora before the Marcos dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.  It was only after the utter devastation of the Philippines in World War II, and the worsening of economic and political conditions in the neo-colonial set-up from the late 1960s to the present, that Filipinos began to leave in droves.”  This development led Marcos to sign the Balikbayan Act in 1973 (Presidential Decree 185), which allowed “a natural born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship to be a transferee of private land, for use by him as his residence.”  The law also gave legal status to balikbayans as “returnees” or “people coming back home” to the country, and became the foundation moving forward for giving other benefits and privileges to the balikbayans not otherwise available to ordinary travelers.

But the strongest push for dual citizenship actually came from anti-Marcos activists based in the US, which was home to the exiled family of Ninoy Aquino, the father of the sitting president.  The need for the law became especially manifest when Marcos fell and US-based supporters of the new administration wanted some say in the running of the country without having to give up newly acquired citizenship rights in the US.  According to a SF-based community leader, Rodel E. Rodis:

After fighting Marcos and martial law from within the United States until People Power ended the dictatorship in 1986, we wanted the right to vote in Philippine elections and the right to be dual citizens which people in more than 100 other countries enjoy.  We were affected by the corrupt leaders elected in the Philippines which our taxes also paid to support, all without having a say in the election of that government.

Overseas-based Filipinos and organizations worldwide rallied to the cause and lobbied Philippine politicians through letters, phone calls and personal visits to pass laws on dual citizenship and overseas voting.  One of the most notable of these individuals is Rene Pascual, who, when he became president of the California Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in 1998, tirelessly made it almost a personal mission for his organization to lead the push for the passage of said laws. [EDIT 1/12/2011.]

III.  The Passage of the Laws: The OAVA and CRRA

But as Rodis would note, from that fateful day in 1986, it would take “five Congresses, four Presidents, 64 filed absentee voting bills and 16 long years before the Philippine Congress finally passed the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, officially known as Republic Act [RA] 9189, on February 13, 2003.”

Even after passage of the new law, however, a provision under Section 5(4), which came to be seen as a “poison pill,” required overseas Filipino voters to sign an “Affidavit of Intent to Return” to the Philippines to live there permanently after three years, with threat of sanctions if they don’t.  Predictably therefore, few took advantage of the new law.  (Representative Teddy Locsin, who was responsible for inserting the dreaded provision, supposedly promised to author a bill removing the same from the Act.)

Shortly after passage of RA 9189, in August of 2003, then-Senate President Franklin Drilon successfully pushed for the passage of RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, hoping the bill would bring in investments and other benefits from hyphenated Filipinos based abroad.  Known popularly as the Dual Citizenship Law, it grants natural-born Filipinos (i.e., citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not have to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship) who have lost their Filipino citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country the opportunity to retain or reacquire their Filipino citizenship.  The bill seeks to revise the decades-old law which mandated that natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of another country automatically lose their Philippine citizenship.

In other words, from August 2003 onwards, a natural born Filipino who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country is deemed not to have lost his/her citizenship under the provisions of the new law.  On the other hand, one who lost his Filipino citizenship prior to August 2003 has the opportunity to reacquire it without having to renounce his present foreign citizenship, in a way leaving the decision to foreign courts to determine what the impact is on the foreign citizenship of the individual who decided to reacquire his Filipino citizenship.

IV.  The Good: The Benefits of Reacquiring Philippine Citizenship

Individuals who reacquire Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 may once again enjoy the bundle of civil and political rights afforded all other Filipino citizens under Philippine laws, as follows:

(a)  Right to own real property in the Philippines

This is probably the most tangible, immediate, and for some, most important, impact of the new law because the Philippine Constitution prohibits foreigners from owning any form of real property in the Philippines.  While there are privileges granted to foreigners or former Filipinos as far as property ownership is concerned, these privileges are more restricted and the laws can be quite complicated. This is why before passage of the law, folks who were not Philippine citizens were generally holding titles in the name of a family member, friend or business partner – i.e., a “dummy.”

(b)  Right to engage in business and/or practice one’s profession

Many industries and lines of work in the Philippines are reserved only for Filipinos -- e.g., engaging in retail and media businesses, in professions that require a license to practice, etc.  So for former Filipinos who want to retire in the Philippines and open up a small business/office, dual citizenship has a huge benefit.

(c)  Right to travel with a Philippine passport

You’re probably asking, “If I have a blue passport (US) already, what use is the Philippine passport?” Well, not much unless you want to (1) stay indefinitely, (2) look for work, or (3) get an education in the Philippines.  The last two reasons may not be a bad idea: The Philippines is enjoying a lower unemployment rate than the US and with the high cost of college education in the US, many US-based parents have been opting to send their kids to school in the Philippines instead.

Additionally, a Philippine passport allows the holder to travel to member-nations of the ASEAN without a visa. [EDIT 1/12/11.]

(d)  Right to have citizenship benefits extend to one’s spouse/children

A Filipino citizen’s foreign spouse may be issued an immigrant visa which entitles the spouse to reside permanently in the Philippines.  If the citizen’s children are unmarried and below 18 years of age upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, they are also automatically awarded Filipino citizenships.

(e)  Right to vote in Philippine elections

Following the suit filed by well-known Fil-Am businesswoman, community leader and philanthropist Loida Nicolas Lewis in 2006, the Philippine Supreme Court held that dual citizens need not establish residence in the Philippines to be able to register as an absentee voter under RA 9189.

However, from what I gathered, the “Affidavit of Intent to Return” mentioned earlier is still a requirement in order to register, although there are plans to scrap it already as mentioned above.  I've heard folks from the Philippine embassies/consulates are downplaying the impact of this requirement, but if you are a Filipino immigrant in the US who is not a US citizen yet, do NOT execute this affidavit as it can be deemed contrary to US residency requirements, unless of course you do plan to go back already to the Philippines within the required period.

Not eligible for this right to vote are those candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country where they are naturalized citizens, or those who are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country where they are naturalized citizens.

(f)  Right to hold public office

After reacquiring Filipino citizenship, one can seek and, if elected, hold public office in the Philippines as long as he meets the required qualifications AND at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy -- note closely now – he makes a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all of his foreign citizenships before an authorized public officer.

Now, note that the requirement is a bit lower for the individual appointed to a public office. While a person with multiple citizenships who run for public office must renounce his foreign citizenships, the person appointed to a public office only needs to make a sworn renunciation of the oath of allegiance to the country he took his oath.

V.  The Bad: The Disadvantages of Reacquiring Philippine Citizenship

Individuals planning to reacquire Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 run the following risks:

(a)  Possible denial of application for (or loss of existing) security clearance status

While dual citizenship based solely on one’s parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country is not necessarily fatal, the active exercising of a non-US citizenship can cause problems.  Specifically, the US Department of Defense requires that “any clearance be denied or revoked unless the applicant surrenders the foreign passport or obtains official permission for its use from the appropriate agency of the United States Government."  I won't be surprised if there are similar provisions in other institutions, whether in the US or other countries.

(b)  Possible charges of dual citizen’s “divided loyalties”

This is not a big issue unless you’re planning to, say, run for office in the country of your foreign citizenship and your opponents find out about it, in which case you should expect to be called a citizen-with-a-ready parachute, a double-timer, a bigamist, a carpet-bagger, or, given the times, even a mole, a sleeper agent or a Manchurian candidate!  It’s not necessarily a candidacy-killer but it can make things, well, a lot tougher.

(c)  Benefits of citizenship may not be available to dual citizen in some situations

By reacquiring Philippine citizenship, the new dual citizen will owe allegiance to – and is obliged to comply with the laws and regulations of – the foreign country of his citizenship as well as the Philippines.  Although the dual citizen’s failure to fulfill his obligations to one country may pose no problems for him while he’s in the other country because the country adversely affected may have few ways (or find it cumbersome) to force him to comply under the circumstances, the same cannot be said if the person travels to the country affected and gets apprehended.  In that situation, because two countries both have a jurisdictional claim over the dual citizen, he may find that any relevant benefits of citizenship (e.g., diplomatic or consular protections) from the country not really affected by his non-compliant actions are now inaccessible to him.

VI.  And The Ugly? Nope -- Just Other Aspects to Consider

(a)  Income and property tax consequences

Note that Philippine taxation is based on where income is earned or where property is located, regardless of citizenship.  Thus, a person does not need to pay Philippine income tax for income earned abroad but does for income earned in the Philippines.  The same is true with property taxes: regardless of his citizenship, a person has to pay real property taxes if he owns real property in the Philippines.

Note also that while only incomes derived from the Philippines are subject to taxation by the Philippine government, in 1976, the Philippines and the US signed a treaty intended to avoid double taxation which provides that taxes paid in the Philippines may be credited in the US and vice versa.  Similar tax agreements are in place between the Philippines and many other countries.

(b)  Travel tax exemption

A Filipino who reacquires Philippine citizenship and is residing permanently overseas can also enjoy travel tax exemption extended to Filipinos permanently residing in other countries.

(c)  For US citizens: Does Uncle Sam get jealous?

The US Government does not formally endorse dual nationality as a matter of policy, but it also does not take any affirmative stand against it. According to the State Department:

The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

So when performing any of the acts described above, a citizen will retain his US citizenship unless it was indeed his intention to relinquish it.  However, the Department of State again states:

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

1.  formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
2.  serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
3.  takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
4.  is convicted of treason; or
5.  performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.

Intent may be shown by a person’s statements or conduct.  However, if the U.S. Government is unable to prove that the person had such an intent when he obtained the foreign citizenship, the person will have both nationalities.  In other words, the burden is on the US Government to demonstrate that a person performed a designated act both voluntarily and with the specific intent to renounce his US citizenship.

Additionally, while the State Department takes the position that acceptance of policy-level employment with a foreign government is a presumptive basis for denaturalization, several American dual citizens have held high positions in foreign governments without loss of citizenship, including as ambassadors of their other country’s citizenship.

VII.  Parting Thoughts

In an essay in The Atlantic Monthly entitled “Trans-national America,” the influential essayist Randolph S. Bourne, noting the unique attributes of America, rejected the “melting-pot” model of assimilation of immigrants, advocated dual citizenship, and argued that the country (and indeed the world) is going to be better off developing “international citizens” who maintain spiritual ties to their native country and hold on to their literature and culture. The essay was written in 1916 while the First World War was still raging, and yet, almost a century later, I think the idea still resonates to hyphenated Americans like me.

However, citizenship, especially the kind advanced by Bourne, cannot be taken lightly because responsible citizenship by definition means fulfilling one’s obligations to the community one belongs, not just taking advantage of its attendant rights and privileges.  As Aristotle once said: “To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god!”

For Filipinos by birth who became citizens of another country by choice, the Philippine dual citizenship law provides another opportunity to contemplate what it really means to be a Filipino in today's world.  Above, I have numerated the technical pros and cons, the technical benefits and disadvantages, whether or not to re-acquire Philippine citizenship.  I can imagine the ability to own real property and, most especially, to vote probabaly loom large for many as key benefits couseling for an affirmative choice on the question, but I can also easily understand both pragmatic and noble reasons why going through the process of reacquisition is not advisable for many. 

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that one doesn't really need to undergo the legal formalities to show one's substantive "Filipino citizenship."  I think one just has to fulfill his obligations to the global Filipino community -- or even to humanity, in general -- which common decency, empathy and justice demand. 

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Can The Filipino do The Filipina a humongous favor?

Dear Filipino,

I've been trying to call you and you are NOT answering!  Something came up here at work -- so can you please pick up the kids later? 

Thanks,
The Filipina

P.S.  And please pass by the grocery -- we've run out of Datu Puti vinegar and bagoong!

Dearest Miss Universe Ng Buhay Ko*,

Yes, of course!  Whatever you say, dear!  ;-)

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.


*Miss Universe Ng Buhay Ko 
From the album: "Hotdog: Greatest Hits"
Translated by: The Filipino

Ikaw ang Miss Universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life
Ilang beses ko ba namang sasabihin sa 'yo  
     How many times do I have to tell you?
Sa piling mo, tanggal ang lumbay 
     In your bosom, away goes the gloom
May kasiyahang walang kapantay
     There is happiness that is unrivalled
 Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life

Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life
Ilang beses ko ba namang sasabihin sa 'yo   
     How many times do I have to tell you?
Sakit ng ulo'y tanggal bigla
     Headaches immediately disappear
Sa piling mo'y lungkot nawawala 
     In your bosom, sadness departs
Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life

Aanhin ko ang ganda ng iba 
     What will I do with others' beauty?
Maduduling lang ang aking mga mata, butas pa ang bulsa 
     My eyes will just get crossed, my pockets also torn
At 'di ba sabi ng mga matatanda 
     And didn't the elders say
Ingat lang tayong mga bata
     We the young just have to be careful
Kagandahan, tulad ng suwerte, mawawala 
     Beauty, like luck, will fade away

Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life
Ilang beses ko ba namang uulitin sa 'yo? 
     How many times do I have to repeat it with you?
Malinaw na malinaw, ngayon at ano mang araw 
     It's very, very clear, today and any other day
Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life
Ikaw ang miss universe ng buhay ko 
     You are the Ms. Universe of my life.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.

Why do Filipinos eat with a spoon and a fork?

Dear Filipino,

Why do Filipinos eat with a spoon and fork? We use a spoon not only to eat soup but also almost everything else. Some of us can even use the edge of the spoon to cut our food.

A related question is: What other people use a spoon the way Filipinos do?

Thank you and regards,
Cold in Winterspeg, Manisnowba, Canada

Dear Cold,

Bienvenue and warm greetings to you! 

First, a big caveat: If you're looking for an explanation from someone who is an authority on refined and sophisticated dining etiquette, you've come to the wrong place!  Read no further and leave now.  Why?  Because I am a pig when I eat.  I slurp.  I make all sorts of snorting, gurgling and other suilline sounds.  I am oblivious to the world when I'm in The Zone.  The best one can say about my table manners is that I do know how to really enjoy my food, much to the consternation and embarrassment of The Filipina, who was brought up in a much more genteel environment.  Thankfully for me, she hasn't divorced me yet because of this, although it's fair to say things did get, well, quite heated at some point.  A veritable macho, I didn't back down -- hah! [The Filipina approved this line.] -- although for the sake of marital harmony and bliss, I did agree some compromise was in order, leading to our household's now decade-plus-long Dining Room Detente.


(Blogcadre.com: Pottery Barn thinks it's cool, too!)

But you're right: It is indeed Filipino custom to use a spoon and a fork (no knife) at every meal, unless the Filipino you're talking about is the sosyal type.  What's also interesting is, a common decorative item in Filipino kitchen walls or dining rooms is a giant set of spoon and fork, the ever-present yin and yang of Filipino dining which has inspired countless jokes, haikus and a film.  But you'll be glad to note that this Filipino style is going mainstream because even Pottery Barn apparently has seen its coolness and wants to profit off of it.  (Some Filipinos want to take this retailing development to the next level and are hoping that barrel men be up next, although something tells me that the time is not ripe yet.)

And being from Canada, you've probably heard about the famous "spoon-and-fork boy" who won $17,000 in moral and punitive damages against a Montreal-area school board and two of its employees following the 2006 complaint filed by the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) with the Quebec Human Rights Commission because the school board's employees called the boy's culturally specific way of eating "disgusting" and "dirty," among others. 

Makes you wonder how the whole thing would have panned out if the Filipino boy had gone completely au naturale and used his bare hands instead, right?

But here's the deal: If you ever bump into those types of snooty Canadians and find yourself having to endure condescending language from them about how primitive our dining traditions are, you can put them in their place and let them know -- gently and in an avuncular tone to emphasize your moral ascendancy -- that unlike them, you're actually familiar with the history of utensils!

Here's how you go about it:

First, you start with the fork.  You ask them the following (without expecting an answer of course): "Did you know that men of stature in Europe and the Roman Catholic Church once expressly disapproved of its use, seeing it as 'excessive delicacy'?" 

Then, you proceed: "In fact, history has it that, in the 11th century, when a Byzantine princess who married a Venetian magistrate refused to eat with her hands, the outraged clergy and local populace invoked the Divine, saying: 'God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks -- his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating.'  And as late as 1897, the British Navy forbid its sailors to use them 'because they were regarded as being prejudicial to discipline and manliness.'''

That should floor them, don't you think?

But you're not done yet, of course.  Because before they can say anything remotely intelligent, you follow up with the history of the spoon next.  Here, you can mention the following: "On the other hand, spoons have been found as relics from a period long before knives and forks began to appear." 

"Therefore," you can ask them, "if the spoon was the first of all implements to be used for eating, why do you think we should get rid of it now in favor of the knife?"

Assuming they do come up with a retort, you ask them point-blank while feigning nonchalance: "So, are Canadians' dining etiquette more similar to the Americans' or the Europeans'?" 

Wait for them to answer but whatever their answer is, you then go in for the kill and tell them: "Well, Canadian table manners are considered kinda primitive also then."

They'll likely ask you, "Why?" 

And then you'll answer: "Because the truth of the matter is that when an American is dining in Europe, his/her dining etiquette is at best considered 'savage'; likewise, when a European is dining in America, he/she is the one accused of bad table manners.  Why, everybody knows that!" 

I can guarantee you that if you go through this exercise with them, they'll never look down upon your eating habits again!

The point here, of course, is that we really sometimes have to stand our ground and let other people know that eating styles are a highly cultural thing.  Ask any chopsticks-wielding kung fu master!

But still, why do we eat with a spoon and a fork?  And is this cultural eccentricity ours alone?

The answer to the latter question is no, because actually, the Thais and the Indonesians also eat just like us: The spoon is the primary utensil used for eating (with its edge often serving the functions of a knife) while the fork is used primarily just to push the food onto the spoon.

But again, why?

Stumped, I turned to The Filipina's in-law who studied culinary arts and accounting -- let's anonymize him by the name "Chef A" -- to account for this.  Here's the theory he propounds:

Chef A believes that the use of a spoon and a fork is perfect for the way Southeast Asians prepare and cook their food.  He said that unlike, say, the Americans who like their meats and other food items in big slabs and humongous chunks, Southeast Asians generally prepare their dishes in bite-sized pieces -- chopped, minced or ground -- thus leaving no real need for a knife. 

Also, Chef A theorized that because of the humidity and absence of natural refrigeration in the tropics, the region's cooking style has evolved to take the environment into account.  Hence, Southeast Asians tend to overcook their food through excessive grilling, boiling or sauteing, making sure to kill the bacteria; as a result, the dishes tend to be tender, soupy, saucy and/or otherwise perfect enough, susceptible enough and soft enough to eat using just a spoon.  That's why, he adds, meats cooked rare are also not native to Southeast Asians because these meats would require refrigeration prior to cooking and also a knife for eating.

To me, Chef A's explanation makes a lot of sense.  I only wish Chef A can also explain to The Filipina why her husband's eating style is actually endearing to his Korean and Japanese friends, and why that should be the case with her too.

Got a question for The Filipino?  Email him now at askthepinoy@gmail.com.