At Large : Poor Bert
Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service
POOR Bert Gonzales. I'm not really all that surprised that his blood pressure should shoot up after that blistering interrogation he had to endure at the Senate Wednesday.
Before he himself surrendered to the stress, Gonzales had made many senators' blood pressure rise in kind, mainly by his refusal to answer directly the legislators' questions regarding the extent of his authority to enter into a contract with a foreign lobby firm and the identity of the "private donors" who he claimed were going to fund Venable's efforts. I suspect adding to the senators' upset was Gonzales' refusal to take the bait and implicate the President in yet another scandal, one that senators have called "treasonous."
While he might qualify for a medal from his boss, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for being willing to fall on a sword -- or in his case amp up his hypertension -- Gonzales should really reconsider whether staying on as national security adviser is worth his life, his name or his good health. For a while, Gonzales was valiantly taking on the brunt of the blame for the supposedly cancelled Venable deal, his commander in chief was just as valiantly distancing herself from the decision and from her adviser.
I can imagine how his heart rate and blood pressure might rise with the unsavory task of having to stand up in defense of a boss who has already abandoned him to ignominy. That is not the way to reward such rabid, if misguided, loyalty.
THIS is a theme that the Black and White Movement, which still has not said "die" on its mission to finally arrive at the truth behind the Gloriagate scandal, has picked up on. In a statement, the group recalled that after the Venable contract hit the headlines, Gonzales said confidently that the President had assured him "not to worry about the funds to pay for the Venable contract [saying that] there's going to be a foreign donor."
Well, Malacañang apparently belatedly realized the frightening implications of the President's personal involvement, if not ultimate responsibility, for the arrangement. Just a day after Gonzales talked to reporters about the "foreign donors," the President, in a TV appearance, denied any personal knowledge of or involvement in the affair, saying that "she does not micromanage contracts, leaving everything to Bert."
As the Black and White Movement comments: "Indeed she did. She's left everything to Bert, including twisting and hanging in the wind to cover up and be held accountable for something he could only have done as an extension of the personality of the President. He has received neither reassurance nor support from the President. He is close to being accused of treasonous behavior. And for what? To serve the interests of a President who stands behind nothing: not her own decisions and policies, not her Cabinet members, not the interests of the country."
In the wake of the President's shabby treatment of one of her closest advisers, the group appealed to the rest of the Arroyo Cabinet, pointing out that "this is what you will get, for thinking your service to the President is service to the country."
To those relatively new in the inner circle, particularly the replacements for the "Hyatt 10" group of former Cabinet officials, the Black and White has this ominous scenario: "You will be asked questions you cannot answer, because of the deviousness of the President you serve. You will be asked to defend policies the true nature of which has been kept from you by the President. You will be held accountable for things the President, and not you, should be held to account. The President serves no one but herself, and is prepared to do any disservice to any person, including members of her own official family, if it serves her interests."
AT A RECENT get-together of friends on matters political and social, we all agreed that Malacañang had essentially won the public opinion battle in the wake of July 8, when people thought the "tipping point" had been reached in turning the nation against Ms Arroyo.
The Palace's attack team, led by Mike "Braces" Defensor, quickly got busy painting the "Hyatt 10" former officials as "traitors" who had been disloyal to their President, betrayed her trust and took advantage of their proximity to power to gather ammunition against her administration.
And Filipinos, we agreed, recoil instinctively against the word "traydor" [traitor] or to the concept of disloyalty. After all, our society has long been built on the foundations of family, where fealty and loyalty are considered prime values.
What was needed, we agreed, was a campaign to turn the tables on the concept of "disloyalty." Shouldn't the "Hyatt 10" be honored instead for being disloyal to the President but loyal to the country and to their principles? What is the greater sin: to stay loyal to a leader who had abandoned her oath and ceased to serve the people, or risk one's position and reputation to stand up for the greater good and for truth?
If the President cannot even "stand by her man (or woman)" in a time of crisis, it's extremely doubtful she would stake her power for such nebulous concepts as the national welfare and honor.
NOTES: Lawyer Jim Lopez, National Book Awards winner for three consecutive years, will be one of the speakers at the "For Better, For Worse: A Complete Guide to Annulment" seminar today at the Asian Institute of Management Conference Center. Lopez will talk on material covered in his book "The Rules of Marriage: Rules of Engagement."
Lopez is (happily) married to Lorna Legazpi, a former Miss Philippines, and they have four children.
For inquiries, call the Center for Global Best Practices at +632 8427148 or +63917 9295432 or e-mail bestpractices8888@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment