Plagiarism Normal in the Senate?

About a couple of weeks ago, Senator Tito Sotto got perhaps the most extensive media coverage of his political career.  He was reported by all Philippine media, including and most especially the social media, to have plagiarized the content of a foreigner’s blog which he included as part of his speech against the RH Bill now pending before the Senate.  There was also Part II of his speech on the same topic and he was accused of having simply translated into Tagalog portions of the speech of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy. 

Philippine media also reported that members of the staff of the Senator (including perhaps the speech writer) had claimed that it was normal practice in the Senate to plagiarize when they prepare speeches of the senators.  Well, it could be true that they (in the Senate) have practiced plagiarism regularly because sometime back two senators were reported to have filed similar bills using the same words.  Still, this doesn’t make the act of plagiarism a correct act.  That it was made in the Senate by a Senator makes it even much more worse. 

In the Philippines, plagiarism isn’t a criminal offense because there’s no law criminalizing plagiarism.  However, in the academe, plagiarism is a very serious ethical offense.   I’ve written about it sometime in the past in this blogsite.  I’ve discussed it in more detail in a forthcoming book, Writing Your Thesis Manuscript, which should be off the press in the next few days. 

Academic institutions take plagiarism very seriously.  In fact, many students who have been found to have plagiarized their submissions in courses taken in the university have been severely penalized.  At least at the University of the Philippines, many years ago, a foreign student who graduated with a PhD degree, when it was found by the University that he/she plagiarized his/her dissertation, was stripped of his/her academic degree by the UP Board of Regents. 

Routinely, we keep reminding our students to always cite their sources but there are still many caught plagiarizing, which has become much easier to do today with the new technology of “cut-and-paste.”   

 Now, back to the issue against the senator.  I have made it clear in the past that I’d stay clear of political issues, including non-political issues involving political personalities because I don’t consider it constructive to write about such issues.  However, in the particular case of the plagiarism issue, I’d like to simply make a point.  Perhaps the best way to do this is to quote the columnist, Babe Romualdez, who wrote on September 9^th (Philippine Star, Sept. 9, p. 16), thus:

The desire to sound profound is admirable, and there really are people who have the natural ability – or are born with the gift – to convey their thoughts into reflective statements that hit a chord with readers/listeners.  While there is no such thing as a crime of plagiarism in this country, it can be a big offense – not to mention an embarrassment –for one to try to sound profound and intelligent (or if you’re a speech writer, make some one else sound profound and intelligent) when you know that you are deliberately deceiving people by borrowing words and passing them off as original – something which I can only surmise probably happened to Tito’s writers who knew this right from the start.

Babe Romualdez is absolutely right.

There’s nothing wrong with borrowing words and ideas from others as long as you provide appropriate attribution.  What is offensive is when you borrow words, phrases, ideas, etc. and pass them off as your own.  That is stealing, pure and simple.  Sometimes, to me at least, it is more profound to deliver your arguments by quoting others.  For example, in the case of the Senator, he could have said, “I do have profound arguments against this bill and to present such argument let me quote some else who said the same thing in the past,” then proceeded to deliver the quote.  This manner of delivery would have told his listeners that he, indeed, has studied the issues very well and has discovered that others have spoken so profoundly as well on the issue in the past.  People who wish to sound original don’t normally do this, but it’s far better to quote your source than be accused of having stolen some one else’s work and passed it off as yours.   

In all fairness to Senator Sotto, I don’t think it was all his fault.  His speech writer is the culprit.  Speech writers must know how to write good speeches without getting their bosses in trouble.  A speech full of plagiarized (or stolen) statements is not a good speech at all.  Incidentally, would this not affect the Senator’s influence on how others might vote on the RH Bill (which he opposes) now pending before the Senate?  I wonder. 

In this country, the only law close enough to plagiarism in terms of coverage is the IPR law.  Some lawyers say that plagiarists can be prosecuted under the IPR law.  Fine, but if you ask me, I’d like to see a test case filed in court.   Who could be the sample accused?   Start with the politicians, did I hear some one say?

###