I was the subject of the Editorial of the Manila Standard Today with regard to a comment I made concerning the brazen robbery-hold up in Greenbelt 5. (Read it HERE)
I wrote to the editors requesting that my side be printed, especially since they publicly raised questions to me. I don’t know if my reply will see print in their paper, so I will also post it in the web:
The Editor
Manila Standard Today
Dear Editor,
This is regarding your editorial published on October 21, 2009, where questions were posed to this representation regarding a comment on the recent robbery in Greenbelt 5. Since the questions posed were publicly directed towards me, I am hoping that this reply will merit print in your newspaper in the interest of fairness and transparency.
Before I proceed to answering the questions posed by the editorial, please allow me to make some corrections to the write-up, which I think is necessary in order to ensure that only facts make its way to the public’s attention.
First of all, the editorial was incorrect when it said that I “felt compelled to comment on the daytime robbery”. I did not issue a press statement nor did I seek out the press to give a comment on the robbery. It was the media reporter who sought me out for my comment.
Second, the editorial was also incorrect when it said that I proposed there should only be one authorized supplier of uniforms for the police. My comment was that there should be a regulation of manufacturers of uniforms and that only suppliers who are contracted by the PNP to supply uniforms with the specified design, color and material should be allowed to manufacture the same. Manufacture of similar or the same material, design and color should be prohibited.
Third, the editorial was once again incorrect when it said that I proposed secret tags sewn into the uniforms. I made no such proposal, although I did have in mind that the designs should be exclusive and no other material should be manufactured which resemble the design for the PNP.
Fourth, the editorial also erred when it said that I supported a bill filed by a colleague which proposed to impose stiffer penalties on unauthorized use of police uniforms. The focus of my proposal is on the manufacturers and suppliers of those uniforms.
As to the questions, following are my answers:
The first question was how will changing the current uniforms prevent those who are already so inclined to create new counterfeit uniforms? Changing the current uniforms will automatically render all the counterfeit uniforms currently in circulation ineffective since there will be a new way to identify genuine police personnel.
As to the production of new counterfeits, that is where the proposed new regulations on the importation, manufacture, distribution, or sale of the new uniforms or textile material of the uniforms come in. While it is really difficult to prevent criminal intent (even currency, which has enough security measures and regulations are still counterfeited), we should de everything and anything we can to make it difficult, if not costly, to the perpetrators.
The second question, which asks how secret would a secret tag be, is irrelevant because I did not propose a secret tag in the first place. I would like to point out, however, that the uniforms of the US Army and the US Marines have distinct markings embedded in the design to easily identify counterfeit uniforms from the genuine.
The last question, which asks if I really think that determined criminals will be deterred by stiffer penalties for wearing fake uniforms is also irrelevant because that was not the subject of my proposal. My proposal pertains to the unauthorized importation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of police uniforms or textile materials for the uniforms, including those with similar designs or material.
As a matter of additional information, it might interest you to know that such a proposal is not even a unique proposal and I do not claim originality for it. In other countries, similar restrictions and regulations are imposed. I already mentioned above the measures adopted by the US Army and US Marines.
In Canada, there is even a federal law prohibiting the sale of uniforms issued to members of the Canadian armed forces, penalizing soldiers who sell their uniforms to surplus shops or civilians. They are required to return old uniforms to the government for proper disposal. Uniform designs are copyrighted in order to provide additional protection of their integrity under the law.
Finally, the editorial said that if there was anything that I proved, it was that the mouth moves faster than the brain. I couldn’t agree more.
Yours truly,
Ruffy Biazon
Lone District, Muntinlupa City
The rotunda is just a stone’s throw away from the People’s Committee Building, which I think is the City Hall. Beautiful architecture, European inspired. A statue of Ho Chi Minh stands in a park in front of the building, depicting the Vietnamese leader with a young child in his protective arms. Typical propaganda material.
I took more than a few photos, including a self-portrait using my point and shoot held my extended arms. I had my bulky digital SLR for my more “artistic” shots while I used my digital point and shoot for my typical “tourist” shots. One more benefit with the point and shoot is that it has video capabilities.
Nearing a corner, I saw that a park was up ahead, one with big trees and lush greenery. More people in red. I then noticed that there was writing on their shirts. I strain to read it. I forget what was written as I do this write up, but when I read it, I guessed it to be some local bank.
I arrived at the park where a stage was set up, and some children were performing a dance in front of about four hundred people in red shirts and more people who I presumed were regular park goers. I couldn’t make out what were written in the streamers and other posters but from what I saw onstage, this seemed to be some promotional event of an insurance company. I walked around in the park taking some photos before continuing with my itinerary.
It turns out that the Reunification Palace was across the park. I walked to towards the building which was in the middle of a huge piece of land surrounded by tall fences. I could see the “palace” but to me, it didn’t look like a palace, or at least as what I expected it to be. Having seen the palaces in Bangkok, Thailand and Phnom Penh, Cambodia, I was expecting the same. The Reunification Palace looked to me like a huge embassy. I took some pictures and didn’t bother to go in. I did notice, however that there were some military relics scattered around the grounds.
I entered the gate of the museum, paid the entrance and felt like a kid in a toy store as I walked among the war relics there…reminders of a war where a poor nation of farmers beat a super power of the world. Of course, I took photos left and right.
I entered a room where a sign was displayed beside the entrance: “The Scars of War”. In the simple display cases in the room, photographs of the ravages of war were displayed. Most sobering were those of the effects of the Americans’ use of Agent Orange, an example of chemical warfare.
I spent quite some time in the museum. My previous interest in the Vietnam War was now sobered by the perspective coming from the Vietnamese people. Yesterday I had seen how they were forced to go underground for their safety and protection, now I had seen how they had suffered during and after the war. Truly, this experience will be one of those which will be forever etched in my memory and serve as a lesson on man’s ability to be cruel and to be steadfast.
I arrived at the cathedral. By this time, the sun was already shining high in the sky, so I kind of rushed myself in taking photos. Besides, I had to get back to the hotel to join my wife for lunch. After a few minutes, I continued my walk back to the hotel.
They literally stood up to the essence of being soldiers..disciplined, dedicated to duty and loyal to the Republic.