the insult noynoy aquino found in donald tsang’s letter – tsang treated aquino as his maid, his alila
in a recent news report, aquino said he found the letter sent to him by donald tsang as insulting, that it was a 2-page letter, had detailed items and contained “demands”.
now we have this:
Tsang letter ‘said what HK wants to know‘
Ambrose Leung and Raissa Robles in Manila
Sep 11, 2010
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen says he knows better than Philippine President Benigno Aquino what Hong Kong people want, which is justice for those killed in the Manila hostage crisis by getting to the bottom of the tragedy.
“Eight Hong Kong people died there,” Tsang said yesterday, a day after Aquino said he felt insulted by a letter from the Hong Kong government spelling out issues it wanted addressed in the inquiry into last month’s bloodbath. “I trust that my understanding of the people’s sentiments in Hong Kong is deeper than that of the Philippine president and thus was a valuable reference.”
these are the things we can draw from the above:
- what aquino said is highly consistent with what tsang said
- the “demands” aquino was referring to were those tsang described as “what hong kong people want”
- tsang must have enumerated a laundry list of what HK people wanted and that is why the letter ran into 2 pages
- tsang in enumerating what hong kong people wanted must have sounded as demands in the way it was written and most likely its contents. maybe a to-do list type or a laundry list of deliverables. it must have been very detailed that the letter reached 2 pages.
with that, we think :
- it is inappropriate for tsang, chief executive of hong kong to tell aquino the head of state of a country, the philippines, to tell aquino what needs to be done
- equally important, it is wrong for tsang to tell aquino what to do for the purpose of satisfying the wants or demands of the people of hong kong. aquino is NOT answerable to hong kong people, aquino is answerable only to filipinos. filipinos may demand things from aquino, but hong kong people has no right to demand anything from aquino.
- hong kong people can make demands on tsang but tsang was wrong in telegraphing those same demands to aquino. tsang should have translated the “demands” hong kong people made into more diplomatic terms
- tsang disrespected aquino in not treating aquino as an equal and insensitively making demands on a leader of another country
- tsang’s statement saying “he knew best what the hong kong people wanted than aquino does” can be true. but what does it matter to aquino? aquino is not seeking to satisfy hong kong people’s demands.
- that statement of tsang shows his arrogance and a feeling that he knew more than aquino did
- tsang was clearly wrong on this one and aquino was right on the dot to feel insulted by the letter sent by tsang
to us, it looks like tsang behaved like many hong kong residents behave towards filipinos. many hong kong residents have filipinos as their maids and drivers, tsang behaved exactly the same way many hong kong people behave towards their filipino maids – give demands, utusan ang alila.
tsang must have felt he needed to give very detailed instructions and demands to aquino like the way he probably deals with his filipina maids in hong kong. what tsang forgot was he was dealing with the head of state of a country and there are very basic rules he needs to follow in dealing with someone who has the stature as aquino has – the head of state of a country.
footnote: if you live in hong kong even for any number of months, one of the first things you notice is that hong kong people are very rude people. it is one character that hong kong people are known for among foreigners who live in hong kong. this rudeness may have been shown by tsang in his letter to aquino.
google “rude hong kong people” or click here:
we have commented on noynoy aquino’s leadership style (read: http://wp.me/pnw03-1lG and http://wp.me/pnw03-1l7) and also called for the the firing of DILG chief jesse robredo from his job (read: http://wp.me/pnw03-1lg ) on his performance during the post hostage bloodshed at luneta park where eight hong kong hostages were killed. robredo as DILG chief to which the PNP belongs to has been getting a lot of criticism from many and we have been reading a lot of them asking for the same thing – for robredo to be fired from his job or to resign.
this is the latest on this issue – president aquino has decided once again to be tentative in his decision making, malacanang did not submit robredo’s name for confirmation by the commission of appointment saying robredo has only been assigned to his portfolio on an acting capacity. apparently, robredo is under probation for two months, something nobody knew weeks before the hostage crisis when robredo’s appointment was announced. also, we did not know that robredo and aquino had “differences” during the presidential campaign. aquino now wants to find out within the two month period if they can sort it out.
we are totally confused by all of these!
by aquino’s own words, he had differences with robredo during the election campaign. if so, why the hell did aquino appoint robredo as DILG chief, in an acting capacity or not? that does not make sense – why appoint someone to such an important position if you don’t trust the person completely and someone you had differences with?
that to us says aquino’s leadership style and decision making skills by themselves are infirm. based on that incident, it seems aquino puts less than the best people in cabinet positions and with whom he is not sure if he can work well with the person.
actually, we don’t believe this whole story on robredo being assigned on an acting capacity basis because aquino is unsure of robredo. we think robredo was appointed DILG chief on the basis of his skills and achievements in naga city where he was mayor. this story was just created recently after bus hostage crisis at the luneta and robredo got flack from many quarters.
we think this is like sitting in the middle, the middle is along the lines of we might fire robredo sometime soon due to pressure but we will just wait a little longer kind of strategy.
it’s a stupid strategy. whoever thought of the strategy should be fired himself from his job.
this strategy was hatched either to buy time and/or save robredo. malacanang is feeling the heat on robredo. the committee headed by DOJ chief lila de lima is conducting its investigation on the hostage crisis, they want to buy time until de lima concludes her investigation. whoever thought of this strategy thinks de lima might uncover something that can save robredo and/or people’s sentiments towards robredo might change in the future and stop calling for his resignation.
the author of this strategy may be giving robredo some time to stay as DILG chief, but what was forgotten was that it makes aquino look less competent as a leader.
the value of this move is questionable and in doubt and it puts aquino in a bad light. this strategy has hit two birds with one stone but on the reverse. it may tentatively help the cause of robredo but it is hurting aquino.
MANILA, Philippines – President Benigno Aquino admitted on Tuesday that he appointed Jesse Robredo only as acting secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) as reported earlier by VERA Files and ABS-CBN News.
Aquino said he had differences with Robredo during the election campaign, which is why he appointed Robredo in an acting capacity. Robredo’s name has not been submitted to the Commission on Appointments (CA) for confirmation.
He told Malacañang reporters he first wants to make sure that he can get along with Robredo, which is why he is in an “evaluation period” as chief of the interior and local government.
“There are various reasons kung bakit acting. In the case of Jesse, we had some differences during the campaign as to style. We want to make sure we can really work with each other well. It does no good to get him through the whole process of the CA only at the end of the day to find out that there might be difficulties in our working style, among others, our core philosophy, so we did agree na acting na muna,” Aquino said.
“May evaluation period, siguro check ang working style, after two months sigurado na tayo, we still have certain things discussed,” he added. “Dadalawang buwan pa lang kami nagkakasubukan kung talaga nga bang kaya naming mag-mesh.”
Palace wants media to have own guidelines on hostage crisis coverage
MANILA, Philippines – Malacañang wants media to lay down their own guidelines on covering hostage crises instead of having the government impose prior restraint.
Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma said media should know how to avoid endangering the safety of hostages.
“Our stand is that we should not restrain freedom of expression,” he said.
“We should keep in mind that we fought for freedom for us to express what’s on our minds in this country.”
Coloma said media practitioners should evaluate their coverage during Monday’s hostage crisis at Rizal Park in Manila where eight Hong Kong tourists were killed.
‘Media, not gov’t, should set coverage guidelines’
MANILA, Philippines – It is the media, not the government or the police, which should establish the guidelines on coverage of life-threatening incidents such as hostage-taking, an expert has advised.
“You never want to interfere with covering. But when you come up with voluntary guidelines that people agreed to and try honestly to adhere to, it’s much better than having a government say these are the guidelines, this is how you behave, this is what you do–that really becomes quite onerous,” said Bob Dietz, Program Coordinator for Asia of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), told ANC’s Top Story on Thursday.
The hostage drama started when dismissed police officer Rolando Mendoza hijacked a bus full of tourists in Manila in an attempt to get his job back.
Local and foreign journalists flocked to the Quirino Grandstand to cover the incident. Some were criticized for delivering the critical moments of the crisis.
“When we’re in a middle of a news coverage situation, we’re really going for the best that we can get, especially the people on the street–the cameramen, the producers, the soundmen at that level,” Dietz said.
Dietz, however, pointed out that people back in the newsroom should be the one to decide when to call the shots.
“What has to happen is back here, where there are cooler heads in the newsroom, sort of saying ‘that’s too much’, ‘let’s pull this back’, ‘get these people out of that position’,” Dietz said.
we think it is wrong that the government is asking media to set its own guidelines on media coverage of hostage crisis situations.
a hostage taking is a matter of security and safety, it is a police and law enforcement matter, why is media being asked to develop the guidelines? that is the reason why the police or the military is given the responsibility and the power to take over the whole situation for resolution. among all government agencies, they are also the only group who has the arms, the technical skills and experience in resolving such matters peacefully. in other words, they are the ones who know what is needed and what is not needed to succeed in the resolution of the hostage taking situation.
media does not know anything about such things, what media knows is how to set up the camera to get the best shot, what to say to the audience during the coverage to sustain interest and viewership to their media channel. what they were trained for is how to get the best camera shot possible for great tv or radio. their work mostly has nothing to do with safety and security.
it does not make sense that the government is asking media to develop the guidelines on matter they know nothing about.
the guidelines are meant to make sure the police has free and unhampered reign on the whole situation to be able to satisfactorily resolve the hostage crisis. the guidelines are there for the objective of the police successfully achieving their goal, not for media to do it’s job best. the goals of successfully resolving the hostage crisis and getting the best tv shot are separate and distinct, performed by two very different groups with one, the media negatively affecting the other if they make a mistake.
the guidelines should come from the police, not the media. the police should develop guidelines just like the way they ask the government for new equipment, tools and training to help them become better at what they do and to succeed at achieving their goals. the media guidelines is exactly the same thing as the police setting up a perimeter around the area where the hostage taking is to prevent everyone else from interfering with their work.
one of the top key things the police want is control of the situation and that includes media coverage as that affects the hostage taker, the family and co-conspirators of the hostage taker, copycats and the public.
the thinking behind the malacanang direction is on the wrong places and comes from the wrong perspective. hostage talking guidelines is not about good media relations, it is about life and death. media’s failure only results to lower tv ratings while the failure of the police results to death. there is no comparison at all.
we think malacanang’s media group, one secretary of whom used to work for abs-cbn, is being given too much voice on this matter. it is all wrong.
carlo p arvisu