P-Noy and ‘Pinoys’: An Exercise in ‘Wishy-Washy’?

We are close to two months since the infamous “Mendoza-cum-police-incompetence-cum-egg-in-our-faces” massacre of Hong Kong tourists. Finally, President Aquino let known his “findings” and “actions”. Does anyone get the impression that here a “mountain labored forth and sired a molehill”?

Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company.

“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?

The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.

The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because our corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated.

And the “wishy-washy” syndrome seems to manifest itself all over government. Take the case of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima telling the media that she “contemplated” resigning over Aquino’s selective use of her findings and recommendations. Say what? So, O.K., the flaw here is perhaps not so much the wishy-washiness of the situation but the utter lack of loyalty and delicadeza on her part.
She is a cabinet appointee and “serves at the pleasure of the President”. If she has, had or will have a disagreement with him she should arrange to see him in his office, in private and express her views to him. If at the end of the process he still decides to go it his way then she is bound to march in lock-step with him. If she has to leave she ought to do so in a manner that does not in any way undermine his authority and standing. Openly discussing it with the media is just plain wrong, and a display of classlessness on her part.

A parallel can perhaps be drawn from the recent departures from the Obama administration. Larry Summers left so that he could go back to Harvard; Jim Jones to pursue “other interests” and so forth and so on. As appointees they are members of the President’s team and if their usefulness had been diminished and their departure necessary so that changes in policy and direction can be effected by the president, they made sure that it would be with the least amount of disruption and damage to his administration.

Then too there is this joke of a situation at the Dept of Interior and Local Governments, where there is apparently an open airing of disparate and opposing views between the Secretary, Jesse Robredo, and the undersecretary Rico Puno. Why are these clowns playing this out in public? Robredo is the department head, Puno reports to him.

If the latter has any concerns and disagreements those should be aired privately to Robredo and if Puno believes he cannot continue to support his boss he should find a “graceful exit” and move on. The job and the mission of the department cannot be more important than Puno’s ego or “hurt feelings”. And why is Aquino handling this matter in public? He should have summoned the two to his office and told them in no uncertain terms that if either of them again airs “dirty linen” in public that would be their last act as members of his official family. In fact he should issue the same warning to all appointees in his administration. Get down to business and get the job done. Period.

I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.