If you see a little child crying alone in the middle of the playground, will you have the heart to make him sing? Will you even dare ask him to dance? If you see a crying child anywhere, the first thing you should do is to comfort the child. Ask him what makes him sad. Wipe his tears. And perhaps make him smile. But to ask him to dance again and again (while he continued crying) for ten thousand pesos? Regardless of the amount, that’s a gross display of insensitivity.
In an episode of the show “Willing Willie”, a teary-eyed 6-year-old child repeatedly danced like a macho dancer with the consent –and encouragement- of the host Willie Revillame. Much has already been said about that episode. But the most basic issue here is insensitivity. The child was already crying even before he danced. The first thing that any sensitive person should have done was to ask the child why he was crying. Which was exactly what Willie did. “Ba’t ka naiyak?(Why are you crying?)” he asked. When the child did not reply, Willie just kissed him affectionately. That was very sweet of him. But the sweet guy soon morphed into an insensitive idiot. After seeing the child dance like a macho dancer, Willie asked him to do it again and again. Asking a crying child to dance just once was bad enough. But to make him do it again and again? That’s a gross display of insensitivity! Anything like this shouldn’t be sold as a form of entertainment. This alone is already enough reason for the MTRCB to act. This alone is a reason for the public to be outraged.
“It looks like people took it for what it was until somebody injected malice to it,” said Atty. Leonard De Vera, Willie Revillame’s lawyer, referring to the “Willing Willie” episode. But the first person to inject malice into it was Willie Revillame himself. In that same episode, Willie made this comment: “ Ganyan na ho ang hirap ng buhay ng tao, Si Jan-Jan syempre nagsasayaw sya bilang isang macho dancer sa edad nyang ‘yan para sa kanyang mahal na pamilya (That’s how difficult life is nowadays, Jan-Jan is dancing like a macho dancer at his age for his beloved family).” This comment is an acknowledgement of the unflattering nature of a macho dancer’s job. Willie knew – and even reminded the audience about it – that being a macho dancer is so unflattering that only impoverished men are compelled to take on that profession. And still he made the child repeatedly dance like one! But that wasn’t the end of it. He made another malicious comment. “Para syang yung pelikulang burlesk queen na lumuluha pa (It’s like the part in the movie ‘Burlesk Queen’ where the dancer was crying),” Willie said. “Kaya nya ginagawa yun para sa pamilya nya (She’s doing it for her family).” Clearly, Willie knew – and even reminded his audience about it– that dancing provocatively like a burlesque queen was so humiliating that the ones doing it even cry. Yet he made the child dance repeatedly that way! And now, Willie’s defenders are wondering where the malice came from? “But he was just joking,” some might say. Of course he was. But that only makes the act more deplorable. Not only did he ridicule the impoverished macho dancers and strippers (What the hell is so funny about a weeping stripper?), he also tastelessly made fun of the child and his poverty.
Make no mistake. I don’t intend to persecute macho dancers and strippers. I believe that they, like the rest of us, deserve to be respected. They do not deserve to be judged for the nature of their profession. But do you think a macho dancer would be amused to see his own child performing a “macho dance” on national tv? Do you think a stripper would be proud to see her daughter dancing like her in public?
Which brings me to the issues of gender and loss of dignity. What if the child contestant was a girl and she danced like an exotic dancer? Imagine that. Imagine her crying while she danced. Imagine her being asked to dance again and again. Imagine the crowd laughing as she danced and wept. Imagine Willlie comparing her to a crying burlesk queen. And then at the end of it all, Willie would give her ten thousand pesos. The girl would not complain. The girl would probably not even feel the humiliation. But can you say that the child is not losing something? Can you say there’s nothing wrong with that? And if we would laugh at her, what kind of people would we be? The contestant was not a girl, I know. But the fact that he was a boy doesn’t make him less deserving of dignity.
This issue reminds me of an episode of Pinoy Big Brother Season 1 in 2005. In that episode, the female housemates (Cass, Nene, Say, Chx and Raquel) were given the task of being the personal ‘slaves’ of male housemate Uma. Since they were slaves, the women were supposed to follow all of Uma’s orders. Things were going well until Uma made the fully clothed women dance like strippers. That’s when the women began to weep. I have absolutely nothing against fully clothed women dancing like strippers on national TV. But I am never ever going to force a conservative woman to do the same if she finds the act offensive. In the same way, I have nothing against adult men who dance like macho dancers on national TV. But if an adult man doesn’t want to dance like a macho dancer because he believes that macho dancing is a form of prostitution, no one should force him to dance. No one should force him to change his beliefs. If he doesn’t want to dance like a macho dancer, that is his choice and it must be respected. But Jan-Jan? The child didn’t even have that choice, damn it! He had the right to wait until he grows up before making that choice but it was taken away from him. He hadn’t even had the chance to form his own beliefs yet. Think that’s fair?
I heard that TV 5 is calling for guidelines on dealing with minors on game shows. I appreciate the intention. But does a host have to wait for guidelines before he can show a modicum of sensitivity? Does anyone have to wait for guidelines before he could have the sense to uphold a child’s dignity? And can one possibly write guidelines on moderating tastelessness?
Now, having impugned Willie, I must make one thing clear: THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CHILD ABUSE. I myself have had little siblings and little cousins. And I must admit that a lot of times, I had been insensitive to them. A lot of times I had hurt their feelings and made them cry. Does that make me abusive? Does that make me a criminal? Certainly not. Yes, the child contestant’s parents taught him to dance like macho dancer, failing to foresee that someone might soon tastelessly make fun of him for it on national tv. So what? That’s just a manifestation of frailty not abusiveness. Some say that they are disappointed with the child’s parents for letting Willie make fun of him. But they were not there in the studio. Only his auntie was there. As for the auntie, let’s see things from her perspective. What would happen if she screamed at Willie and asked him to stop the show? It would have been very embarrassing and disappointing for the child. I’m not saying that she was right in choosing to let Willie go on with his act. What I’m saying is that it’s understandable. She’s imperfect. But who isn’t?
The same thing goes for Willie Revillame. To understand him, we need to see things from his perspective. Before the child began to dance, Willie did not know that he was going to dance like a macho dancer. And when the child finally performed, what was he supposed to do? Scold the child? Imagine what could have happened if Willie said, “Stop it, you immoral child!” That would have been very traumatic to the child. The right thing to do was to politely show a little appreciation for the child’s performance and then give him the ten thousand pesos. Unfortunately, he overdid it. He made the child dance again and again even as the latter kept crying. And he tastelessly made fun of the poor little boy.Yes, he had been insensitive. And, wittingly or unwittingly, he had demeaned the dignity of the child as a human being. But the man is not a criminal. He does not deserve to be convicted of child abuse. There was no intent to traumatize the child so deeply that he’d have a hard time moving on with his life.
I know that many people hate Willie.(I also have my thoughts on the claim that he promotes a culture of mendicancy but that’s not the issue here.) But I’m sure many people hate me, too. That doesn’t make me a criminal does it? A child has been wronged, no question about that. But let’s not forget that Willie, like the child, like all of us, is human, too. As frail as you and me.
In raising the issue of child abuse,references have been made to Republic Act 7610. Below is the portion of R.A. 7610 that defines child abuse.
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death
It may be claimed that the child has been subjected to emotional maltreatment. It may also be claimed Willie, by his deeds and words, demeaned the dignity of the child contestant. But if Willie can be jailed on those grounds, we might as well jail every teacher who humiliates a mischievous student in front of the class. Because that, too, is a form of emotional maltreatment. That, too, demeans the dignity of the child. I am not a lawyer. But I think it would be ridiculous to jail anyone who emotionally maltreats or demeans the dignity of a child regardless of the severity of the act. So how do we know if it’s child abuse or not? Below is Section 2 of Article 1 of RA 7610.
SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles.- It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to Provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination.
Again, I’m not a lawyer. But the way I see it, it appears that the goal of RA 7610 is to prevent children from being subjected to conditions prejudicial to their development. Willie, intentionally or not, subjected the child to emotional maltreatment. But the maltreatment wasn’t so severe as to compromise the child’s emotional development. Willie, wittingly or unwittingly, demeaned the dignity of the child, but not to the extent that the child could no longer have a dignified existence. Therefore, in my own humble opinion, Willie Revillame did not commit child abuse.
Willie Revillame must be held responsible for his actions. I believe a temporary suspension is justified. But let that be the end of it. Neither Willie nor the child’s parents committed child abuse. The sooner we drop the child abuse issue, the sooner the child contestant and his parents resume their normal lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)