Gaslighting in the works

While watching one night my favorite TV police/detective fiction series “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” the lead character Captain Olivia Benson exclaimed the rape victim was being “gaslighted” by fellow owners of a wellness company in a bid to oust her from the corporate picture. So much so the “gaslighting” victim suffered nervous breakdown to doubt her own sanity and conceded she might have just made up the rape complaint. In the end, Capt. Benson arrested instead the “gaslighters’’ for obstruction of justice and other criminal and corporate charges.

This reminded me such sinister plots in fiction stories and TV drama series could also happen in real life. What picked my interest though was learning of the new term “gaslight.” It turns out the term is one of the 700 new words and terms added to the Oxford English Dictionary from March to June 2022.

As defined, to “gaslight” is to psychologically manipulate people usually over an extended period of time so that the victims question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary also defined “gaslighters” as those who work hard to ensure that you never realize it’s them causing the problems. The transfer of blame goes to you, because everything will become your fault so that you’re easily manipulated.

I could only draw parallelism in what have been unfolding so far in the controversy involving the Sugar Regulatory Authority (SRA) on its original plans to import 300,000 metric tons (MT) of sugar for the country. However, Malacañang stopped this because it was not authorized by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. as concurrent Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary.

The SRA is one of the attached agencies under the DA and the Secretary sits as board chairman of the SRA. But a memorandum issued by Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez “for and in behalf of the President,” the day-to-day control and supervision of the DA were delegated to one of DA deputies, Undersecretary for Operations and concurrent chief of staff Leocadio Sebastian.

The controversy erupted after SRA chief Hermenegildo Serafica announced the DA and the SRA would import this much of raw and refined sugar products purportedly to augment the projected domestic supply gap from production and millers. Subsequently, SRA Resolution No.4 were posted on the SRA website, with Sebastian’s signature approving it “for and in behalf of the President.”

Local sugar millers, however, claimed sacks of sugar were allegedly just being hoarded to create artificial shortage and hike prices in the market. In the aftermath of the controversy, Sebastian and Serafica resigned one after the other. PBBM appointed a new “acting” Secretary, Domingo Panganiban, who once headed the DA in the past.

Meanwhile, in the exercise ostensibly of the “visitorial” powers of the State, Rodriguez ordered the Bureau of Customs to inspect several bonded warehouses in Metro Manila and Bukidnon reportedly “hoarding” sugar stocks. Amid supposed supply crisis, thousands of sacks of sugar were found stacked up but they were not being “hoarded.”

Refined sugar imported from Thailand found inside a bonded warehouse in Subic Freeport was originally announced at Malacañang as a suspected smuggling case. Six Customs Bureau officials at the Subic Freeport were “recalled” from their posts pending investigation. Last week, top officials of the Customs Bureau told the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee they found documents for the imported sugar stocks were valid and legitimate. Ergo, the six Subic Freeport officials were cleared and reinstated last week to their respective posts.

Is “hoarding” per se illegal? Aren’t hoarding and smuggling symptoms of a shortage?

The projected shortage in raw and refined sugar was recognized as early as November last year. The Economic Development Cluster (EDC) of the Cabinet headed by former Finance Secretary Carlos “Sonny” Dominguez deliberated on the SRA recommended importation of sugar product based on this projected shortage. However, a lower court in Negros issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the SRA importation of sugar. So the Judiciary could be partly responsible for the sugar shortage.

According to the minutes of the EDC meeting on March 7, 2022, the SRA presented their report that the Philippines will need about 265,512 M/T to cover the lull period in domestic production.

Obviously, we cannot produce enough, not just sugar but also rice, onion, and lately even salt in our country. By adopting a policy of restricting imports of agricultural products, it might only exacerbate our economic problems.

Eventually, PBBM recently allowed to import 150,000 M/T of sugar, or half of the original SRA plan. It was in response to urgent appeals by domestic industries like soft drink makers affected by the short supply of sugar as basic ingredient of their products. Big retail companies pitched in by selling refined sugar at reduced price of P70 per kilo in grocery and markets.

Accepting responsibility for SRA Resolution No. 4, Sebastian resigned along with the rest of the SRA Board members who signed it. At the resumption of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee public hearing last week into the sugar import mess, Sebastian disclosed his resignation is not accepted yet while he is still serving a 90-day preventive suspension.

We might think someone who is gaslighting a person would only lie about big things that they could cover up, or hide. But this is apparently not the case in this SRA controversy. It’s a classic mind game of people who psychologically manipulate public opinion by means of “gaslighting.”

Professional “gaslighters” lie about all things big and small just to throw us off from the truth and the realities on the ground. Insidiously attacking the person’s credibility, these “gaslighters” are the real culprits.