HK and PH: Manila Hostage Crisis in 2010

Why Mayor Estrada Is Wrong on Hong Kong

Posted by Joe America on November 6, 2013

Subtitled: Filipinos Should Not Move to the Back of the Bus

As is often the case, kindly bear with me as I wander through some facts and acts, and examine things a bit, before arriving at a conclusion.

I’m sure most of you are aware of the background of the incident commonly known as the “Bus Massacre”. Eight Hong Kong tourists were killed on August 23, 2010, when an angry Filipino, holding the tourists hostage on a bus, opened fire on the hostages as Filipino police, trying to apprehend him, charged the bus.
The case has festered for three years because Hong Kong demands apology and remuneration from the Philippines while President Aquino holds to a “no apology” position. It is about as intricate as an issue comes. It reflects cross-cultural dynamics, national sovereignty, legal issues, and a lot of human emotions.

A Quick-Study of the Situation
Here is a wide-ranging list of some pertinent details that are in some way related:

• Hong Kong holds that the Philippine government was negligent in how officials handled the situation, resulting in unnecessary deaths. Hong Kong demands an official apology from the Philippine government, cash payments to families, punishment of officials in charge, and clear steps to assure a repeat will not occur.
• The Philippines (President Aquino) holds that the incident was the result of the hostage taker’s transgressions, and that Philippine officials responded the best that they could in a circumstance of considerable danger and unpredictability. The Philippines has expressed its regrets to the families of the slain tourists and offered financial remuneration to victims.
• Yesterday, November 5, 2013, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive issued a 30-day ultimatum to the Philippines, essentially “do as we tell you or face sanctions.”
• The bus scene was broadcast live by Philippine television stations. The hostage taker could see the approach of police from a television monitor on the bus.
• The Philippines conducted an immediate, comprehensive investigation and shared its report directly with China. The report was highly critical of the handling of matters by Philippine authorities. Indeed, Filipinos generally consider the matter “bungled” by government and police officials. The investigative report recommended charges against 15 people or organizations.
• China may have hardened Mr. Aquino’s stand by presenting a detailed list of instructions as to how the Philippines should deal with matters. Mr. Aquino considered the letter insulting. Hong Kong officials deny such a letter was sent.
• Manila Mayor Estrada, seeking to diffuse a situation which serves neither Hong Kong nor the Philippines well, has tried to deliver an official apology from the City of Manila to Hong Kong, along with a promise of payments to families. Hong Kong declined to receive the apology and angrily re-iterated its demands.
• Hong Kong is a part of China.
• China and the Philippines are in a territorial dispute near Philippine coasts. The Philippines has taken the matter to the United Nations arbiter for resolution, over China’s objection.
• China’s leaders refuse to visit the Philippines.
• Racially demeaning slurs fly both directions in social commentary.
• Hong Kong was accused by a human rights group in 2001 of racially discriminatory government acts toward foreign workers; Hong Kong defended itself by saying that proposals made by the organization would heighten racial discord.
• Mayor Estrada is a member of UNA, a major political party running against President Aquino’s LP candidates and candidates of other parties aligned with LP.

What Do We Take from This?
This is not as simple as Hong Kong would make it. “You messed up. Apologize, pay up and jail some people. Prove it won’t happen again.”
Some things are obvious:

• First and foremost, the matter was tragic for the Hong Kong families. No question.
• Second, there is no question as to who murdered, or caused the killing of, Hong Kong tourists. The hostage taker.
• Third, there is no question as to the poor handling of the matter by Philippine government officials and police.

The facts are clear, the investigations done, the matter understood.
To the extent that there are enduring issues, they pertain more to the relationship between Hong Kong – or China – and the Philippines than they do regarding the particulars of what happened.
The Philippine government is not without compassion, and has expressed its regrets to the families of those killed and injured. Certainly, no Philippine official WANTED this tragedy to occur. That innocence of motive, and the forthright self-examination undertaken by the Philippines, seems to have escaped the Chinese.
The incident remains hurtful as long as the matter is not laid to rest. The matter is laid to rest in the Philippines, officially, but not in Hong Kong, officially.
One can surmise that if the situation were reversed, Hong Kong officials would take essentially the same position as the Philippines has taken. It is the appropriate stance to take to protect sovereignty and legal rights. And, of course, if the situation were reversed, Filipinos would be outraged at Hong Kong’s refusal to apologize and there would be rallies in protest in the Philippines.
A neutral observer would argue that the matter should go to an international court for resolution, but no such steps have been taken. When the Philippines took China to the international arbiter over territorial rights, China objected angrily. One can imagine the same reaction if the Hong Kong matter were taken by the Philippines to an international arbiter for resolution. The Chinese do not respect such venues and are not willing to subjugate their national interests to other states or international courts.
Yet Hong Kong expects the Philippines to subjugate her national interests to Hong Kong.
As with the island territorial dispute, there is only one resolution that is acceptable to Hong Kong. The one that Hong Kong – that China – wants.
The Philippines could diffuse the anger by bowing to Hong Kong’s demands, but doing so would:

• suggest there was a willful negligence rather than incompetence,
• set a precedent of legal and financial obligation for future incidents that had tragic results,
• infringe on sovereign decisions of the Philippine state,
• risk encouraging Chinese adventurism (China seeing the Philippines as weak).

Clearly, diplomatic restraint is not a hallmark of Hong Kong’s approach. One cannot help but reflect back on Taiwan’s outsized outrage against the Philippines regarding the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by Philippine Coast Guard troops. BEFORE the Philippines or Taiwan had investigated the incident.
Another Disturbing Time
This Chinese attitude of superior morality, superiority of act and perspective, reminds me of the United States in the 1960′s when many whites claimed superiority over other races, and government laws supported the view. When white racial stereotypes, bigotry and laws were challenged in the 1960′s, the white response in some parts of the country was anger. Much like the Chinese who relentlessly voice a loud disgust, disdain and condemnation of Philippine’s acts.
It was an ugly time in the U.S.
Blacks who did not behave were punished, sometimes in the courts, sometimes vigilante style. There was only one race that determined what was correct. It was white. Blacks were instructed to:

• Drink from the black drinking fountains.
• Visit the black bathrooms.
• Sit in the back of the bus.
• Stay out of our white schools.

Heroes emerged from the fracas, from the push-back by black Americans. Perhaps the two most notable were Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks (cover photo).
Rosa Parks changed the world the day that she decided she deserved to sit in the front of the bus, no matter what happened.
Is China Racist?
Clearly there is an ugliness to what is going on in the seas between China and her neighbors.
There is an edginess, a hostility to Chinese behavior that is disturbing. The Taiwan incident. The Hong Kong incident. The conflict over islands. China demands. Demands. Demands. Insults, condemns, expresses outrage and demands.
Disturbing.

Clearly, the Philippines is not behaving the way China wants.
Should the Philippines “behave”?

I have written elsewhere, and cited literature, that China’s history is steeped in disdain for the darker natives who inhabit lands across the seas. This is an aspect of her “Middle Earth” perspective, being the center of all that is right and important about the world.

Well, it is unnecessary here to make that kind of distasteful observation, of racism. I know too many Chinese in the United States who are educated and intelligent and not at all racist. And I know that the Chinese in the U.S. were sorely discriminated against in the 1800′s when the railroads were built substantially with Chinese sweat labor. So it cuts both ways.

So I won’t lift the heavy finger of racism here. The Chinese thuggery very likely emanates from its military cadre. They certainly issue the most racially tinged threats. And perhaps it is merely their authoritarian bent that needs to be brought into a better diplomatic line by Chinese leaders.

So perhaps it is enough to say that China – and Hong Kong – and Taiwan – display a similar striking disregard for the independence and sovereignty of neighbor states, and particularly of the Philippines.
Where is the diplomatic restraint that gives credit to the Philippines for wanting to right its wrongs, for wanting to punish those who acted illegally or rashly in the bus incident? Or credits the Philippines for being forthright and candid with her investigation. Where is the respect for the Philippines as a separate, independent, sovereign state?

The current mantra from Hong Kong is “an apology is not enough.” It is the tenor of an adult lecturing a child.

Such offensive demands.

Why Mayor Estrada Is Wrong
Mayor Estrada’s goals are honorable:

• Get this problem behind us.
• Build a harmonious commercial, tourism and OFW relationship with neighbor Hong Kong.
• Protect Filipino workers in Hong Kong.

There are pragmatic reasons why it is wrong:

• It establishes a precedence of guilt for future government acts that, through the acts of criminal or unstable minds, end up tragically.
• It risks encouraging Chinese adventurism by showing the Philippines as weak.
• It undermines the President’s firm stance which protects the sovereignty of the Philippines in its broader resistance against Chinese territorial expansion. (It is akin to VP Binay’s going outside the chain of command to try to strike a peace agreement in Zamboaga.)

I’m inclined not to read political manipulations into the Mayor’s acts. I believe he wants a cure, plain and simple.

But here’s my real objection.

Mayor Estrada would have the Philippines move to the back of the bus. As if we are to know our superiors, and respect their demands.

No.

It is up to China – and Hong Kong – and Taiwan – to respect Philippine good faith, good intent, and straight dealing. It is up to the Chinese to grant the Philippines the right to exist as a self-determined state of laws and good will.

The appropriate neutral ground for a dispute is an international arbiter. Resolution of the dispute cannot come from Hong Kong over the sovereign rights of the Philippine state to manage her own affairs.
President Aquino’s insistence on a firm, law-based approach is offensive to the Chinese. As was Rosa Park’s insistence that she be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, to whites.

Indeed, standing on principle presents risks. The Philippines risks the well-being of Filipino workers in Hong Kong, innocents caught up in the unrestrained emotions of the Chinese. In the mob reaction fueled by a Chinese press that is almost as obnoxious as her military leaders. And the Philippines risks another tear in the relationship between China and the Philippines.

But what does it say to Asia – indeed, to the world – if the Philippines moves to the back of the bus, as instructed by China?

As it was in 1963, so it is in 2013, exactly fifty years later. It is the principle that matters.
It is important that China learn that all states stand equal, one to the other. It would be even better if China could somehow comprehend that her leadership in Asia can best come by DEFENDING her neighbors’ sovereign rights and territorial claims, not attacking them.

Short of that kind of renewed insight, the Philippines must do what the Philippines must do. In a respectful world filled with independent and earnest sovereign states, the Philippines determines where she sits.
Not China.

source:  http://joeam.com/2013/11/06/why-mayor-estrada-is-wrong-on-hong-kong/comment-page-3/#comment-14747