Thursday, July 26, 2007 Yap: On the rocks By Januar E. Yap Meanwhile
SO I had a seatmate, a retired military intelligence man, who said GMA was Marcosian.
I wanted to peek at the skin up his sleeve if he had one of those ugly tattoos.
Either I was avoiding giving the impression I doubted his claim or I was worried I might be accused of being a DPA with queer tendencies, I kept my hand to myself.
“She’s militarizing government,” he said, “and she’s favoring the military’s Ilocano bloc. The men in his Cabinet, those are the very regional operatives of the Marcos era.”
Man, that was loaded, I said. But I read the US Patriot Act, not the entire thing, but almost always the details give the impression it is subverting the judiciary’s role in effecting arrests or surveillance. It pries under the sheets when people are making babies. In fact, those parts that endanger civil liberties its lawmakers classified as “Sunset Provisions,” which self-destructs after a specified period.
Our version, the Human Security Act (HSA), on the other hand, quite consciously refers to the Court of Appeals as though it is the central nervous system. There are the Anti-Terrorism Council and the Court of Appeals to stamp suspicion in official envelope. Between the Patriot Act and the HSA, the latter is quite a softee.
“Edsa redeemed the military spotless clean,” our seatmate said. “But in the years that followed, it took a dip again. No administration ever had this much record of extra-judicial killings, and because most of the victims are members of left-leaning groups, one can not help but attribute it to the military. That makes the HSA suspect.”
Okay, nyor, I remember FVR saying GMA, with her penchant to dole out perks in motley dresses, is spoiling the military. But in GMA’s address, she made it clear she wants stricter punishment for perpetrators of extrajudicial killings. She said she wants more stringent sanctions for men who disgrace the uniform. So what’s the fuss?
“The fuss is that,” he said, “does this administration have moral ascendancy?”
I believe it may have the best intentions, as shown in that poorly-lighted Powerpoint presentation she gave. Things, it seemed, are comin’ up roses for Mindanao and other parts of the country. She bragged about a strong state, and a firm presidency.
“Didn’t that sound like a broken record?”
Being an apologist for GMA is the last thing I want to do, nyor. But from where I stand, the sounder sound bites come from that direction. What blueprint can you offer to land the fish on the poor man’s table?
“Still,” our senyor asserted, “promises. She has half of her term past her, and where do we stand? How long was it when she said we were poised?”
Poised like a porpoise, nyor? He didn’t reply. I went crazy, and my I.Q. went humpty-dumpty. GMA may want to wield an iron hand, play a Mahathir or a Lee Kuan Yew. But the latter had governments who played well in the arena of good branding and showed unmistakable moral ascendancy. Ours has a lot of work to do on that.
The British statesman Robert Vansittart spoke in the parliament, “The tragedy of the Police State is that it always regards all opposition as a crime, and there are no degrees.” Our senyor smiled to that, and he asked for his shot, on the rocks.
