“KILL” is probably the favorite word of President Rodrigo Duterte and the one that resonates best among his millions of rabid admirers. He has been using the word “kill” from during his campaign for the presidency until today, cheered on by his followers to keep it on top of his vocabulary.
His latest “kill” targets are the human rights activists who have been critical of the alleged extra-judicial killing (EJK) of suspected drug users and pushers. The President has threatened to kill all human rights activists should the drug problem become more pervasive.
His pet peeves–drug pushers and users, and those who accuse him of EJK–should be trembling in fear from his continuing threat to kill them. May God have mercy on them because President Duterte has none.
I find it odd that the President has never threatened to kill police officers protecting drug syndicates. It’s undeniable that no illegal activity can become pervasive without police protection. The populace will react more positively if he declares a mailed-fist policy against these rogues in uniform. So, the only ones falling like swatted flies are suspected drug users and pushers, including many wearing only sandals and living in shanties.
I often wish he would unleash his killer instinct on the terrorist Abu Sayyaf. He earlier said that the Abu Sayyaf were driven by circumstance to commit terrorism so they should be viewed with understanding. Obviously, he denies such “understanding” to the poor who may have been driven by circumstances to become drug pushers.
Say, did you notice that only a few hundreds of pesos were recovered from drug suspects? Where are the big-time dealers and operators making millions a day?
Last Thursday, Philippine National Police Chief Director-General Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa said a “kumpadre” had appealed to him to reinstate Chief Inspector Marvin Marcos as regional chief of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group of Eastern Visayas. Marcos, also an object of cries “Hindi bayani si Marcos,” led the police team that shot dead Mayor Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte, for reportedly drawing a gun while being served a search warrant at 4a.m.inside his prison cell.
At his presscon last Thursday, Dela Rosa said his “kumpadre” (no longer somebody higher than him as he had claimed earlier?) urged him to reinstate Marcos for the sake of Marcos’ family. Dela Rosa said he acceded “for humanitarian purposes.”
Wait a minute! Wasn’t this the same Dela Rosa who unabashedly shed tears at a Senate hearing when asked by Sen. MigzZubiri on how he could cleanse the police ranks of drug protectors? If he could easily succumb to requests by his “kumpadres” regarding suspected drug coddlers,how can he rid the PNP of scalawags? Is it now the turn of the public to cry? The President has a list of police officers suspected of getting payola from drug syndicates and of recycling seized drugs. I wish he would make public this list and put these police officers in the freezer.
If “humanitarian purposes” could be invoked to go easy on suspected drug protectors, can’t the PNP invoke the same on suspected drug users and pushers? Oh, I forget, President Duterte has already expressed his support for Marcos and his group in the alleged shootout with a man in prison.
‘Independent foreign policy’
A dear friend, business executive RollyNarciso, has some incisive comments on the “independent foreign policy “ being pursued by the Duterte administration. He confessed to being confused by declarations of separation from America, pivot to China and Russia, and “China, Russia and the Philippines against the world.”
Rolly wrote in an email to his ESFAC discussion group: “The common usage of the word ‘independent’ implies separate and apart, can stand on one’s own, doesn’t need others.
“If so, an independent foreign policy requires that breaking away from one country should not lead to a substitution thereof by another country. That would amount to merely transferring the unwanted state of dependency on one to the other.”
If only the President would consult with his Cabinet members instead of immediately blurting out what comes into his head, there will be less confusion and there’ll be no need for “creative imagination” in determining what he really means and what he intends to do.
Rolly and I agree with former President Fidel V. Ramos that the more appropriate term is “interdependent,” not “independent foreign policy.”
He also wonders about the reference to China and Russiato assume the historical/traditional role of Uncle Sam.
“Are we possibly hitching our wagon to soon-to-be falling stars?” he asked.
Rolly cited a book he had just read, “The Next 100 Years (A Forecast for the 21st Century)” written by George Friedman and published in 2010, as the basis for his doubts on the wisdom of pivoting towards China and Russia.
“Friedman predicts that China will fragment in 2020-2030 due to severe political stresses between its prosperous coastal regions and its poorer interior regions.
“Russia will collapse as a world power, its military weakened by recurring border tensions with former allies in the bygone USSR era.
“The USA will remain strong economically, technologically, and militarily,” Rolly said quoting from the book.