Archive

Posts Tagged ‘manila bus 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

bus hostage bloodshed those accountable – mendoza, RMN (media), PNP, robredo, noynoy aquino

August 30, 2010 4 comments

rolando mendoza, mass murderer of innocent people, a criminal –  it is with this man that this bus hostage bloodshed  all began and it is with him where practically all of the accountabilities rest. nothing else matters, none of any of the reason he said on why he started the hostage taking is acceptable nor does it justify his actions.

the fact is rolando mendoza is a mass murderer of innocent people and he has brought shame and dishonor to himself, the PNP, hos country and to his family.

he is a policeman, with multiple awards but none of that counts now with this singular act of his as he not only committed a horrible crime, he committed a crime that he as a policeman is supposed to prevent.

his family displayed all the 17 awards he earned as a policeman on top of his coffin during his wake but none of those now mean anything and none of those the family can be proud of. the innocent people who are even foreigners had nothing to do with mendoza’s grievances, taking them as hostages and murdering them is simply an act of terror.

the ombudsman – inefficient and slow justice can kill .  while remote and down at the line of accountability for the bloodshed, we need to note the fact that there seem to be something very wrong in the way they conduct their business of dispensing  justice. there could be many more but the most obvious one is the very slow pace of cases being resolved by the ombudsman.

the PNP –  dismal operational failure, no saving grace at all. we all saw it one live tv, the PNP failed in their handling of the hostage drama. the hostage taking is a police matter, it is an incident they have the responsibility,  the power and the training to resolve the natter.

the PNP failed in strategic thinking, decision making, planning, execution, control and equipment.

  • they did not have the proper tools to break the window glasses of the bus.  they attempted in four different places but failed in all. the sledgehammer they used was not enough to break the glass.
  • they absolutely had no control on the whole situation – crowd control was dismal and media control was non-existent. hostage negotiations require complete focus and control from the authorities with  the hostage taker, something they did not have as media and other people  were able to get in touch with the hostage taker. moments after the hostage taker was killed, the public was allowed to go to the bus unhampered and uncontrolled.
  • we think it was correct to prevent gregorio, the brother of  the hostage taker from having further contact with the hostage taker and to be removed from the  place as he would have been a loose canon, but they have to both the effort to remove him from the place?  they made that decision while inside the police station but they were unable to do it effectively as according to mayor lim, the police did not have handcuffs to restrain gregorio. not being handcuffed allowed gregorio to run out to where media was and made a scandalous effort to delay his arrest by the police. it did not help that it appears the policemen and they were many did not seem to know how to restrain and remove 1 person from the scene. the handcuff finally came but that was after many minutes of live video showed the terror and drama of the arrest which not only the public saw but rolando the hostage tajer also saw through a tv inside the bus,
  • planning and execution of the bus assault was another dismal failure, it went beyond conedic, it was idiotic. they attempted 4 times in 4 different places and each one failed. they used a sledgehammer to break the glass in 3 different places but it was unable to break the glass.  it took them more than an hour to get inside the bus, very long for the hostage taker to make defensive moves inside the bus and more critically, a long time to get the hostage taker agitated, angry and in a panic mode.  they did not seem to think yhis through. what is even more astonishing is that media reported after the incident that the SWAT team did rehearse the assault at the back of the grandstand.  the rehearsal was not carried out to the actual and the resulting comedic effort  is what has hurt the PNP the most next to the death of many of the hostages.

media –  live radio interview with the hostage taker canceled the trust and put into doubt the police negotiator.  RMN radio was on the cellphone  with the hostage taker minutes before  the hostage taker saw his brother being arrested by the police and before he started to kill the hostages.  we think  this call did a lot of damage to the  efforts the negotiation  as it undermined the authority and credibility of the  hostage negotiator.

and yet if you listen to the interview, it was a non-consequential interview from an audience point of view.  the topic pursued by the radio interviewer was what the hostage will be doing next, a topic that is best left unsaid and for the hostage taker. in fact asking that question may have given the hostage taker a chance to think through his actions, plan better or worst if he did not have a plan yet, get him to think it through.

we think RMN acted very irresponsible if not violating laws like obstruction.

chilling audio recording of interview with media and hostage taker moments before hostages were shot ; view here :

http://wawam.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/audio-recording-of-interview-with-media-and-hostage-taker-moments-before-hostages-were-shot/

DILG chief robredo – failure  to manage and show leadership on actions and moves after the hostage crisis.  while the PNP is all to blame for the failed efforts during the hostage crisis, robredo is to be blamed for what happened, actually what did not happen after the hostage crisis.

the PNP us under DILG chief robredo, he should taken leadership in applying corrective measures after the crisis. the most obvious action would have been to suspend from their jobs all key officers involved in hostage crisis:

  • Director Leocadio Santiago who is head of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO)
  • Chief Supt. Rodolfo Magtibay, director of the Manila Police District (MPD)  who  was the field commander during the hostage crisis
  • Chief Insp. Santiago Pascual  the SWAT leader who bungled the whole thing
  • All other leaders of the various teams who participated in the siege

aside from suspending the key personnel during the failed PNP efforts, robredo shuld have shown leadership in drawing up action plans for the near future.  a lot of the public’s dismay and anger over the government’s failure  during the hostage crisis would have been mollified had these things been done immediately, within a day or two after it happened. robredo’s inaction allowed the ill feelings to percolate.

days after the incident and in fact to this day, we do not see any leadership emerging on how to address the emotions and fix the situation. there is no one single person that we can really identify as to who is on top. this should have been robredo’s role being the top leader of the government agency to which the PNP belong to.

president noynoy aquino failed to show leadership,  calm down emotions and failed to provide  inspiration and direction  to get things done right. while aquino cannot be faulted for the failure of the PNP during the actual siege and bungled rescue, he like DILG chief robredo should take the blame for the actions after the incident. aquino’s failure may be much less than robredo, but both of them essentially were supposed to perform the same function.

however, not providing direction and inspiration for the government agencies and the nations is a failure that is solely’s aquino.  aquino seemed to be almost invisible during the whole time. if ever he was present his actions and words were of no significance and of very little weight.

we think this is the first real failure of the aquino administration.

%d bloggers like this: