Wrong Choice of Word

By Alex P. Vidal 

“Now that I have called you on your false accusation, you are using additional smear tactics.” —George Soros

IF a taxpayer will lodge a formal complaint in a competent court against any public official for suspected graft and corruption, or a similar case concerning “misuse” of public funds, it can’t be a case of “harassment.”

This was the term used by Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)-6 Regional Director Sanny Boy Oropel in reaction to a recent complaint filed by the Crimes and Corruption Watch International (CCWI), a watchdog group, against him and other officials of the agency before the Office of the Ombudsman.

We think it’s a wrong choice of word.

As “public servants,” Oropel, et al should instead welcome CCWI’s complaint in the spirit of fairness, transparency and accountability.

Instead of invoking the term “harassment”, Oropel, et al should have said, “We welcome the complaint because this will be our opportunity to air our side in the proper forum and to belie the accusation against us.”

“Instead of attacking us further in the media, it is best that a formal case is filed against us so that truth will come out and we can clear our names.”

-o0o-

Filing a complaint against erring public officials, in fact, should be encouraged and backed by the public, including government employees in the concerned agencies.

If the genesis of any formal complaint emanated from abuse or squandering of public funds, it’s healthy for DPWH in particular, and for openness or democracy in general.

Public officials involved in any nefarious transaction may be held accountable if found guilty in a formal complaint filed in court.

Any taxpayer—a graft watch or media watchdog for that matter—has nothing to gain—or may be acting against the best interest of public, by employing “harassment” versus public officials suspected of misappropriating taxpayers’ money.

There can be no direct personal conflict between the accused and the accuser or accusers that would result in harassment or intimidation on the part of the complainant in any graft and corruption case.

Everything boils down to check and balance—to transparency and accountability, we repeat.

Under the principle of “a public office is a public trust,” there can be no personal attack against any party other than safeguarding of public coffer.

Harassment is defined as an offensive conduct that may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.

None of these “personal attacks” may have been present when the CCWI hauled the DPHW-6 execs in court. Let the justice system run its course.

-o0o-

The fat woman who enraged many Ilonggos for saying nasty words online against a popular coffeeshop in Iloilo should be awarded with special favors by the owners of the “offended” coffee establishment.

Because of the furor whipped up by the fat woman’s controversial diatribes, the sales, or the customers of the coffee shop, are expected to shoot up.

According to a new study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness.

“Most companies are concerned with one of two problems,” says Alan Sorensen, associate professor of economics and strategic management at the business school and one of the authors of the study.

“Either they’re trying to figure out how to get the public to think their product is a good one, or they’re just trying to get people to know about their product. In some markets, where there are lots of competing products, they’re more preoccupied with the latter. In that case, any publicity, positive or negative, turns out to be valuable.”

-o0o-

 ‘A MAJOR ISSUE.’ A sperm donor with a rare genetic mutation fathered 67 children, and now 10 of them have been diagnosed with cancer, according to a CNN report. Advocates say there’s a need for greater regulation and a limit on the number of births allowed from a single donor.

YOU SNOOZ, YOU LOSE? When jolted awake by a blaring alarm clock, CNN says it’s tempting to reach for the snooze button. “Just five more minutes” is practically a morning mantra. But you could be silently sabotaging your shut-eye.

(The author, who is now based in New York City, used to be the editor of two leading daily newspapers in Iloilo City, Philippines.—Ed)