LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I just would like to make a reaction of the irresponsible publishing of unverified facts that came out in The Freeman's Transport Section.

If you read through the whole article word for word, a certain bias may be felt. If the reader, as innocent as he is will read through, it will come out as if Weesam has already bailed themselves out from the mess they are in.

In paragraph 1 she (the editor) called Weesam a fastcraft when it's classification is still being contested and if her application is to be followed Weesam is just a mere lightcraft.

In paragraph 3 of the said article she quoted "a marina circular requires that fast craft operators are classed with IACS..." for a more forceful reportage where a point needs stress it would have been written as "a marina circular requires that fast crafts must be classed" (not the operator).

In her last paragraph she quoted Weesam officials claims that their vessels are classed with Bureau veritas and det norske veritas. Worse, she closed her article as quoting both societies as certifying Weesam's compliance with the requirements of high-speed craft and passenger ships.

These statements are very deceiving and irresponsible as while Weesam's seaworthiness and safety standards are still in question, a prestigious paper like The Freeman came up with false assurance. If due to such erratum something (God forbid) will happen which will endanger the lives and limbs of the passengers, will she pay for the damages incurred to the families left, if ever?

The issue here is not at all speed. The main issue here is the seaworthiness. The fact that classification requirements were set by Marina means it has bearing to its seaworthiness and safety. I even wondered if she solicited the wisdom of Atty. Cabañez after hearing the director's claim of expertise. She should have questioned why IACS should be required as a fast craft and how come between the two only Oceanjet complied to such and Weesam is not at all required, them being experts and the very reason why it was logged as a requirement in the first place means such is vital to the seaworthiness and safety in this class.

I felt that Oceanjet has always, for whatever reason she has, been at the raw end of the deal in almost all her articles to include those in the past.

Weesam as of this writing is still unclassed, therefore not seaworthy and unsafe to be operating as a fast craft and still can't be called a fast craft so that any unverified statement stating otherwise is at this point in time dangerous, deceiving, irresponsible, damaging, and unprofessional.

We should be thankful and prayerful that no untoward incident has happened from now until the impression will be corrected, else I can't imagine the guilt you will feel and the persecution from those affected families (if ever) and the few who are aware, and the wrath of someone who knows everything who is ever policing us (the one up there).

We just got word from Marina 7 director Atty. Glen Cabañez that the sequence of how he was quoted was manipulated to make it look like he meant something else. Let me give you a little background of the issue at hand. As far as Weesam is concerned, there were two cases present (1) Marina's cease and desist order for Weesam due to non-compliance of some requirements needed for seaworthiness, and (2) Oceanjet's TRO that Weesam not be given a CPC due to non-seaworthiness of their vessel.

Atty. Cabañez issued his comment as was quoted but was referring to Weesam's injuction moves for the cease and desist and not Oceanjet's TRO. Ms. Mercado's manipulation of the sequence in her article made it look like the director defended Weesam from Oceanjet's TRO when it was issued as a comment for Weesam's injuction moves. Based on her article, it seems that she acted as a PR officer of Weesam and instead placed Oceanjet in bad light.

We need media, the truth hurts, and yet we are not hiding the truth. What made us react this strongly is when some facts are being juggled to make the story look true even if it was the complete opposite.

The Freeman has been in the business for years and you have a prestigious reputation. It's very unfair that exact opposites of stories will be published because the mass base of your subscribers/readers believe in you. Let me therefore demand that this concern be corrected ASAP with the same passion as it was aggressively meant to destroy us plus the publishing of public apology coming from her for such a misdeed.

May this little piece find a place worthy of your consideration, the error (of the article) corrected soonest, and repair, heal, or kill the virus in the inner pages of your newspaper.

Erwin Biaño
Marketing Manager
Oceanjet