Any government move to bully the media can only backfire

It has hurt the credibility of the GMA administration that Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo suddenly resigned, effective April 1. In the West, April 1 is known as ‘April Fool’s Day" – but Benipayo was not fooling.

The abrupt departure of a Solicitor General at a time when the government is embattled legally as well as on many other fronts is a disquieting sign that the Arroyo Administration is not Camelot, but may – if its errors are not checked – more like Constantinople on the eve of its fall. The fact that Fred Benipayo is one of our finest government officials, a man of probity and proven integrity, makes the fact of his departure even more intriguing. At the moment, he has not said anything himself about why he is quitting despite the guaranteed tenure of his office, which contributes to the confusion.

Justice Benipayo distinguished himself as a former court administrator, then a Chairman of the Commission on Elections who resolutely tried to reform the Comelec but was eased out of that post without being given time to accomplish that mission. It’s now being bruited about that Benipayo was frustrated and disappointed by being bypassed for appointment to the Supreme Court, twice in a row – but I believe that mere disgruntlement could not have triggered his unexpected resignation. His loss to the Administration will be deeply felt.

* * *

The current moves being made on the media by the government may boomerang on the President by making her look more and more tyrannical. This is an image she surely does not wish for herself since it puts her on the slippery slope of eventually falling into the mold of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos who completely crushed the media when he finally declared Martial Law in 1972.

In fact, in the beginning, the late Macoy was far more subtle in his campaign to "control" the media. Initially, Marcos moved to buy and cozen editors, columnists and journalists. When these methods failed, in a fit of anger, especially over the mounting and unremitting attacks on his extravagant First Lady Imedific, he cracked down completely, padlocking the irritating daily newspapers and shutting down the radio-television networks.

Even in the days when the "Marcosian" approach was to bribe media people, journalists were also murdered when they proved to be too stubborn to "convince". We used to say at the time that there were two ways in which to deal with an annoying newspaperman: "You could kill him with bullets, or you could kill him with kindness." The latter, of course, was the more dangerous to press freedom since a compliant journalist could then be sent out to purvey falsehood instead of truth.

La Gloria must beware of falling into the trap of adopting either approach. It’s early days yet, so she still has time pull back her subalterns and pursuivants who’ve begun to put too much pressure on critics in the media. I don’t think, for instance, that it’s mere paranoia that makes Ms. Sheila Coronel and other members of her Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) feel that she and her organization are in the crosshairs of the government. Or that broadcasters in the television networks feel threatened. When the President speaks about "responsible journalism", she must be careful not to be carried away and equate irresponsibility with critical comment or aggressive reporting.

In sum, GMA’s vow "to go for the jugular", while applaudable, must not be misinterpreted as going after everybody.

As for the threat voiced by Armed Forces Spokesperson Col. Tristan Kison that the Philippine Daily Inquirer could be charged with libelous sedition for publishing "baseless articles" allegedly being peddled by "unseen hands and puppet masters" to divide the military, this was ridiculous. It’s good that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez very quickly shot the notion down by declaring that the "Inquirer’s" March 11 and 12 articles were not seditious or even libelous. When you put the military in charge of interpreting the news this is always a dicey maneuver. As a former infantry officer, I can recall our infantry training days in which our instructors used to quip that the best solution to a problem was "to shoot it"!

So a word to the wise, even in these troubled and resentful times: Cool it.

* * *

Over across the water, in Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s headaches seem to be escalating faster than our own La Presidenta’s. Protesters, as many as 100,000 in one demonstration alone, are marching through the streets of Bangkok. Even more ferocious in aspect than the Edsa Dos protesters, demanding the resignation of the Thai Prime Minister for "corruption". Thaksin has been unable to hold meetings of his own Cabinet in the capital but has been compelled for safety’s sake to convene them in the provinces where he remains strong, or connect with his ministers by electronic teleconferencing. (After all, isn’t Thaksin an electronic genius?)

Will there be a violent confrontation between Shinawatra’s furious urban opposition and his fanatical supporters in the countryside? At one point, the Prime Minister even considered imposing Emergency Rules, reminiscent of La Gloria’s Proclamation 1017. This idea was reluctantly dropped, perhaps, I suspect, owing to a discrete word from His Majesty, King Bhumibol Abdulyadej. In the Kingdom of Thailand, the King is supreme and loved by everyone.

It’s interesting to note that Thailand’s six state-controlled television channels have simultaneously been broadcasting a film of King Bhumibol defusing a similar political confrontation by intervening to end the face-off. The broadcast, which Thaksin claims was ordered by the Palace (although some Palace officials deny this) was footage of the day in 1992 when the King summoned then Prime Minister Suchinda Kraprayoon who headed the military government of the time, and Chamlong Srimuang who was leading the pro-democracy protests against him. The King had intervened in the wake of military and police crackdowns on the rallies in which dozens of civilians, including many students were killed.

The film footage shows the two antagonists prostrating themselves, before the monarch, as is the Thai custom, while being severely lectured to peacefully mend their differences. The Thais, have one great advantage over us. Despite their violent clashes and political squabbling, they all fall into line when their beloved King speaks. In the more than 60 years that he administered His Kingdom after assuming the throne when his older brother was mysteriously murdered in the Palace, the King has ruled wisely and well. Through his many good works and dignified decision-making, the King endeared himself to his people in a way that none of his predecessors in the Chakri Dynasty had.

However, he is growing no younger. If he were less modest he might be able to say as King Louis XIV of France once so grandly emoted: "Apres moi le deluge." (After me comes the flood).

If you ask me, I wish we had a leader like King Bhumibol Abdulyadej. Not exactly a monarch, but someone like Plato in his The Republic described as a philosopher-king. Instead, we have in our land too many pilosopos, none of them with any kingly virtues.