This columnist has been receiving alarming "advice" to slow down on my comments concerning the current political crisis in the country. Supposed admirers expressed wonderment about my favoring the Arroyo administration, as though I was in the Press secretary’s payroll. That’s the prerogative of journalists. Either you’re on the side of the administration or the other side – in either case you’re roasted or praised.
And how journalists pay for writing scoops or telling the truth. Last Saturday, Time Magazine reporter Nellie Sindayen was not able to attend a birthday dinner she hosted in honor of peace advocate Saeed A. Daof. At 7 that evening, I was, together with colleagues in media – Bel Cunanan, Monica Feria, Luchie Arguelles and Chay Santiago – and friends in the business and academic communities were informed by Time Magazine Hong Kong Bureau Chief Anthony Spaeth, and Nellie’s household help that due to "unclear and undefined emergency," Nellie was "lying low for a while," and apologized that she could not be present during the party.
Until now, this columnist has not heard from her. Is she hiding from law enforcement agencies? Or is she under protective custody? Is she hiding from the people she mentioned in her published report in Time magazine two weeks ago about an alleged plot to oust GMA? Sooner or later, I hope Nellie will be able to come out with a public statement about the kind of "emergency" she is experiencing.
Like many of my colleagues, I dread the imposition of martial law. Incidentally, when GMA declared a state of emergency, I was preparing a lecture (to be delivered on March 10, 2006) on the Philippine Press under President Marcos’ regime – upon invitation of an NGO called PROCESS (Participatory, Research, Organization of Communities and Education towards the Struggle for Self-reliance) – and the thought that martial law would be imposed was frightening. The experiences related by my colleagues – the curtailment of press freedom, the closing down of media facilities, the harassment, torture and killings of recalcitrant media practitioners, the interrogation by a military board of women journalists, and the monitoring of stories so that only "the good, the true and beautiful" about the New Society would come out – sent chills up and down my spine. As editor of the Bulletin’s Panorama magazine, I was sued, along with writers of articles I had caused to be published, for libel with startlingly high damages costing millions of pesos.
But I dare say that the conditions prevailing during EDSA 1 and those 20 years after are different. In EDSA 1 there was a common target: the toppling of the Marcos dictatorship, and the opposition presented an alternative leader. Today, the opposition leaders are divided or fragmented – except in their individual zealousness and aspiration to oust the incumbent president. They have no clear-cut vision – or at least that is not transparent enough – on their program of action, much less on the man or woman who will replace GMA as the national leader.
I am not going to deny that I also have disappoint-ments with the slow movement of administration reforms and turtle-paced actions of the government bureaucracy. But I reiterate my conviction as stated in previous columns that GMA was right in declaring a state of emergency under the circumstance, and that she should lift the order as soon as possible before it became counter-productive politically, economically, and morally.
This columnist believes that lawful and constructive fiscalization is healthy for the nation, and that the country needs a strong political opposition, as this is what democracy is all about. She does not subscribe to the idea of removing an incumbent president by force or extra-constitutional means, or of changing the national leadership every time the opposition does not get what it wants by lawful means.
It has been observed that the opposition has tried many times to oust the President through legal means. The most significant of these was the attempt to impeach her. Having failed, though, they are now promoting extra-legal and extra-constitutional means by inciting and leading demonstrations in the streets, a catering to the emotions of the public to ignite nationwide indignation against the President and her administration.
As I have said, I am disappointed with the turtle-paced actions of the bureaucracy. I strongly believe that the President and heads of implementing agencies should be provided enlightened suggestions instead of being distracted from effectively pursuing urgent reform programs without let up, i.e., Charter change, economic management, peace and development, fighting poverty and corruption, and further strengthening technical and management personnel in government.