Well they did warn us.
It was only a matter of time when the fever caught up with the rest of upper management for it to be declared as an official policy.
Not that it really mattered. People will do what they want no matter how vast the opposition is to their stance or how marginalized their group is in terms of their collective ideals.
But what I do not understand is the myopic and utterly simplistic mindset on how people view proper teaching methods on improving a person’s communication skills.
An uncle who’s also a psychiatrist illustrated it very well, likening a person’s attitude to that of a patient who either denies or does not know he’s suffering from a disease.
According to him you can’t cure someone who thinks he’s not sick. And more importantly, on one who is perfectly okay with the way things are for him, that any disruption of routine may be viewed as unwelcome intrusions than gratitude for what’s being done for him.
Same thing in this case. Best of luck with ‘curing’ ‘earning’ or ‘improving’ anything on a crowd composed of a majority that detests it.
They can always justify it (albeit it being the gasgas or kumita na alibi) by stating that we communicate with other nationalities therefore we have to hone our ‘communication skills’ to serve our clients better.
An admirable effort, but hardly helpful. At most it would make an already damaged car think it’s still in top shape because of the once a week refurbishing of its paint job. All show, no substantial change.
The truth is that it’s just several people’s hangup on that specific language that’s being catered to, with the rest simply forced to join in on the lunacy just to satisfy their make-believe fantasies of whatever it is that involves talking to each other like that.
PALANCA winner/band leader/media personality Lourd De Veyra expounded on this phenomenon very candidly:
Like any other entities designed for any form of ‘learning’, there ought to be measurable parameters on the effectiveness of projects like this. How do you prove there was a need for it in the first place? And how do you go about proving there was a significant change–good or bad–after this policy is enforced? Was this not part of the hiring process? Was not HR supposed to weed out the job applicants in terms of their proficiency?
If answering ‘For a while’ at foreign callers is any indication, then by all means let’s improve the people’s English communication skills. But that’s the thing: foreigners do understand it no matter how stilted it is; and the problem does not actually lie among them but among ourselves.
But do we really need to speak in a foreign language among each other just to sort that out?