If we could just harness the vehemence of critics

BLOODY FILM UNNECESSARY: While we denounce in the strongest terms the barbaric treatment of victims of the Abu Sayyaf, we frown on the unrestricted use on television of a film clip showing the terrorists chopping off with a machete the heads of their helpless captives.

The atrocities of the Abu Sayyaf are well known, which is one reason for the virtually universal approval of the coming in of US forces to help wipe them out. Showing the gory beheading was not really necessary as it would reap only minimal plus points while risking frittering goodwill already won.

Worse, in the frantic damage control after the controversial broadcast, there was this Palace functionary tossing the blame to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who he claimed approved the showing of the grisly footage.

Why didn’t Press Undersecretary Bobby Capco wait for the President herself to say that she approved it? The staff is bound by the unwritten code that they would absorb, when and if necessary, enemy fire that may hit the President. But here is a minor factotum doing the opposite, tossing the blame on the President!

* * *

MEDIA ALSO RESPONSIBLE: Actually the responsibility for showing the film clip rests on the TV stations. The Palace or the defense establishment can pass on to media all sorts of propaganda materials, but if the media refuse to bite, nothing will come out.

If the media are not discerning and responsible enough, they cannot toss back to the government full responsibility for whatever materials they broadcast indiscriminately.

Until yesterday, we were also waiting for the critics of the government’s handling of the Abu Sayyaf film to denounce the terrorists’ barbaric treatment of captives. But while the critics railed endlessly against the government, not a word was heard from them assailing the Abu Sayyaf for the beheading.

To them, the government, more than the terrorist gang, appears to be the enemy.

We noticed the same strange behavior of critics of US Special Forces, who are here to help solve our terrorism problem. The objectors grow hoarse assailing the Americans, but they are unusually quiet about the atrocities being committed by the Abu Sayyaf.

* * *

FOCUS OUR FIREPOWER: If only the same vehemence of critics of the RP-US joint military exercise on Basilan could be harnessed and focused on such very real problems as the spread of illegal drugs, pollution and crime.

If we could just gather the same agitated throngs, tap the same fire and venom, focus that intense energy on urgent national problems& we would be able to crystallize a national consensus so compelling that it would move this country forward faster.

Take the festering problem of addictive drugs. It has been established that the country is actually under a state of siege by foreign interests systematically swamping us with drugs with the obvious intention of destroying us to the core.

The mountain of information on the subject reveals the clear outline of this covert invasion and its degree of success so far. What are we doing about it? Practically nothing!

We would rather throw a picket at the US embassy, march in the streets mouthing irrelevant slogans, deliver privilege speeches desecrating the august halls of Congress, make millions while the taking is good in government, and so forth and so on.

* * *

DISTURBING PIATCO DETAILS: At the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, meanwhile, there are disturbing development showing that fears raised against the PIATCO contract for the construction and operation of NAIA’s Terminal III have basis. Look at these three points:

1. Terminal Fee Issue – Concerned government officials (Transportation Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez not necessarily among them) generally hold that the basis of the terminal fee when Terminal III is finally opened would be the present P500 per passenger, or less than $10 at the prevailing exchange rate.

However, Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (PIATCO) insists that the rate should be double the present charge -— P1,000 per passenger or $20. Under the concession agreement, the government is supposed to decide the starting rate. But under the deal, PIATCO would be allowed to raise terminal fees every two years, over which government would have little say, it at all.

We can imagine the terminal fee soaring, considering that PIATCO’s alleged costs for what was programmed to be a $350-million project has ballooned to over $500-million, and is still rising.

2. Monopoly Issue – Alvarez and PIATCO insist that there will be no monopoly, but even at this stage when the terminal is still being built, there are already telltale signs of a monopoly emerging.

PIATCO started the construction of a cargo terminal at Terminal III without authority from government. NAIA general manager Edgar Manda immediately stopped construction when he noticed the unauthorized structure rising.

Laughing off Manda, PIATCO went straight to Alvarez, who acted like a doting godfather. The secretary promptly overruled Manda. In fairness, Alvarez can do that because he chairs the steering committee on top of the Terminal III project. (A DOTC undersecretary was chairman of the committee until Alvarez sacked him and got the post himself.)

3. Foreign Control Issue: Documents submitted by PIATCO to the House Committee on Good Government showed that layers of corporations have been arranged in the ownership structure.

The records show that PIATCO is owned 30 percent by its German partner Fraport and 10 percent by the Japanese Nissho Iwai – for a 40-percent foreign equity allowed by law.

But sources told us that on the side, a number of corporations listed as PIATCO shareholders are also 40-percent owned by Fraport, enabling the German-Japanese tandem to actually hold interests in PIATCO beyond the 40-percent limit in circumvention of the law.

* * *

HOLTHE REAPING RAVES: California-based columnist Ben Simpao tells us that the fictional book When the Elephants Dance by Tess Uriza Holthe, a FilAm writer based in the San Francisco Bay Area, is getting good reviews on both sides of the continent.

Holthe, an accountant, was interviewed days ago by Bryan Gumble on the CBS Channel 5 "Early Morning" telecast US-wide, according to Ben. He says the San Francisco Chronicle recently ran a half-page colored feature devoted to her.

Ben reports: "Next, I have to go to a bookstore in Oakland, Mama’s Boar, where I understand Tess used to hang out and initiated her manuscripts. She’s from Marin County and that’s a long ride for her over the Richmond Bridge. I wonder why."

He adds that he is buying a few copies for giving away to Postscript readers selected at random. We think that’s rather complicated.

National Book Store used to have copies selling at P1,025, but all copies, we heard, have been sold. PowerBooks at Makati and SM Megamall still have copies. At Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com, the 368-page hardbound book retails at $17.46.

We have not read the book, so we cannot comment on it yet.

* * *

ePOSTSCRIPT: You can read Postscript in advance, even before it sees print, simply by going to our personal website www.manilamail.com . While at our ManilaMail.com site, you can also peruse back issues of our column and review past discussions on certain subjects. Email can be sent to us at [email protected] and [email protected] .