Headlines Skinning Left, pagematch: , sectionmatch: 1
Headlines ( Leaderboard Top ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1      

House okays bill on sign language translation

By Jess Diaz (The Philippine Star) | Updated December 10, 2012 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - The House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading a consolidated bill requiring television stations to provide sign language translations in their news programs.

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño is the bill’s principal author. His co-authors are Representatives Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City, Maximo Rodriguez of the party-list group Abante Mindanao and Raymond Palatino of Kabataan.

Casiño said the measure aims to make television more accessible to persons with hearing disabilities.

He said the bill requires television stations to provide Filipino sign language insets in at least two newscast programs a day and special programs covering events of national significance.

He said TV stations would have the option to provide sign language insets in other programs such as those pertaining to cultural affairs, livelihood and those catering to children.

The committee on public information, chaired by Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone, endorsed the consolidated bill.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Before the bill was approved by the committee, Rodriguez sought the deletion of the word “Filipino” in the measure as reference to sign language because he said the Tagalog-based medium of communication is not understood by many in Mindanao and the Visayas.

He cited a Tagalog word which means sexual urge but which people in Mindanao understand to mean confusion.

“So let us drop ‘Filipino’ from the bill so that people in Mindanao and the Visayas who don’t understand and speak Tagalog will understand sign language,” he said.

However, the bill’s authors explained that Filipino sign language consists not of words but of symbols that deaf-mute Filipinos already accept and comprehend.

They said the word “Filipino” in the bill distinguishes the local sign language from the universally accepted American sign language.

Rodriguez said there should be no distinction between Filipino and American sign languages.

“What happens if a Filipino deaf-mute travels to the United States. He will not be able to understand American sign language, and he will be at a loss,” he said.

Other committee members suggested that TV networks should be given the discretion on what sign language to use - Filipino or American - since it is their viewership or audience that would be affected.

 But the bill’s authors countered that the networks cannot be allowed to use American sign language, which they said Filipinos with hearing and speaking problems would not be able to understand.

 

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
  • Follow Us:

More Headlines

Social Spotlight

Recent Facebook Activity

Facebook Recommendations

Comments

Deaf Deaf

Mon, 2012/12/10 - 7:17am

The term, Deaf and Mute, is an inappropriate term because of negative connotations. The term "mute," meaning unable to speak is inappropriate, as few Deaf people are unable to voice; they just prefer not to put themselves at risk of attracting embarrassing attention from those unaccustomed to Deaf speech. The humiliation they have experienced has made the unwilling to use their voice in public. Deaf people reject this image of themselves. They prefer to be called just Deaf and see themselves in a positive light, not as handicapped, defective or in need of pity or sympathy. They take pride in their identity, their wonderful culture, beautiful, unique language, their fascinating lives and accomplishments, and their positive contributions to society. A society which benefits substantially from their input and influence.

tonygrafx

Mon, 2012/12/10 - 12:25pm

You are correct in pointing out that Deaf people are often very hesitant to speak clearly, loudly, or at all since they have no way to gauge their speech intonation and pronunciation. But I don't feel that the term "Mute" is necessarily negative, embarrassing, or humiliating in any way. Mute is basically a technical term meaning to soften, or make no sound. Most modern video/audio gadgets and devices have a "Mute" function, but I don't think anyone objects or is embarrassed about it. In fact, i think that the term "Deaf" has more negative connotations. "Are you Deaf or Something," is a negative phrase usually directed at an inattentive, dull-witted, or just stubborn person. The same goes for the insulting phrase "He's/She's just plain Deaf. Don't bother talking to Him/Her!" i have yet to hear the word "Mute" used in a similarly insulting manner, in english anyway.(Filipinos tend to create insults very easily, usually with a lot of malice. A good example is "Noynoying" which is not a universally used word, but merely an attempt at insulting a sitting Filipino President) Yes, there probably are some Deaf people who object to the use of Mute in connection to them. But if a person doesn't make a sound, Deaf or Not, he or she can be referred to as being Mute without malice or insult being intended.

tonygrafx

Mon, 2012/12/10 - 12:47pm

Another Bill that is trying to ingratiate the authors to it's particular target audience, and for no other useful purpose. Personally I prefer clear, scrolling subtitles since it imposes the need for literacy. Technically, it's also easier to create and adjust as compared to a small frame showing a sign language expert translating for the convenience of the Deaf. I've experienced both, and subtitles are less distracting (subtitles also don't prompt the non-deaf viewers into making fun of the "Finger-Waggler". Come to think of it, that's another interest group being courted by the Bill's authors; the Unemployed Sign Language Translators of the Philippines. Some of the congress people are worried about Filipino - English sign language conflicts. That would be a non issue with subtitles since the appropriate language can be easily used in the subtitles. The way i see it, some congress people just want to make themselves noticed by authoring less-than-useful bills. Or to put it another way, this approach was tried in the past. It Did Not Work. So now some congress persons are thinking of Imposing it. That's unconstitutional, and just as silly as the Marcos era banning of Voltes 5 and other giant robot cartoons.
Healines Skinning Right, pagematch: , sectionmatch: 1