I write better when I smoke. Don’t ask me to reduce it to a science.

Dear Jon

In Filipino Voices – this collaborative I also write for – Jon asked if we should “Take any murder, take any crime, blame it all on GMA?” Apparently tired of hearing the “it’s because of poverty and it’s because of the government” rhetoric, Jon opined that the RCBC murders were fairly simple to explain using only basic facts without necessarily going “down to the level of politicians who just love pigging around in the mud,” i.e., without dragging politics into the whole sordid story.


Dear Jon,

I’m sorry.

I didn’t mean to bring politics into this thing. I’m just really tired of people making all the right noises that’ll make all the right news broadcasts when they know – they must know – that no amount of outward display of their steely determination will really make their promises come true. The display may be sincere, but at the root of it, I’d say cynicism rules the day.

Like I said, I’d rather they just bow their heads in shame.

But let me ruin this apology with an excuse.

I never said poverty had anything to do with this. So even if I were able to somehow lay the blame for RCBC on GMA’s twinkle-toes by tracing the roots of poverty back to her and her policies, I would still believe myself to be bullshitting you. And I bullshit you not.

The people who did this? They may not have been rich, but they definitely weren’t poor. At least not the kind of poor that drives you to crime. The kind of poverty that fuels crime is also the kind of poverty that makes you desperate. You end up on the streets, victimizing targets of opportunity; snatching stuff; mugging fat people who can’t up a good fight. Strictly small potatoes.

That kind of poverty is not conducive to the kind of premeditation necessary for a bank heist, much less a bank heist that involves managing to turn off security cameras. Nah. Those murderers weren’t the kind of poor that people typically blame GMA for. They were greedy.

So, if I were to blame GMA for this, it’d not be for causing poverty. Think clearly now. It’d be for creating the environment that allows people to believe they can do this sort of thing and get away with it.

If I were to argue that this is somehow GMA’s fault, I would say that corruption is propagated by example. The shennanigans of the biggest fish embolden every smaller fish in the ocean – right down to the teeny-tiny guppies.

More than that, corruption at the highest levels requires the complicity of the smaller fishes at lower levels. And these smaller fishes have their own little circles of corruption where they are the big fish. And these little circles of corruption require the complicity of the even smaller fishes, who in turn have their own little kingdoms. And so on and so forth in an unbroken lineage that connects the corruption of the biggest shark to the corruption of the littlest minnow.

“We can do this” one minnow said one day to another minnow, “because we’ve got the sea-bass bribed to the gills. He’ll make sure he never catches us! HAH!” The other minnow replied: “But won’t the tuna smack the sea-bass if he doesn’t do his job?” “THat’s the sea-bass’ problem!” the first minnow grunted.

“Don’t worry about it, tuna” the sea-bass said. “Just make sure you support the shark’s other – uhrm – activities, and he’ll leave you alone, just like I’m bribing you to leave me alone.”

“But what if those minnows do something really terrible?” the tuna asked.

“Who cares? Even I don’t know what they’re planning. All that matters is that they pay me, and now I’m paying you. DOn’t think, tuna. Just swim away.”

Days later, the shark goes: “Damn those minnows!!! Tuna! Make sure that they are caught, filleted, and laid out to dry!”

The tuna snaps to attention, barks at the sea-bass, who orders that all wrecks and reefs be scoured for those dastardly minnows. And somewhere in the dark heart of the ocean the minnows watch and laugh.

Got it?

Fortunately, I didn’t even set out to try to make that point. I’m just showing you that the point can be made, even with a minimum of hysteria or demagoguery. OR, as you say, rhetoric.

My real point, dear Jon, is that the President’s instant and – let’s face it – canned response just rang too hollow. You’re right when you say that it is part of the President’s job to talk about justice and what-not. BUt it is also the President’s job to be sensitive to the needs of her grieving people.

While the President has to watch out for the entire country, when something as senseless as these RCBC murders takes place, she can afford to be more human, and less presidential; she can, and she ought to, spare a little effort focusing more sharply on the needs of the governed – not as a body politic but as individuals who are hurting so grievously. And as individuals, these people did not need hollow reassurances of justice, they did not need to have their tragedy co-opted into a sound bite, they did not need to be turned into the casus belli of anyone’s war.

Once, a long time ago, someone in government was killed. The President, at that time simply came to the wake, stayed for a minute – just barely long enough to hug the widow and whisper her condolences – and left. Just one bodyguard, no entourage, no media; and the story of her visit never made the papers. I daresay that low-key act of sympathy meant more to the widow than any thunder for public consumption.

I suppose, that’s what I was hoping for here.


Filed under: musings, ,

4 Responses

  1. Bulay says:

    Hi, on my own opinion, this gruesome incident should be blamed on the government for removing the “death sentence” law for such henous crimes. It should be imposed long long time ago. Else none of this happens.

  2. rom says:

    Bulay: Welcome to the smoking room. Yeah, I’ve been hearing that alot lately. Myself, I don’t see how the threat of death will actually deter people who traffic in death.

  3. Jon Limjap says:


    Point taken, and a hat-tip to you.

    I guess it just irks me when it appears that people take any opportunity to lambaste that dastardly hag of a dwarf (see, I took the opportunity too!).

    The other important question is asking as to, considering that it most likely was an inside job, was this crime really preventable? If an insider came into a bank, and knew how to turn security cameras off, would there have been a difference in the outcome? If the Technopark’s security was beefed up? If there were more police in the vast province of Laguna?

    These more specific questions will churn out more meaningful answers than on whether empty words from GMA mean anything or not, in my opinion.

  4. rom says:

    jon: welcome to the smoking room. Preventable? I think very few crimes are actually preventable. The best you can hope for is to be at the right place at the right time in the very early stages of the commission of the crime. But, that’s really beside the point. What I was saying was that living in a society where you see people getting away with the most outrageous things, and when you know that the people who are supposed to bring you to justice can be bribed to look away, crimes like this become easier to decide to commit and easier to commit with impunity.

    So, if GMA’s words are not to turn out empty, then she has to put her money where her mouth is, eh? And actually do something to address those defects in ‘the-way-things-are’ that give criminals the confidence that they can screw the sheep and get off scot-free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

RSS Short Puffs

  • Re-election 31 December 2008
    Maceda sez Erap consulted Narvasa and others, and they told him that the 1987 Consti prohibits only the INCUMBENT prez from re-election. Former prezzies, by their definition, face no such prohibition. But in the same breath, Maceda also sez that they know an Erap candidacy will be the subject of a disqual case – but […]
  • Escalation 30 December 2008
    I still think the Pangandaman’s shouldn’t have retaliated even if dela Paz threw the first punch. But is anyone really surprised at the escalation in the story-telling on both sides? BTW, I think we can dispense with the age angle nao.
  • Etiquette 29 December 2008
    Unless you’re spoiling for a fight, assume that the writer has some basis for what she writes. Don’t make like a lawyer and ask retarded questions in an attempt to lay the foundation for whatever point you’re trying to make.
  • Anne 28 December 2008
    Anne Curtis won best actress? Against the likes of Marian Rivera and Diana Zubiri? So what?
  • Baler 28 December 2008
    Watching Baler tomorrow. Will it be worth it?

Locations of visitors to this page

Archived Maps:
Politics & Government - Top Blogs Philippines

My site is worth $119.
How much is yours worth?

%d bloggers like this: