I write in reaction to two letters published in the May 2 issue of the Inquirer, whose contents seem to be connected, as they both touched on the role of “Chinese-Filipinos” in the current tension over Scarborough Shoal. However, before there can even be a discussion of roles, certain misconceptions about the Chinese-Filipinos have to be corrected.
At the end of his letter (“Why is Teresita Ang-See silent on PH-China row?”), Peter Claver wrote: “Let’s hear Ang-See’s voice on the current PH-China standoff. Now.” While her popularity and her accomplishments as an anticrime activist and human rights advocate are undeniable, Ang-See is neither the paramount leader nor the elected or appointed representative of the entire Chinese community.
Even the idea of a “Chinese community” is more of an illusion than reality, considering the huge gaps between the old and young generations, and between long-time residents and new immigrants, and the fact that many who are perceived by others as Chinese do not even see themselves as Chinese. Of course, Ang-See, like any other citizen, is free to express her opinions on the issue, but I do not see the need to demand that her voice be heard “now.”
In the letter “Voice of Chinese-Filipinos needed to settle disputes with China,” Anita Sonti wrote: “We have treated our Chinese compatriots with love and respect, and they have been part of our culture, our lives—our ties and roots going back to centuries.” If “Chinese compatriots” refers to what Sonti calls the Tsinoys or “Filipinos with Chinese lineage,” then it seems to me that the term is an oxymoron. How can the Tsinoys be “compatriots” and still be “Chinese” at the same time? It would be like calling the Zobel de Ayalas “Spanish compatriots,” or the people of Cainta “Indian compatriots.”
Either (1) the Tsinoys are “still Chinese” and are therefore not compatriots of the Filipinos or (2) they are compatriots, in which case their having ancestors (in many cases, just one out of several ancestors) from China should be of no significance.
Sonti called on the Chinese residing in the Philippines and the Tsinoys to join “us” and “ask their mother country to resolve the issue.” It is hard to see how China is necessarily the “mother country” of Tsinoys, especially those who only have a distant Chinese forebear. If a person has one great-grandparent who hailed from China—out of eight great-grandparents—why should his or her “mother country” necessarily be China?
Also, Tsinoys cannot expect any special audience from China, despite what some might think. In the view of the Chinese government, Tsinoys are citizens of a foreign state, whom it has no obligation to listen to or to protect. Moreover, should anyone think that Tsinoys have been silent on this matter, this thought should be dispelled by the letter of Harvey Keh. (“Call to our government: Stand up to China’s bullying,” Inquirer, 4/21/12). There are probably others like Keh, but they may have escaped notice because their surnames no longer reveal their Chinese lineage.—DANIEL ONG, 1337-A Soler St., Sta. Cruz, Manila