Aug. 23, 2010 was indeed a sad day for many the Hong Kong hostage victims, survivors and their families; for the family of the hostage-taker and for Filipino overseas workers in Hong Kong now facing the displaced wrath and anger of Hong Kong residents. All these happened because of one man — dismissed Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza, described by relatives as “palakaibigan at mabait na tao” (friendly and a good person) — who took hostage 25 people aboard a tourist bus to demand his reinstatement in the service.
Looking back
It initially appears that the hostage-taker was open to negotiations and the negotiating team was doing a good job having nine hostages released. What seemed to have started the dismay of the hostage-taker was seeing the resolution of the Ombudsman that he would not be immediately reinstated and that he couldn’t be employed anymore in any government agency. The apparent triggering and aggravating factor to the bloody aftermath was the supposed arrest of the hostage-taker’s brother whose last message to the hostage-taker was not at all helpful since from what I saw on TV, he said that “Tol, huwag kang papayag sa kanila kapag hindi binalik ang baril ko.”
There are so many lessons learned from this hostage-taking tragedy. The police assault, which appeared lacking in coordination, was quite alarming. It was also so depressing to see the police inadequately trained and inadequately equipped. Not all of them had helmets and bullet-proof vests. Their sledgehammers could not break through the fiber glass windows. They lacked ladders to climb up the sides of the bus. The rope tied to the door was not strong enough. They used tear gas, to the increased discomfort of the hostages who were still alive inside the bus, but could not tolerate entering the bus as they had no gas masks. They had no night vision equipment. There was likewise no coordination with media and no crowd control and safeguarding of the public. There was no element of surprise for the hostage-taker as he could view from the bus TV where the police were. Perhaps our SWAT team could have done a better job and the hostages and even the hostage-taker could all have been still alive.
The PNP should have also tapped qualified psychiatrists whose close coordination with the field negotiators may have been beneficial.
The Hostage Negotiation Study Guide 2010
Here’s a negotiation study guide developed through the cooperation of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The primary objectives of a negotiator are: [a] Prolong the situation. The longer a hostage situation lasts, the more likely that it will end peacefully. Tactics include stalling while an official with more authority is consulted, getting deadlines pushed back, focusing the hostage-takers’ attention on details and asking them open-ended questions rather than yes/no questions; [b] Ensure the safety of the hostages. This means convincing the hostage-taker to allow medical treatment or release for sick or injured hostages, negotiating the delivery of food and water and negotiating the release of as many hostages as possible. Getting some of the hostages out of the situation not only ensures their safety, but it also simplifies the situation in the event that an armed assault becomes necessary. In addition, released hostages can provide invaluable information about the locations and habits of the captors and the other hostages; [c] Keep things calm. From the initial assault through the first hours of negotiations, hostage-takers can be extremely volatile. They’re usually angry about whatever perceived injustice has led them to take hostages, and they are filled with adrenaline following the excitement of their attack. Angry, excited people with machine guns are not good for hostages. The negotiator should never argue with a hostage-taker and never say no to a demand. Instead, the negotiator should use delaying tactics or make a counter-offer. Above all, the negotiator should keep a positive, upbeat attitude, reassuring the hostage-taker that everything will eventually work out peacefully; [d] Foster the growth of relationships between negotiator and hostage-taker and between hostage-taker and hostages. The negotiator must seem credible to the captor. That is, the negotiator must act like he or she understands the reasons for the hostage-taker’s actions but still come across as strong — not just eager to please. The negotiator can also encourage activities that require cooperation and interaction between the captors and the hostages, such as sending food and medical supplies in bulk packages that have to be prepared. When the hostage-taker gets to know the hostages and sees them as human beings, it becomes more difficult to execute them.”
Stories of survival
I had the chance to interview three persons who were hostaged several years ago by the Abu Sayyaf and another individual who was kidnapped for ransom. The names of these persons cannot be revealed in this article because of privileged communication.
There are common factors in how they survived their captivity. The three hostages were all Filipinos. Two were males (father and son) and one was a female writer for a travel magazine. These three hostages were captured by the Abu Sayyaf on an island resort at dawn. As they were whisked to escape motor boats, the abductors, all armed with high-powered firearms, got their mobile phones and started negotiating ransom from their families.
Coming from a poor family, the female hostage asked the abductors to call instead her employer. Her ransom bidding started from P5 million and was subsequently lowered to P1 million. The same process was done with the two other hostages. The abductors reassured them of their safety if the ransom would be paid without police or army intervention. These hostages survived their 45-day captivity by remaining calm and by following whatever their abductors ordered them to do. Needing a change of clothes after getting wet in their motorboat ride, they were instructed to steal clothes that were left hanging outside the nipa huts in a nearby village. They would run alongside their abductors if their abductors were being pursued. They never tried to escape because of the high risk of getting killed. They even agreed to send material aid for this group upon their release. The female hostage denied being raped and instead said that she was treated well even by the leader of the group. The hostages claimed there was no exchange of fire between the Abu Sayyaf and the army contrary to news reports regarding their alleged rescue. They claimed they were just turned over to the army. Even after their release, fear for their lives lingered because they continued to receive messages, even if they changed their phone numbers, from their abductors reminding them to send their promise of material aid. During their captivity, the hostages said they continued asking for God’s help.
The kidnap victim, on the other hand, was a male Filipino professional who was abducted from his farm. Blindfolded and with physical restraints and after an apparent long vehicular travel, he thought he was held captive in a distant province. When he was rescued after several weeks by the police, he was surprised to learn that his place of captivity was just in a nearby farm. He narrated his dehumanizing ordeal as being hogtied and kept in an enclosed pig pen. His food would be thrown on the ground and he had to eat without the use of his hands. He had to eat like an animal in order to survive. The thought that he needed to remain alive as he was the breadwinner for a mentally ill spouse and several young children and his fervent prayers kept him hopeful that he would be rescued somehow. He knew his family would have great difficulty raising the ransom of P5 million. He tried to remain calm and never caused trouble for his abductors. He tried to keep count of his days of captivity. Being tied, he could not even walk nor exercise. Escape seemed impossible.
In the two scenarios, the abductors were after the ransom money. Therefore the chance for remaining alive was high. Common strategies employed by the captives included remaining calm and cooperative with their abductors and they refrained from antagonizing their hostage-takers. All of them never lost hope because of their faith in God’s mercy and love that they would survive their ordeal. One psychosocial processing or debriefing was not enough to abate the post-traumatic stress disorder of these four individuals. Subsequent therapy was recommended for them.
Actually, there is no real blue print or guide in surviving a hostage-taking because of the differing circumstances like the state of mind, ideology and reason of the hostage-taker. What would most likely be helpful is for the hostage victim to remain calm and not to agitate the abductor, remain optimistic of survival either by a rescue, a negotiated release or an escape. If held in captivity with others, communicating with the other hostages, if allowed, is helpful. Remember, never plan an escape if the chance of getting caught is high. Keep yourself physically fit by eating the food given to you and by exercising if this is possible. Be observant of yourself, your captors and your environment. Don’t forget that praying is a helpful coping style of Pinoys.
But prevention is the best form of survival. When at home or while mobile in a vehicle, always remember to keep your doors locked.
* * *
I share the grief of the families of the Aug. 23 hostage fatalities and the Hong Kong Chinese nationals and understand the anger of the hostage survivors, the families of the hostage survivors/victims/countrymen and their collective need for the acquisition of social justice.
(E-mail me at nina.halilijao@gmail.com)