Nobody in Peru had expected Fujimori, who had for more than two terms been the strongman of that Latin American country (once dissolving parliament, reaming out the judiciary, suspending the Constitution, and crushing subversion with an iron hand) to cave in so precipitously. Least of all did they expect Fujimori, who is of Japanese ancestry, to make the announcement of his quitting so many thousands of miles away – in Japan.
Is Fujimori going home to formally hand in his resignation and turn over control of his government? Even that seems to remain in question. For, after all, once he divests himself of his Presidential immunity, won’t Fuji face the prospect of arrest, or at least prosecution in connection with the corruption scandal plaguing his administration vis-à-vis his former intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, being caught bribing a parliamentary member of the Opposition?
Fujimori had "won" a third term under controversial and suspicious circumstances only months ago, throwing his nation into political turmoil, then – with the international community condemning him and rattled by the exposure of his intelligence chief – had, with equal shock-value and drama, declared in September he was reducing his five-year mandate to just one year, pledging to call new elections and step down in July. Now, this latest development, which shows that nothing is impossible under the sun.
Who would have thought the formerly brave Mr. Fujimori, only 62 (a significant age?), would meekly and abjectly abdicate in the course of an overseas trip? It’s a topsy-turvy world.
How tupsy-turvy it is for Erap, whose regime has been shaken, to its very foundations by the accusations of a former crony, Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson, will soon be tested. Will Erap, too, give up? At this stage, with the President hanging tough and declaring he will "never resign", it doesn’t seem likely. But stranger things have happened.
As the old nursery rhyme went, "for want of a (horse) shoe, the battle was lost." The President must be counting how many lucky horseshoes he’s got left, and how many "bets" he can count on in the Senate. It all depends on whether he’s made of sterner stuff (than a libertine who juggled too many mansions and households), or whether he was a "man of action" and two-fisted bida only in the movies. Whether reel life is mirrored in real life: That is the question.
As for Fujimori, let me say it for him. He was not a greedy or "bad" President in his time. When he assumed office, Peru was in the throes of a horrible and cruel rebellion in which the Marxist insurgents of the Sendero Luminoso ("Shining Path", a ridiculous misnomer) were blowing up buildings and power stations, ambushing guardia civil and army units, massacring civilians, and devastating the country. By forthright action and relentless measures, he captured the Leftist professor Abamael Gonzalez who led the rebels, crushed the "Shining Path" insurrection, and other Leftist insurgent movements – including the terrorists who had seized the Japanese Embassy, with cabinet members and diplomats held hostage to provoke an embarrassing international incident. (The terrorists were wiped out to the last man and woman.)
He rejuvenated the faltering and sluggish economy. Alas for him, with "peace" came dissatisfaction with his strongarm tactic and his one-man rule. People all over, as history demonstrates time and again, have short memories. Yesterday’s hero becomes today’s tyrant. The qualities that made Fujimori sternly successful became the fatal albatross around his neck.
Adios, Fuji! The Italians have an expression, "Time is a gentleman." In time, perhaps, Peruvians will take a kinder view of him – and credit him for the better things he has done. At the moment, however, they want to string him up.
It was on the final day of the conference that Indonesia almost cut off diplomatic ties with Australia. The trigger of the crisis between Jakarta and Canberra was the publication a day earlier of a front page article in the popular Sydney Morning Herald by experienced foreign correspondent David Jenkins which had been headlined: "After Marcos – Will Suharto be Next?"
Jakarta was outraged by the comparison made between Ferdinand Marcos, who had just been kicked out by our EDSA People Power Revolution, and Indon Strongman, General Suharto, whose family kleptocracy was – like the departed Marcoses – savaging the country and the economy. In indignation, Vice President and Defense Minister (if I recall) Benny Moerdani had ordered "relations" broken off. Planeloads carrying Australian tourists to the resort island of Bali, for instance, were impounded at the Den Pasar airport and the Aussie tourists repelled – simply shooed away. All flights between Jakarta and other points of Indonesia and Australia were immediately cancelled. In Darwin, up in the Northern Territories ("Crocodile Dundee" country), military units were placed on red alert, as Australia braced itself for hordes of screaming Indonesian ABRI troops might come barreling south. For a nation (at the time of only 18 million) to be living cheek by jowl with a mercurial and populous archipelago of 180 million Indonesians (they are now 200 million in number) is always unsettling – and, occupied East Timor was, after all, only 20 minutes by plane from Darwin.
Fortunately, the Indonesians did not run amok over the issue. It was dicey for a while, however. I rang up my old friend, journalist David Jenkins – the author of the offending report – and he was puzzled over the explosive reaction to his piece. After all, David pointed out, he had said nothing new in his article, at least nothing more bizarre than what he had written in his earlier book (published by Cornell in 1984), Suharto and his Generals: Indonesian Miltiary Politics 1975-1983. Having read his book (Jenkins and this writer, along with another intrepid Aussie journalist, Frank Palmos of the London Telegraph, had covered the 1965 GESTAPU Coup together), I was inclined to agree.
It turned out later, once the dust settled, that the offending headline had not been Jenkins’s original head, but had been tacked on by a sub-editor in the newsroom who wanted a more spectacular, eye-catching tag to the story. This just goes to show that "for want of a shoe" applies to journalism as well as to political fortune. The sub-editor who almost provoked "war" between Indonesia and Australia probably wasn’t even scolded – or chastened.
In any event, Suharto was finally toppled. But many years later – on May 21, 1998.
What about Erap? In May, 2004? Or earlier?
The two griping bus operators, identifying themselves as "presidents" of two Metro bus associations, promised Estrada they would not join any transport strike mobilized by radical groups against him. In return, they asked Erap to kick out Lantin.
Industry sources say that the two operators not only DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEIR GROUPS but, worse, are even stubborn oppositors of the bus "modernization program" and anti-smoke-belching drive of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). Why? Because it turns out the two fellows are operators and importers of those junk Japayuki second-hand buses which were discarded by Japan and Korea, but rescued from the scrap heap by fly-by-night operators here. Are these bozos the type of public utility operators who are being listened to by the President these days? If so, Erap must be desperate – and unthinking.
I urge the President (and it’s not too late) to recall his precipitate instructions for DOTC Secretary Jun Rivera to cashier LTFRB Chairman Lantin. For Lantin, to my personal knowledge, is a fine and honest man – a public servant who has been discharging his duties efficiently and well.
Lantin, for instance, demonstrated his concern for the commuting public by holding back the hike in bus and jeepney fares until after the ninth increase in diesel or fuel prices.
Only last June, Rivera himself told Executive Secretary Ronnie Zamora in writing that "Chairman Lantin has performed creditably, especially in dealing with transport operators who respect him for his integrity and sincerity of purpose." Who should be believed? A man who has elicited praise and respect, even from those who don’t particularly appreciate his sternness, or junk bus operators – particularly when one of them, as another business of his, exports Japayuki ladies of nightclub GROs and "cultural" dancers to Japan? Nothing wrong with these working gals, but what about those who deal in them?
It is of record that, over the years, Lantin has been scrupulously correct in all his dealings. His custom has been to return "gifts" and envelops containing money to operators, even on the occasion of his birthday or Christmas. He also rejects invitations for private meetings, dinners and lunches outside his office from those needing licenses, franchises or other "favors" from him, telling them that there is nothing they can tell him outside the LTFRB premises which they cannot tell him in his office.
Lantin’s determination to rid his office of graft and corruption has been clearly demonstrated in letters he sent to the Ombudsman, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the ISAFP (Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines ) to detail a resident Ombudsman or "agent" in his offices to undertake surveillance and entrapment of fixers and mulcters. Even as a subordinate, Lantin has been very professional. He has invariably kept his DOTC chief, Secretary Vicente Rivera and Malacañang of every important action he planned to take on sensitive matters.
Naturally, in the course of managing such a delicate agency’s affairs that he commands, Chairman Lantin has rubbed a number of operators the wrong way. For one, some are angry they cannot "corrupt" him.
Mr. President: You are asking for your own day in court, the chance to repudiate your critics and defend yourself. It is not too much to ask that you, too, in turn give Lantin an opportunity to defend himself from the vilification of his detractors. Lantin is a career executive service officer (CESO), entitled to protection from unjustified relief or dismissal without due process under Civil Service rules and regulations. The President must hear him out. Fair is fair. If one asks for justice for himself, he must be the first to extend it to others!