The assault on reason
No, this post is not me paying homage to Al Gore's book (and I sincerely apologize to Mr. Gore and to any of his fans who might think that I am doing so improperly). This is a reaction to a series of e-mails I received, quoting blog posts and an article by Robin Hemley that goes by the title "The Great Book Blockade of 2009" (click here to read it) . I received those e-mails when I was checking my mail, after several days of working on my thesis. Stuff like this will screw it up.
When I was much younger, I once pissed my mom off so much that she decided to punish me. And perhaps because spanking wasn't effective, or yelling at me wasn't effective (both remain ineffective means of rebuking me for misconduct), my mom resorted to something worse: Aside from grounding me, she locked my books away, leaving only schoolbooks. I was forbidden to read anything else. And because I was not in the mood to read my schoolbooks (having perfected the exercises and having understood and mastered the lessons already), I was quite naturally, bored out of my wits. That was pretty agonizing. She only relented when she found me spending quite a lot of time in front of the fridge or in the bathroom or in the pantry, reading the packaging of stuff I found there. That was how I broke free: I learned the ingredients in ketchup, the contents of shampoo, the directions for making gravy using Campbell's cream of mushroom soup, the sources of cooking oil, and how much bacteria our bathroom soap eliminated. It was useless information (which I am full of, even until today), but it wasn't schoolwork.
But the point was quite clear: I love to read. And now, in law school, I am perhaps going through a twisted recap of that particular method of punishment.
Anyway, apparently, for the months of January until March this year, few, if any imported books made it to the Philippines because imported books are now being subjected to customs duties. As it turns out, the books in the Twilight series were such a hit here that a Customs official took notice, and asked the importer to pay duties. The importer did, if only to avoid any undesirable entanglement with Customs, an act which has been decried as "a mistake." And because the importer caved, the Bureau of Customs has gone all the way and now mandates duties on books, and even put the squeeze on the importation of books by air back in January until March.
Much of this has turned on a government official's interpretation of the law. The basic principles for interpreting a law are: (1) laws are not to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to an absurdity; and (2) as much as possible, all the provisions of the law should be interpreted in a harmonious way, such that all provisions are given effect. These principles do not even seem to demand an "intelligent" interpretation of the law, just a reasonable one.
In my opinion, the interpretation offered by the government officials concerned, such as Undersecretary Sales, is unreasonable, absurd, and pretty stupid to a large degree. It also seems to run contrary to the otherwise clear language of other laws and of the Florence Agreement that we ratified in 1952, and is also absurd in the context of, if not downright contrary to, a BIR opinion issued in September last year. I will not even bother getting into the matter of how the government plans to determine what books ought to be subjected to the imposition of duties. That won't even be absurd, it just might be grotesque.
The reactions abound. Manolo Quezon, Jessica Zafra, and several others have blogged about this (this is how I found out about this thing in the first place). I suggest reading them (they're not imported books, you won't be taxed) and thinking about what this means.
Last I checked, it was public policy to encourage the development of an enlightened citizenry. At least, that's what I think the provisions in the Constitution mean to say, for example. I think that was also the point of the treaties and legislation. Public policy seems to abhor a situation where people end up being unenlightened or stupid.
So what the hell is this supposed to be, then? It's obviously a manifestation of corruption. But more than that, it's a manifestation of the attitude of our so-called public servants, aside from their own intelligence when it comes to interpreting, applying, and pushing public policy forward. It's a clear manifestation of a recession in terms of morals and mores and of intellectual pursuits. It is a clear manifestation of what is probably an assault on reason.
Some of the reactions basically state, rather humorously, that this is government cracking down on citizens who want to be enlightened. This is supposedly because an enlightened citizenry might begin to question government. The thoughts of citizens might be seen as a threat to the interests of those in power.
Okay, so that might really just be some sort of dark humor, or this thing being blown out of proportion. But responding to the assault on reason will require people to be more proactive about things like this, which means people will have to read. It might also mean that we have to encourage the development of local materials; we really need a boom in terms of research, scholarship, and expression, right?
Central to responding to an assault on reason is recognizing the changes in our own attitude as consumers, and how we will need to grow up even as advancements in technology happen and change the way we do things. More and more, we have to encourage people to read and keep reading. Media such as TV and the internet don't really cut it (there's a reason why the TV's called the idiot box), and the internet, even with things like Wikipedia, still does not encourage learning the way a book might. Of course, one might argue that the internet's changed the game and will change pedagogy. I agree. The point isn't about ditching the internet and sticking to books. The point is to read, which means both stuff on the internet and books, together.
Please, read more about what's happened. Please, read more. Please read.
After that, we can talk about thinking, and then action.
When I was much younger, I once pissed my mom off so much that she decided to punish me. And perhaps because spanking wasn't effective, or yelling at me wasn't effective (both remain ineffective means of rebuking me for misconduct), my mom resorted to something worse: Aside from grounding me, she locked my books away, leaving only schoolbooks. I was forbidden to read anything else. And because I was not in the mood to read my schoolbooks (having perfected the exercises and having understood and mastered the lessons already), I was quite naturally, bored out of my wits. That was pretty agonizing. She only relented when she found me spending quite a lot of time in front of the fridge or in the bathroom or in the pantry, reading the packaging of stuff I found there. That was how I broke free: I learned the ingredients in ketchup, the contents of shampoo, the directions for making gravy using Campbell's cream of mushroom soup, the sources of cooking oil, and how much bacteria our bathroom soap eliminated. It was useless information (which I am full of, even until today), but it wasn't schoolwork.
But the point was quite clear: I love to read. And now, in law school, I am perhaps going through a twisted recap of that particular method of punishment.
Anyway, apparently, for the months of January until March this year, few, if any imported books made it to the Philippines because imported books are now being subjected to customs duties. As it turns out, the books in the Twilight series were such a hit here that a Customs official took notice, and asked the importer to pay duties. The importer did, if only to avoid any undesirable entanglement with Customs, an act which has been decried as "a mistake." And because the importer caved, the Bureau of Customs has gone all the way and now mandates duties on books, and even put the squeeze on the importation of books by air back in January until March.
Much of this has turned on a government official's interpretation of the law. The basic principles for interpreting a law are: (1) laws are not to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to an absurdity; and (2) as much as possible, all the provisions of the law should be interpreted in a harmonious way, such that all provisions are given effect. These principles do not even seem to demand an "intelligent" interpretation of the law, just a reasonable one.
In my opinion, the interpretation offered by the government officials concerned, such as Undersecretary Sales, is unreasonable, absurd, and pretty stupid to a large degree. It also seems to run contrary to the otherwise clear language of other laws and of the Florence Agreement that we ratified in 1952, and is also absurd in the context of, if not downright contrary to, a BIR opinion issued in September last year. I will not even bother getting into the matter of how the government plans to determine what books ought to be subjected to the imposition of duties. That won't even be absurd, it just might be grotesque.
The reactions abound. Manolo Quezon, Jessica Zafra, and several others have blogged about this (this is how I found out about this thing in the first place). I suggest reading them (they're not imported books, you won't be taxed) and thinking about what this means.
Last I checked, it was public policy to encourage the development of an enlightened citizenry. At least, that's what I think the provisions in the Constitution mean to say, for example. I think that was also the point of the treaties and legislation. Public policy seems to abhor a situation where people end up being unenlightened or stupid.
So what the hell is this supposed to be, then? It's obviously a manifestation of corruption. But more than that, it's a manifestation of the attitude of our so-called public servants, aside from their own intelligence when it comes to interpreting, applying, and pushing public policy forward. It's a clear manifestation of a recession in terms of morals and mores and of intellectual pursuits. It is a clear manifestation of what is probably an assault on reason.
Some of the reactions basically state, rather humorously, that this is government cracking down on citizens who want to be enlightened. This is supposedly because an enlightened citizenry might begin to question government. The thoughts of citizens might be seen as a threat to the interests of those in power.
Okay, so that might really just be some sort of dark humor, or this thing being blown out of proportion. But responding to the assault on reason will require people to be more proactive about things like this, which means people will have to read. It might also mean that we have to encourage the development of local materials; we really need a boom in terms of research, scholarship, and expression, right?
Central to responding to an assault on reason is recognizing the changes in our own attitude as consumers, and how we will need to grow up even as advancements in technology happen and change the way we do things. More and more, we have to encourage people to read and keep reading. Media such as TV and the internet don't really cut it (there's a reason why the TV's called the idiot box), and the internet, even with things like Wikipedia, still does not encourage learning the way a book might. Of course, one might argue that the internet's changed the game and will change pedagogy. I agree. The point isn't about ditching the internet and sticking to books. The point is to read, which means both stuff on the internet and books, together.
Please, read more about what's happened. Please, read more. Please read.
After that, we can talk about thinking, and then action.
posted by mikosamson at 7:39 AM
2 Comments:
Hi Miko,
1. Duties on books is very, very different from banning books. Just the same as duties on food (which is very common) does not ban food and promote hunger.
2. I'm not in favor of these duties either, but it people seem to be misinterpreting the interests behind what has been happening. The government just wants money, and book importers are losing money to them.
3. So it's a political stand-off. It's interesting how the book importers are playing it. They're not importing books so that book lovers side with them and against the government.
4. Consumers rarely get political power -- could they be heard now? If they do, is it because book importers are using them as pawns?
5. We have very few book importers (oligopoly? monopoly?). Maybe this wouldn't happen if there were more -- they would just pay the duties or lose customers to those continuing to sell books.
Aiel!
Thanks for reading and leaving a comment. Allow me to reply to what you wrote.
1. I agree that there's a vast difference. But there are also distinctions between items that have been chosen to be subjected to duties, and those which have been exempted.
2. I'm sure that there's been quite a bit misrepresentation and misunderstanding. But I do not think it is simply a matter of government wanting money and book importers losing money to government. Setting aside reservations about the sincerity and motivations of the parties involved, I think that yes, government has found a possible source for revenue, but given my limited knowledge , I also think that government is mistaken about this particular source. This is because, at least legally, it seems that the government is not allowed to impose duties on imported books.
3. It is, I agree. And it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
4. I personally do not think anyone is using anyone as pawns.
5. We do, indeed. I am not sure how profitable importing books can be. It might very well be a niche market of sorts that experiences occasional bursts of profitability.
Thanks again for taking time to write, brother. Let us know when you'll be home.
Post a Comment
<< Home