Hot air

I am perplexed by Hong Kong. Sure, the fiasco that attended the handling of the hostage crisis triggered by an imbalanced cop deserved (and still deserves) condemnation. There is much cause for grief, with lives unnecessarily lost in the face of so many opportunities that came and went for those lives to be spared. We do have to find ways to make amends, somehow, for the pain and the loss that is suddenly this nation's cross to bear. 

But what's with the seeming shrillness and vindictiveness that's been been coming from mouthpieces of the Hong Kong government? Statements from legislators like "We ... demand that the Philippine government conduct a fair and independent investigation" (which calls into question the ability of the investigators to be independent, and more tellingly, how small the expectations of fairness are). Or the demand that representatives of the Hong Kong government take part in this investigation: What's with that? How will they participate, exactly? By being given the freedom to ask questions designed to produce blame? On whom, exactly?

Democratic Party lawmaker Cheung Man Kwong somehow already knows that the list of potential witness does not include survivors of the attack but will be confined to the policemen who took part. This, he says, is bound to result in an investigation that is 'one-sided' and 'unconvincing.' There are many many (major major) things that are mistaken about this position, the most flippant of which is summed up thus: "Like, you mean that after that gruesome nightmare of being stuck in a bus with a crazed gunman, the freed hostages are going to be willing to fly back to Manila to become voluntary witnesses?"

The thing that bothers me about this is the 'one-sided' accusation. One-sided for whom? Who do they fear will be exculpated? The Philippine government? The President? The police? The army? Media? Which side are they facing anyway? Who do they want blamed?

The fierceness of the rhetoric, coming as it does not from ordinary citizens, but from government representatives, is surprising. It's not as if President Aquino ordered the police to be bungling fools - they did that pretty well by themselves. Why is the Hong Kong government then acting like there was complicity from all levels and at the highest levels in the tragic results of the crisis?

Columnist John Mc Breth of the Singapore Straits Times comes right out and says this level of anger, to the point of Hong Kong calling for all its citizens to return home and the Philippines being blacklisted, is unjustified. (Ok fine, he says it's "hardly justified," and my artistic license says this means he's saying it's unjustified.) He then attributes this anger to Chief Executive Donald Tsang being rebuffed when he tried to call President Aquino, a sad result of some minor functionary dialing the Malacañang Palace trunkline rather than going through official channels. (Some more artistic license: Mc Breth actually says it "seems" to be the reason for Hong Kong's anger, but what the heck.)

So, someone else aside from myself has hazarded this opinion. Good. At least, I'm not the only one with seemingly far-fetched conclusions, and given there are two of us, it's doesn't seem that far-fetched anymore. 

I could come up with more theories, like maybe Donald Tsang wants to rack up political points, or he's diverting the attention of the Hong Kong public from some other social ill, but then that would be attributing to him characteristic of that special breed called the Filipino politico, so I'm not going there.

At this point, we could bristle and trade barbs, but we're really not in a great position to do that. It's time to focus on learning what lessons we can have from the tragedy, and meanwhile, let Hong Kong's mouthpieces vent off steam. Let's just hope that, eventually, they'll simmer down and allow the wider perspective to sink in.