Reaction

For the past day, the Philippines has made it to the copies of most of the world's newspapers. It's probably not just a passing remark. It could actually be a full-blown article or, in some instances, the headline of the day (or week, even). The thing is, we're being talked about.

Should we be happy?

No.

All of us know about the August 23 hostage-taking on Quirino Grandstand that lasted for at least eleven or twelve hours. It began at around ten in the morning and ended at around ten or eleven p.m. It happened on a tour bus. When the ordeal ended, ten (including the hostage taker) were reportedly dead while others were wounded. The dead were Chinese nationals. So now the Philippines is a stench to the rest of the world. Some people are commenting that it is the most dangerous country in the world, even surpassing the ranks of Iraq and Afghanistan. Racism is prevalent, especially on the online community. They say that Filipinos are stupid and all that stuff, which, in my humble opinion, is not true.

Look at this way: a dead leaf doesn't define the whole tree. A sick sheep does not define the whole herd. An ugly dress does not define the whole clothing line. So it is with the Philippines. This incident alone does not equate the whole country, or its people, for that matter. One man (or institution) cannot act for everyone else. The comments that we're a dangerous and murderous people are misplaced. It's just totally not true. There are always many sides to one story. If these people only had the chance to experience (which they probably would never have) what the genuine Filipino spirit is, perhaps they would not be saying these. We may be wrong, but this sort of "harassment" is unacceptable. (What upsets me most is that they are speaking as if there is nothing wrong with their systems.)

I am willing to admit that the Philippine National Police and the media are at fault. First, the police failed to propagate effective security measures. If they had only restricted (media) access, perhaps the unnecessary would not have happened. Second, why did they let the situation go out of hand? The hostage-taking took up  half a day. What the hell was that? Since Rolando Mendoza was once a member of the police squad, wouldn't that make negotiations a wee bit easier? Also, they were very much lacking in equipment. Two shields? What the heck? And why the hesitation in "storming" the bus and freeing the hostages? Let's say there were negotiations. But when they ended, it was one man against a troop. At this point, the media played a vital (and very wrong) role. If you've watched the coverage, it is quite noticeable that every move of the police is reported. It's like there's a report every five or ten minutes. I think that's "unethical". The police is doing their job (not well...) to apprehend the suspect but all the media is doing is revealing their strategies. What bum wouldn't think that a tour bus didn't have a television inside? Didn't they, at least, consider that? Sure, pride yourselves in the fact that you were there, doing real-time reporting, and consequently upsetting the plan. That just sucks. I'm a Journalism student and I feel really disappointed in their actions. My professor in Journalism 101 said that no one even attempted to dig deeper and discover Mendoza's side. Okay, so maybe someone did but it was not enough. In order for a media outfit to be transparent, all the sides of the story must be shown to the people. The media utterly failed. Plus, they were obstructions to the fulfillment of the duties of the police. They were crowding all around! It was also said that Mendoza started shooting when he saw his brother being dragged away by the police on television. For Pete's sake, the man was only trying to help! Couldn't the police just confiscate the gun and let him approach his brother and possibly calm him down? Who knows how many lives could have been saved if the proper protocols (and media ethics) were followed to the letter.

In a Machiavellian point of view, Rolando Mendoza, according to Mr. Jalton Taguibao, was a good example of a smart hostage-taker. He considered the place and the people (mostly foreigners) he was going to hold hostage. I think he was also alone. It was obviously pre-mediated and not just an impulsive move. Mendoza really pondered the situation. But, in all that tension, he still had a heart. He released some people and if he had murder in mind, he woud not have done that. The killing of the tourists can be (although not fully) attributed to the other agencies. Of course, he also had his faults. He was obviously acting out of desperation. He lost his job and all he wanted was to get his name cleared. (Hostaging foreigners was clearly not the best way to achieve this, though.) What if the man was telling the truth? What if he was wrongly accused? As stated above, no one attempted to uncover his side of the story. All we got was the notion that he was evil... Well, it could be true. I mean, he probably decided that if he died, he would reveal the inconsistencies of the system and make the Philippines a stench to other nations. What a way to get revenge... (I'm probably imagining this, but it's a possibility.) Anyway, he really made his mark in history.

(It's totally absurd that the nations who devotedly assisted us during the Ondoy and Pepeng storms are now treating us coldly and branding us with the "most dangerous" mark.)

So yeah. My point is we're not all to blame. The incident alone does not define us Filipinos. Sure we made mistakes, but everybody else does. I still believe that there is still hope for our country. There will always be hope. That's the only thing we could hold on to. It is said that promises are made to be broken. But hope in God is what we're going to live for.