Monday, June 19, 2006


It is politically correct for a public official to claim pro-life policy. It is socially advantageous for someone holding a political office to profess an anti-death stance. But there is a whale of a difference between mere words and downright actions. There can be a big duplicity between a political claim and a hard hitting reality.

It appears rather ridiculous, bordering on the absurd, for the national leadership to project a pro-life position when it spares some lives but kill many. This actuation pattern is anything but demonstrative of respect for human life. No death penalty for some but extermination of hundreds of cause-oriented individuals, media practitioners, farmers and even protestant pastors is clearly an anti-life mental and behavioral reality.

The pro-death posture of the national leadership is now official by its loud and clear presentation of a billion peso project for the extermination of human lives. To kill the NPA within a predetermined time frame also means to have soldiers killed, to have as well some civilians killed with all the NPA and the soldiers killed too.

The government policy seems to boil down to this maxim: when you cannot win certain people over, simply kill them. And the problem is solved. No more dissent. No more struggle. There will be peace all over the land. There will be contentment among the people. Wrong!

People are not animals. Kill animals and dead they remain. Exterminate their kind and finished they stay. Kill people and their spirit lives, their aspirations remain alive, their ideals are taken up by many others. This is the experience of the country. This is the history of this nation.

“Loss of lives unavoidable,” this is a defeatist, fatalistic or even sadistic mentation—to say the least! The people of this country are in one big danger with such attitudinal posture. In the administration, one would think that it is a public policy precisely to protect, serve and promote human lives. Otherwise, a government that nonchalantly looks at loss of lives as a matter of course, can be already considered as inimical to the people it is precisely expected to defend and save. If the “loss of lives unavoidable” posture is general, then it applies to everybody—even those who say so.

19 June 2006