THE message was sent by someone from a distant place about something that was not merely surprising but also disturbing. The message should have been analyzed, evaluated and accordingly acted upon depending primarily on its veracity or falsity, its significance or irrelevance. Instead, practically all kind of vile and repugnant spit was plastered upon the person of the messenger—while the message was in substance ignored. To this writing, the message continues to linger and make people think.
What appeared very interesting was the fact that the message caused panic and hysteria specially on the part of the official talking sentinel for the subject-person of the message. The said guardian was very angry, very agitated, became very aggressive, very combative. If the message was really a non-issue, why such a rapacious stance? If the message was in effect vain and futile, why so angry and vehement a reaction?
Result: The messenger is “dead”. But the message lingers on. The messenger is silent. Yet, the message remains loud and clear.
No. This is not in defense of the messenger. And neither is it in promotion of the message. This is but meant to ask the following questions: One, is the message an expression of a progressively disappointed and dissatisfied growing number of people in the country? Two, is the message thus a strong signal saying that someone better shape up with the selfless help of those in the loop? Three, is the message wherefore simply destined for the garbage can or should it be resolved lest it progressively gather more and more affirmation and support?
It is worth noting that such a loaded message was transmitted at this time when the one concerned therein—together with close friends and dear associates—is precisely more and more depreciated in competence and questioned in accomplishment. In other words, the message could be but an omen of surprising things to come—in the event that they are not already around.
The big pity is that the ominous message came early—barely but a year or so after the change of guards. One thing is certain: In the event the message eventually becomes reality, it may neither be said then that it was not delivered rather early in the day nor that the messenger did not signify his concern and apprehension. One thing more: It is possible that other messages with the same content and in the same spirit would be subsequently delivered by other messengers.
Then: Read the messages not shoot the messengers. Please!
27 June 2011