Cliché

The other day, I encountered the “how time flies” clichéd feeling, which landed on me as I began writing this column.  This happened upon the realization that the 2013 Christmas and new year eve celebrations seem but now a memory, Chinese new year is also upon us (belated KHFC by the way) and we are today starting a new month. Speaking of clichés, I was curious as to its meaning. Webster defined it as a “phrase or expression that has been used so often that it is no longer interesting or something that is so commonly used that it is no longer effective.” Wikipedia describes it as an “expression, idea or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning, or effect, and even, to the point of being trite or irritating.” 

So critics argue that the indiscriminate use of certain phrases have made them stale and ineffective.  Rather than inform, they tend to irritate or annoy the reader (or hearer).  Just like certain types of fashion, they have become worn out due to excessive use. According to Chris Pash of Dow Jones, the seven most over used clichés in journalism are:

1.  at the end of the day

2.  split second

3.  about face

4.  unsung heroes

5.  outpouring of support

6.  last ditch effort

7.  concerned residents

To my mind, however, the more substantive argument against the use of clichés is it creates the impression of intellectual laziness. Book editor Jenny Schussler points out that “the problem arises when one starts using tons of adjectives of blunt praise or blame, rather than trying to work through thoughts. The words themselves aren’t the problem. The lack of ideas is.” In the same vein, the editors of Writing: A College Handbook (W.W. Norton 2000) claim that “using worn-out phrases tells the reader that you have no imagination of your own.”

Indeed the traits of a good writer include originality and precision.  Just like some lawyers, journalists tend to clutter their sentences with long-winded, hackneyed and archaic phrases (question: was the use of hackneyed and archaic necessary?) that confuse rather than clarify.  This goes against the modern trend which is to use simple words that convey information in a clear and direct manner.  Hopefully, this literary style will forever be fashionable.

But I am not prepared to totally “abandon ship” in respect of the use of clichés.  For one, what are considered clichés in the US or the UK are not necessarily outdated in our country.  These native English speakers communicate in only one language and tend to over talk. I am not sure if the local culture frowns upon phrases such as “level the playing field,” “paradigm shift” and “par for the course.” Similarly, there are certain clichés that are able to “stand the test of time” and just like a good wine and parents’ advice, become better over the years.

Circling back to the initial idea regarding the swift passage of time, what then (read: at the end of the day) is the moral of this column? Live each day as if it were your last perhaps (read: make hay while the sun is shining).

*      *      *      *

Mis-fit: The recent spike in electricity prices led certain quarters to lay the blame squarely on the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) which is the body tasked, among others, to approve the rates that distributors will be able to charge its customers.  Among the various government regulatory agencies,  the work performed by the ERC is probably one of the most difficult. It requires more than surface knowledge in not just one profession but in several, not necessarily related, disciplines of energy, law, economics, finance, commerce and engineering.  The ERC is tasked to promote competition, encourage industry development, ensure customer choice and penalize abuse of market power.  Hence, not only academic but real world experience is necessary.  

The 2001 Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) provides that the ERC members must be of recognized competence in any of these fields with at least three years actual and distinguished experience in their respective fields of expertise.  To my mind, this is the first challenge: EPIRA uses imprecise terms such as “recognized competence” and “distinguished experience.” Since the law is vague, the appointing power is given wide latitude in choosing the persons who will perform this sensitive task. There should have been greater emphasis on the trifecta of experience, background and qualifications. There lies the second challenge:  it is argued that the previous administration used political considerations rather than a standard of meritocracy in making such appointments. 

The situation brings back to mind the 1989 case of Department of Education vs. San Diego. The latter desperately wanted to be a doctor but had thrice failed to pass the National Medical Admissions test. DepEd had promulgated a “three strike rule” that barred San Diego from taking the exam a fourth time. He therefore sought legal redress to declare such rule as unconstitutional arguing that a person has the right to pursue any profession he or she wants. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Isagani Cruz, distinguished a person’s right to aspire versus a person’s right to actually become a doctor.  The former is absolute but the latter is not. “It is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.”

The decision also raised the concept of a mis-fit.  This is a term not synonymous to incompetent, incapable or stupid. It is simply a case of square peg in a round hole. Given his tenacity in pursuing and defending his claim, San Diego would probably be better off becoming a lawyer. The same can probably be said of the current ERC membership. It is not a question of intelligence so much as a question of aptitude.  

*      *      *      *

“Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift- that is why we call it the present.” - Eleanor Roosevelt

E-mail:  [email protected]