Smear and cover-up in a country at war with itself

The old adage is worth remembering: Where there’s smoke there must be fire. What we’ve been experiencing the past week is smoke being blown in our eyes by the Defenders of the Palace – los defensores de la Reina, so to speak – who’ve been trying to demonize and demean the whistle-blowers in the jueteng controversy.

If the Queen, her Prince Consort, and her Little Prince are completely innocent of blame, why are such desperate measures being undertaken? This is not an accusation. It is just a question. However, it is a question uppermost in the minds of many whose curiosity was aroused by the frenzy with which even the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation are appearing so obviously partisan in "going after" the chief whistle-blower and scaring off any potential witnesses who might also sing the "canary song."

The effort to discredit self-confessed jueteng operator Wilfredo Mayor as being "a man" of opposition Senator (and defeated Presidential aspirant) Panfilo "Ping" Lacson is being denied by Lacson who asserts that Mayor was, in truth, a supporter of GMA, not one of his.

There’s a smear campaign being plotted, and perhaps by now already mounted against Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz – I kid thee not (my sources are good) – and, again, I ask why? Didn’t La Presidenta remark earlier, "let the chips fall where they may"? If Archbishop Cruz can produce witnesses, many of whom are, to be sure, already shaking in their boots (boy, this piece is full of clichés and bromides, but so is the situation), he’s performing a public service. Why should he besmirched for his courage?

In the past, Cruz had the reputation of being an upstanding, but non-combative and "regular" guy, not prone to strong emotion or grandstanding. Now he’s a battling cleric with the fervor of a Don Quixote, but he tilts not with giant Windmills – rather with the giant octopus of jueteng. A man obsessed with the impossible dream of fighting the "unbeatable" foe.

GMA’s problem is that her late dad, President "Cong Dadong" Macapagal, comes from Lubao and, therefore, so does she. Hailing from the town and province dubbed "The Vatican of Jueteng" it’s inescapable that she must know jueteng’s "Pope" and his "College of Cardinal Sins". As for Mikey Arroyo, as ex-Vice-Governor, now Congressman from Pampanga, he’s very, very well known in that province. His reputation should be his own defense, or vice-versa. No need for witnesses in any Senate inquiry to establish his "role" in Pampanga and surrounding provinces.

As for my cousin, Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson who attacked and helped cause the downfall of former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada as his accused King of Jueteng, etc., look who’s talking. For that matter, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada should not point fingers or throw stones. Jueteng flourished during the Erap Administration. Guess who were the jueteng kingpins and Dons in that era. Once more with feeling, to quote the late, irrepressible Manila Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson: "People who live in tin houses, shouldn’t throw can openers."

"It’s a case of what Senator John "Sonny" Osmeña once flippantly explained as "weather weather." Panahon-panahon. Guess who was the Emperor of Jueteng during the reign of ex-President Cory C. Aquino? "The Big C" wasn’t cancer in those days.

* * *

Let me reiterate my simple solution to a monstrous and complicated problem. If we persist, we will go on forever finger-pointing, casting blame on each other, the guiltiest of all being the loudest in condemning others. Smoke in the eyes, squid tactics, "the best defense is a strong offense," et cetera. That’s what we’re witnessing. It’s a no win situation. There will, if this continues unabated, be no victors, only survivors. And the biggest casualty will be our nation and its prospects.

Well, here’s my proposition. It will not be easy, since old friends, relations, and supporters "might" be involved (surely involved?), but the President must once and for all summon all her powers to crack down on jueteng. (I mean crack down, not "legalize" that insidious racket which exploits the dreams and centavos of the poor).

Let the past bury the past, and hopefully we can strive to start anew. This is, in my estimation, the only way. So many hands have been tainted by the current participating in jueteng’s bonanza, from the bottom to the top, that effort to track everyone down has already raised such a wall of resistance and denial that the campaign is bound to fail miserably. This plays right into the hands of the Godfathers of jueteng. Unlike the old days when it was a small town "numbers" game, jueteng has grown to monstrous proportions, metamorphosing into a streamlined empire of crime run by arrogant Dons who exercise the power of life and death, both politically – and literally.

So powerful is the clout of these Dons that it goes right up to the very gates of Malacañang. Outside or inside those gates? You tell me. Ergo, the only leader capable of mobilizing a real, not cosmetic offensive against the Jueteng Octopus is the President and Commander-in-Chief herself.

Will she do it? If she does, then neither La Emperadora nor her minions need further "defend" her persona or the majesty of her high office. The proof is in the act. The President "crushing" jueteng would disprove any insinuations about her involvement. And it would save our country – beginning with the debilitating, worse destructive climate of disappointment and despair now prevalent among our people.

And so, Mrs. President: It’s your call.

* * *

There’s a propaganda effort being made by the Palace press office (who’s in charge there? Toting Bunye?) and the usual defensores to explain away the minus-30 rating sustained by GMA in the recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) by attributing her unpopularity to the "hard things" she’s been doing and the "unpopular" measures she’s been undertaking to save our people from deficit, economic ruin and fiscal breakdown. On the contrary, it’s what GMA has not been doing, I submit, which has done her in. Corruption is not being curbed, it sears and goes on unabated. Too many populist, giveaway decisions continue to be made.

It’s time for a reality check. Then, it’s time to get moving.

Let’s face it. We’re a nation in despair. Even worse than that, a people mired in cynicism. Which is why we should honor men like Archbishop Cruz who’re still in there punching. I hate like hell the meddling of bishops, cardinals and sanctimonious clerics (like those who thunder threats of ex-communication at people who use the sinful condom). But when there’s a life-or-death battle to be waged, men of the cloth or even those defrocked, are welcome to the fray.

To Archbishop Cruz, though, I commend once again those words from the past uttered by the same two-fisted Mayor "Arsenic" Lacson. When Lacson barged into City Hall, he found Manila bankrupt. He went into action to weed out the crooks in City Hall, purge the list of crooked contractors, go after the crime syndicates, and clean up Manila in general. At one stage, weary, embattled, betrayed by some he trusted, and almost exhausted, Arsenic exclaimed: "I feel like a dope in shining armor!" But he balanced the budget and when he died of a heart attack (died "in the saddle" in fact) Manila discovered that for the first time its treasury had a surplus.

As for Lacson, he died a relatively poor man. His heavily-mortgaged house on Earnshaw had to be saved from foreclosure. He had sadly "mismanaged" his personal finances. Not many mayors are, I’m certain, guilty of such personal neglect these days.

God bless you, Arsenic! When people tend to sneer at "politicians," they ought to think of politician Lacson. We need our politicians – which is why we should forever keep reminding them of their honorable profession.

* * *

I’ve suggested in past columns that if GMA is interested in a role model perhaps she might do well to emulate Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who took over at No. 10 Downing Street in 1979 when England was in financial crisis, then went on to become the first Prime Minister in 160 years to win three general elections in a row – by doing the hard, unpopular things, not the popular ones. "Thatcherism" remains controversial to this day, but the Iron Lady made her mark on Britain as she strove mightily to put the prefix "Great" back on its escutcheon.

On the eve of the general election of 1983, Maggie Thatcher was asked: "Have you a vision of how you would like Britain to be?"

Mrs. Thatcher had replied: "My vision of society? A Responsible Society."

In 1986, she further explained what she meant in an address to the Conservative Women’s conference: "A responsible society is one in which people do not leave it to the person next door to do the job. It is one in which people help each other, where parents put their children first, friends look out for the neighbors, families for their elderly members, that is the starting point for care and support – the unsung efforts of millions of individuals, the selfless work of thousands upon thousands of volunteers . . . Caring isn’t measured by what you say: it’s expressed by what you do."

Thatcher did not espouse the easy way out. There was, in her book, no easy way. She made decisions which hurt her popularity, because she believed they were essential for the nation’s survival – and, ultimately, progress. Britain’s economic growth under Thatcher in the 1980s was brought about at great cost. A cost of three million unemployed, another five million living in poverty, and a widening difference between the rich and the poor. In the end, however, this "sacrifice" turned Britain around from decline to a slow march upwards. Hundreds of learned economists condemned Thatcher’s "harshness," but this is what "saved" England.

Even today, under Tony Blair’s Labour government (just reelected), that work ethic and morality stands Britain in good stead. While on the continent they try to insist on a 35-hour working week, and the economies of France and Germany are floundering with unemployment running at awful levels, the Brits work harder and their economy is up. (France’s unemployment average is 10.2 percent, while Germany’s is 11.8 percent!)

It’s no surprise that the majority of French youth, many of them jobless, voted "No" to the European Union Constitution. The Dutch voted "No," too. Is the European Union in crisis? You bet. Nationalism and national "self-protection" (okay I coined that clumsy term) have reared their . . er, ugly heads. Increasingly, I suspect, Europeans are growing uneasy at the prospect of entrusting their fate to the hands of those numerous and bossy gray bureaucrats in Brussels.

Everybody’s got troubles – not just us.

As for our President, just remember Maggie Thatcher. When she was wrong she was very wrong, but usually she was right. What was important is that she never hesitated to do what she believed was right even though it was difficult and cruelly damaged her own popularity.

Thatcher once remarked, I heard during a trip to London: "I never read the newspapers in the morning because this would ruin my day."

GMA might emulate this by ignoring what naggers like this writer say, or what her flatterers recommend, or what her intimates insist she do. Or, for that matter, what polls and surveys state.

Let God and conscience be her guide. When all is said and done, that’s what really counts.