BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
11/17-18/2012
I am appalled by the furious reaction of the so-called academic community by their filing of a complaint against Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III for allegedly plagiarizing his speech that centered on another controversial issue—the reproductive health bill. Specifically, the complaint came amid the letter sent by Kerry Kennedy, daughter of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, claiming that portions of Sotto's speech were lifted from her father's writings. Kerry said that Sotto had no claim for the use of those words simply because he used Tagalog instead of English. Such an argument has no merit, she said. She demanded an apology for the alleged unethical and unsanctioned theft of Kennedy's intellectual property.
Yes, plagiarism is unethical, but I do not agree it should be classified as an "intellectual theft." The words used by the author or writer whose idea was plagiarized were definitely not coined by him, but lifted from the dictionary used by people with English as their mother tongue. Maybe, it is on how the author or writer phrased the sentence, but surely what he wrote can never be made equivalent to a formula or to an invention to give him that exclusive right that he alone can use it by sealing in it a stamp of ownership.
Claim of ownership to a mere written idea, to my mind, is the most brazen form of intellectual imperialism. No author of a book, novel, article or pamphlet has a monopoly of ideas, written or otherwise. It is man's medium for intellectual growth, although in many finer points, what he has learned and what he is saying are not original to him. Thus, if we are to make an issue out of every sentence, phrase or paragraph one has copied is to impose a law that could seriously imperil intellectual growth.
Nonetheless, copying has also been rampant in other countries. They copy written articles which are a violation of the copyright law, formulas or inventions resulting in the violation of patents, or copy products called counterfeiting. In our case, the issue has grown out of proportion because the one accused is a senator, although it is more of an amor propio. This I say for what is in that Sotto copied for the hypocrites to sizzle? Yet, for want of any sensible issue, they zero in on plagiarism which has nothing to do with the RH bill. In fact, this column is also against the RH bill, and has to come to the defense of Sotto because the debate has now descended to the gutter level. The so-called intellectual community is raving like mad dogs when there is really nothing in it, except for their pricked ego.
Maybe they want to instill phobia in Sotto so for him to never again open his mouth on controversial issues. But people like Sylvia Claudio of the UP Center for Women's Studies, Antonio Contreras, former dean of the DLSU College of Liberal Arts, Red Tani of the Filipino Freethinkers, Inc., and Barry Gutierrez of Akbayan party-list should do more to elevate the debate to a more sensible level than accuse one of cheating. They must come out with their own ideas why they are for or against the RH bill; not as the Vatican would tell them or as some self-indulging moralists would propose. In like manner, the proponents should have a better argument other than parroting the USAID and the World Bank like saying we are now overpopulated.
Moreover, the issue is a dead one because countries that were once considered basket case economies like Japan, China, India, and Brazil are now the fastest growing economies in the world, and it was their burgeoning population that propelled their growth. The hypocrites wriggle like worms every time one is accused of plagiarism without them thinking that they are in fact highlighting their own stupidity that has deterred us to intellectually advance all for fear that anything we might say has already been patented or copyrighted by the imperialists.
Rather, our patriotic duty is to get hold of the technology and ideas as fast as we could because it is out gateway to progress. We cannot forever keep on producing manpower to do the work for them here and abroad, but for us to produce manpower that can come out with our own quality products we could sell. We cannot remain in constant fear of being accused of violating the intellectual property rights and shunned by the so-called international community.
We are not even sure that what they dangle as their patented property was also pirated from others. Many local businessmen suspect that the arrest of violators of the international copyright and patents has become a lucrative business because the reward given to law enforcers comes from the heavy penalty imposed. We are being fried in our own lard. Later on, this could hamper us from producing our own quality products which many industrialized countries did in their quest to industrialize.
Other countries that achieved a high level of industrial and technological development are still fighting to ward off the imperialist imposition of intellectual property rights. For one, Samsung is fighting attempts by Apple to ditch its Galaxy notebooks out of the market. In the World Health Organization, the battle continues to rage on how to delist from the international patent certain medicines because many countries have succeeded in producing them using or accidentally using the same formula to cure some illnesses that have plagued mankind.
Their production is being opposed on the premise that it violates their patents, although it is apparent that Third World-produced medicines could be sold at a much cheaper price than those sold by international pharmaceutical corporations that have been acting as living gods in deciding between life and death.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
Yes, plagiarism is unethical, but I do not agree it should be classified as an "intellectual theft." The words used by the author or writer whose idea was plagiarized were definitely not coined by him, but lifted from the dictionary used by people with English as their mother tongue. Maybe, it is on how the author or writer phrased the sentence, but surely what he wrote can never be made equivalent to a formula or to an invention to give him that exclusive right that he alone can use it by sealing in it a stamp of ownership.
Claim of ownership to a mere written idea, to my mind, is the most brazen form of intellectual imperialism. No author of a book, novel, article or pamphlet has a monopoly of ideas, written or otherwise. It is man's medium for intellectual growth, although in many finer points, what he has learned and what he is saying are not original to him. Thus, if we are to make an issue out of every sentence, phrase or paragraph one has copied is to impose a law that could seriously imperil intellectual growth.
Nonetheless, copying has also been rampant in other countries. They copy written articles which are a violation of the copyright law, formulas or inventions resulting in the violation of patents, or copy products called counterfeiting. In our case, the issue has grown out of proportion because the one accused is a senator, although it is more of an amor propio. This I say for what is in that Sotto copied for the hypocrites to sizzle? Yet, for want of any sensible issue, they zero in on plagiarism which has nothing to do with the RH bill. In fact, this column is also against the RH bill, and has to come to the defense of Sotto because the debate has now descended to the gutter level. The so-called intellectual community is raving like mad dogs when there is really nothing in it, except for their pricked ego.
Maybe they want to instill phobia in Sotto so for him to never again open his mouth on controversial issues. But people like Sylvia Claudio of the UP Center for Women's Studies, Antonio Contreras, former dean of the DLSU College of Liberal Arts, Red Tani of the Filipino Freethinkers, Inc., and Barry Gutierrez of Akbayan party-list should do more to elevate the debate to a more sensible level than accuse one of cheating. They must come out with their own ideas why they are for or against the RH bill; not as the Vatican would tell them or as some self-indulging moralists would propose. In like manner, the proponents should have a better argument other than parroting the USAID and the World Bank like saying we are now overpopulated.
Moreover, the issue is a dead one because countries that were once considered basket case economies like Japan, China, India, and Brazil are now the fastest growing economies in the world, and it was their burgeoning population that propelled their growth. The hypocrites wriggle like worms every time one is accused of plagiarism without them thinking that they are in fact highlighting their own stupidity that has deterred us to intellectually advance all for fear that anything we might say has already been patented or copyrighted by the imperialists.
Rather, our patriotic duty is to get hold of the technology and ideas as fast as we could because it is out gateway to progress. We cannot forever keep on producing manpower to do the work for them here and abroad, but for us to produce manpower that can come out with our own quality products we could sell. We cannot remain in constant fear of being accused of violating the intellectual property rights and shunned by the so-called international community.
We are not even sure that what they dangle as their patented property was also pirated from others. Many local businessmen suspect that the arrest of violators of the international copyright and patents has become a lucrative business because the reward given to law enforcers comes from the heavy penalty imposed. We are being fried in our own lard. Later on, this could hamper us from producing our own quality products which many industrialized countries did in their quest to industrialize.
Other countries that achieved a high level of industrial and technological development are still fighting to ward off the imperialist imposition of intellectual property rights. For one, Samsung is fighting attempts by Apple to ditch its Galaxy notebooks out of the market. In the World Health Organization, the battle continues to rage on how to delist from the international patent certain medicines because many countries have succeeded in producing them using or accidentally using the same formula to cure some illnesses that have plagued mankind.
Their production is being opposed on the premise that it violates their patents, although it is apparent that Third World-produced medicines could be sold at a much cheaper price than those sold by international pharmaceutical corporations that have been acting as living gods in deciding between life and death.
rpkapunan@gmail.com
