THE Philippine National Police should not have been assigned to stop the Filipinos critical of Americans from attacking the United States embassy. US Marines stationed at the embassy are responsible for keeping the embassy and its staff safe.
By allowing American soldiers to protect their fellow Americans, the policemen could have focused their bravery and resources to save from the US Marines an angry mob of protesters. That, of course, did not happen.
Ironically, the policemen have ended up accused as the aggressors for the “violent dispersal” of protesters. In not a few instances, the description that has been used and considered to be more appropriate would have been “bloody dispersal.”
The two-word phrases inside the pair of quotation marks obviously are attributable only to the police and never to the protesters. If you were one of the policemen assigned to prevent any attack against the US embassy, or any other embassy, what would you possibly do in case of violence? Run?
By getting harmed, you could land in a hospital where you would pile up bills beyond your capacity to pay. Should you get killed in protecting your God-given life, you would leave behind your family that would suffer the difficulty of shouldering the expenses to give you a proper burial.
To cite a particular case, here was the policeman who drove a police van amid a crowd of protesting demonstrators. He could have lost his life to a raging mob. He was to tell his story that he acted only to save not himself but a government property from getting vandalized.
Unluckily for the policeman, those who were out to either maim or kill him beat him to the media and succeeded in ventilating their side of the story. Lost amid the cries of the alleged victims of police brutality was the policeman’s version of the confrontation. Nothing has been said about the brutality of the minority.
Had the policeman died in the line of duty, he would have been declared a hero by some but condemned by those who caused his death. The angry tribe of protesters would have rejoiced over their victory while his family could only grieve over the loss of a loved one.
Meanwhile, the opportunists among politicians would send words of condolences to the policeman’s family to gain media mileage. In their press releases written for them by their press release writers, they would express not real but only a “semblance of grief” over his death.
Even non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are “non-stock and non-profit,” according to the definition by the Securities and Exchange Commission, would be joining the chorus of concerns for the safety of “peaceful demonstrators.” Have they witnessed the entire episode from beginning to end and not arrived at a conclusion based only film footages shown on television?
What the less involved and neutral Filipinos would probably be interested to know was how violence erupted despite the presence of the police. Who instigated the violence? What had been shown on TV was a bloody confrontation between violent policemen and violent protesters.
Who expressed their anger over the continued presence of Americans in this country? Definitely, the police did not.
How about the demonstrators who did not like the Americans?
Are the Americans the only foreigners to hate in this country?
Going by the government’s own data, the Europeans and the Japanese have also been here for a long time, many of them are investors who create jobs for Filipinos. Why protest only now their presence and their ability to generate employment opportunities for many Filipinos?
If the demonstrators want to free the Philippines from foreign domination, they should not pick on any particular nationality; they should ban from this country ALL foreigners including businessmen even if they are allowed only to own a maximum of 40 percent of outstanding capital.
By the way, which among Filipino-owned conglomerates would take the risk of buying out the foreigners, particularly the Americans and the Japanese?