Archive

Posts Tagged ‘luneta hostage drama’

the insult noynoy aquino found in donald tsang’s letter – tsang treated aquino as his maid, his alila

September 13, 2010 2 comments

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:

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&q=rude+hong+kong+people&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ab5cdb1806fef4aa

noynoy aquno’s ho-hum leadership style is killing his presidency and the country oh so softly

September 6, 2010 3 comments

we are desperately seeking a proper term to describe president aquino’s style of leadership as we have seen it  in (in)action during and after the august 23 bus hostage bloodshed at the luneta. we first described his brand of leadership as “weak, invisible and minuscule” (read here:  http://wp.me/pnw03-1l7) ). that can be summarized as ho-hum leadership, something that might make you fall asleep if you are not a coffee drinker.

first off, we do not blame aquino for the failed rescue of the hostages and the deaths of the hostages. that goes to the leadership and leaders of the philippine national police  who were at the scene. but we blame aquino for some of what happened after the hostage bloodshed.

there are two parts to the hostage bloodshed – one is the operational part which is essentially the attempted but failed effort to save the hostages and resolve the matter peacefully.  it is a police matter, one of security and safety.  the police are responsible for such matters.

what happened is a failure in police operation and as we saw on live tv, most oof the failure was caused by poor planning, poor execution, lack of equipment and bad decisions.

for those failures, the field commander, magtibay, the SWAT team leader  and all the other team leaders who were operating during the hostage crisis are to be blamed for the errors committed during the siege. they need to be fired by the police top brass.

for command responsibility, santiago the NCRPO chieh and versoza the PNP  chief need to resign their post as well. they had leadership  roles to fulfill but they did not exercise them. both even knew errors were being committed but they did not act in their capacity as heads of the PNP.

the PNP is under the DILG. usec puno apparently is directly responsible for the PNP . puno by command responsibility should offer his resignation., he also failed to exercise his leadership role during the failure.

it’s chief, robredo,  is indirectly accountable for the failure of the PNP.during the rescue attempt. he did not have a direct operational role but it is his agency that failed.

the second part of the whole situation is post hostage crisis. for that second part, DILG robredo is directly responsible for,. for that, he needs to resign his position.

the dismal failure of the PNP resulted to lives lost during the hostage crisis and the country humiliated because of the PNP’s failure.  because his agency caused that, he should have shown leadership to manage the  situation, even for damage control.

it  also embarrassed his boss, president noynoy aquino, he should have shown leadership to  at least minimize the embarrassment  if not prevent it.  but  as it happened, he really did not do anything post-hostage crisis.

in fact it seems nobody from the philippne government showed leadership, not even presdient noynoy aquino.  everyone seemed to b e just standing there waiting for the punches to come in.  no action was done to evade the punches not to  counter punch. they all just stood there and took the punches.

robredo was the man who was supposed to do that. but he was nowhere to be found, lost and hidden from everyone. he did not even do anything to defend or protect his boss. if he did not protect his boss, then he did not protect the country as well.

he needs to resign for this failure. in fact, he should really be fired from his job.

noynoy aquino was also nowhere to be found. he did tiny things to fix matters but nothing worthy of the leadership to which he was voted for by the people.

there is universal agreement that PNP failed during the hostage crisis and yet no one seem to have taken the right step to impose accountability on the failure.

aquino’s presidency is getting hit bad and is suffering. to stop that, aquino needs to show his leadership by firing everyone who obviously made an error during  the hostage crisis. there is already universal agreement that there were failures, we just want to know who committed them and we want to be relieved of  them.

DILG chief robredo, usec puno and  PNP chief versoza are hurting aquino and his presidency by not resigning their post. the longer they stay in those positions, the more they hurt aquino.

in fact the more effective action, one that will have better effect is if aquino himself fires them and does not wait for their resignation. firing them, two being his close friends and political allies will transmit the message that aquino is serious about what happened and that he values good performance among his people by acting on bad performance.

aquino accepting responsibility does not do anything for aquino, it only confuses matters. the country did not give a collective sigh of relief when he said he was taking responsibility, it only confused them.  people want accountability, him taking responsibility begs the question why is he not resigning from the presidency. people  have a hard time to differentiate responsibility and accountability.

aquino’s brand of leadership seem to be one of a wait-and-see style. rather than action, he waits for things to happen and then takes action after the fact. it is one that will makes us fall asleep and one that is giving his presidency nightmares.

ho-hum.

bus hostage bloodbath aftermath – president aquino shows weak, invisible and minuscule leadership

August 26, 2010 2 comments

president noynoy aquino was not there at luneta when the hostage bloodbath occurred.  he was also not directly involved, not even remotely involved in the decisions made during the crisis.  and rightly so as he was the president or the chief executive of the country. the errors committed by the police during the whole thing is completely not his, BUT the actions and moves AFTER the incident is totally his.

and that is where we think aquino is failing – he has not done much in showing he is the top leader of this country. not only is he not doing much, whatever he is doing, he is doing too little of it.

add to that aquino makes additional mistakes like giving a smile during his visit to the bus and the press conference which are all unintentional and yes aquino is correct, it is being interpreted incorrectly. what it shows is that aquino at times forgets who he is and what he is to the country. while we recognize we all have unique quirks, aquino needs to understand he almost always cannot show his uniqueness as a  person but he needs to be always presidential because that is what he is.

while aquino not being the  police operational leader during the hostage crisis, we expect him to act presidential after the event. we think he has not shown decisive leadership after the fact. his actions have been largely invisible, minuscule and far too few that is appropriate for his position and  often stated campaign promise that he is the national leader who will lead this country to change.

we are measuring aquino’s presidency against actions taken after the hostage bloodbath, aquino is failing on this one by showing weak to no leadership.

%d bloggers like this: