The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. LXIV, Part 1-2, 1976 - Khamkoo

REVIEWS 389
condemnation against treason on the other'. If he bad supported some
of his generalisations with facts drawn from texts, his paper would be
more acceptable as a scholarly contribution instead of being a somewhat
abstract sociological survey. He does, however, have some interesting
things to say on the stereotyped portrayal of non-Malays in current
Malay writing. Ismail Hussein's short paper, introducing the neologism
of 'literators', is interesting in placing Malay writing firmly in its rural
origins (since the cities, if occupied by Malays at all, caused them to
write in English) which sets it apart from all the other contemporary
literature in the region.
The presentations of Yabes and Salazar from the Philippines would
have gained from some coordination, or at least better editing. The
former, after a schoolboy division of the periods of modern literature in
the Philippines (the Feudal-Medieval, the Pre-modern, the early Modern,
the Contemporary Modern) and using another neologism 'fictionists', is
very fair about the linguistic problems inherent in a consideration of the
literatures of the islands. Yabes firmly tells us that since 1971 'the name
of the (national) language is changed to 'Filipino' to indicate the expanded
and more inclusive dimensions as distinguished from the narrow and
exclusivl! dimensions of'Pilipino' (i.e. Tagalog). Filipino may be slower
in development but it will be more easily acceptable throughout the
country than Tagalog because the non-Tagalog population constitutes
fully four-fifths ... of the whole population.' But two pages later Salazar
tells us that 'a partir de Ia fin des annees '50 se constitue une tradition
litteraire en pilipino, Je tagal devenu veritable langue nationale'; the
assertion is repeated and in conclusion, in case one had not got the point,
one is told 'Ia nouvelle litterature en pilipino (i.e. Tagalog) est rnaintenant
vraiment la litterature nationale'.
The confusion wrought by the
use of two colonial languages seems not to have been cleared up in the
establishment of a national language, and literature follows. Whether
the Fitipinos are right to put back their literatures and their languages
into the melting pot of nationalism only time will tell: certainly their
authors are not likely to get a very wide public even in the islands by
using Tagalog. The language problem becomes more important than
the literary content, but the admiration, from the safe distance of the