Why Eight Tourists Should Not Have Died - Manila Bus Hostage Crisis

For nearly twelve long hours, the scenes of a standoff between a tour bus hijacker and policemen in Manila, Philippines, were played out on the news worldwide on Monday, August 23, 2010.

Glued to the live updates on the hostage crisis were the 20 tourists' family members back in Hong Kong, and the hijacker, Rolando Mendoza, a former decorated policeman for 30 years, who was dismissed on charges of robbery and extortion two years ago.

After ten hours of having failed at negotiating with Mendoza and his demands, the policemen attempted storming the bus. They failed the first time, and were pushed back by fired shots. Unable to read the situation inside the bus, they resorted to using tear gas to force him out. Another hour and a half later, they finally succeeded in charging inside when Mendoza was shot dead by a sniper after the tear gas had made him move near the bus's broken door.

Inside the bus, eight hostages were found dead, all from Hong Kong, along with the dead hijacker. Three hostages were also seriously injured with one still in a coma and a bystander was hit by a stray bullet. [1]

A mixture of outrage and mourning brought an estimated 80,000 protesters marching in Hong Kong on Sunday, August 29th. The hijacked bus was carrying a Hong Kong tour group in Manila. Protesters demanded an explanation for the disappointing police response and handling of the hostage crisis from the Filipino police force. "Many people in Hong Kong believe the lives of the tourists taken hostage were not properly valued." [2] The incident has brought on an onset of questions towards handling of crises involving international hostages and what kind of police response is appropriate. A team from the Hong Kong police is currently conducting a thorough investigation along with local police in the Philippines.

Philippine officials admitted to faults in mishandling the bus hostage situation. [3] A major criticism of the incident was the live broadcast of the standoff worldwide, when the situation called for media blackout. A bystander was shot in the leg, proving that they had let the public, and the media, too close. The extensive coverage allowed Mendoza to follow police activity, robbing the police the element of surprise. It has also allowed the world media to analyze the actions by the Philippine police force in this incident.

One such authority, Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst who has worked in counter-terrorism with the British Army and Scotland Yard, has pointed out major areas of faults [4]:

The police force failed, even at the last hour, to board the bus. One of the survivors questioned “Why was there no one to help us after so many hours?" [5] Her husband had been killed trying to stop the gunman.

The siege was unnecessarily prolonged by lacking of correct equipment, not using special forces trained for such a situation, but local police who visibly lacked the equipment and the tactical training. The longer it took to bring down the gunman, the more danger the police and the hostages were in. The police had let opportunities to disarm and to shoot the hijacker slip, such as when he let his guard down when they were negotiating and when he was by himself. There is investigation to see if the police were soft on Mendoza, who was a former decorated and respected officer, their former superior.

Under such circumstances, no one expected the police to fulfill promises. By not satisfying the hijacker's request, which were to simply reinstate his job and clear his name, the police force hindered negotiations. Instead, they tried bringing in Mendoza’s brother to negotiate, and ended up further stressing Mendoza.

To further worsen the situation, it has been discovered that three of the victims' coffins were mixed up. Filipino authority Philippine Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman claims that the mix up was only due to the rushed delivery of the coffins intending to return the victims to their families as quickly as possible. [6] Such a blunder only served to further strain Chinese-Filipino relations.

About 140,000 Hong Kong tourists visit the Philippines yearly and hundreds have canceled planned trips. [6] The story has already hurt Philippine tourism industry.

Concerns have also been raised about a possible backlash on the more than 100,000 Filipinos working in Hong Kong, mostly as domestic helpers. [7] There has been a history of abuse and discrimination against the undocumented workers. They must endure mean work conditions out of fear of being sent back home by their employers where they often face a heavy debt from the money they borrowed to get to Hong Kong.

________________________________________

[1] Conde, Carlos H. “Gunman and 8 Hostages Dead in Philippine Tour Bus Standoff.” 23 August 2010. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world/asia/24phils.html

[2] Drew, Kevin. “Anger Remains Over Killings of Chinese Hostages in Philippines.” 27 August 2010. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/asia/28hong.html

[3] Conde, Carlos H. "Officials admit failings in Manila Hostage Standoff." 24 August 2010. The New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/world/asia/25phils.html

[4] “Ten things the Philippines bus siege police got wrong.” 24 August 2010. BBC World News.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11069616

[5] "Philipines president pledges Manila Bus Siege inquiry." 23 August 2010. BBC World. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11066656

[6] “Manila to probe Hong Kong hostage coffin ‘mix up.” 2 September 2010. BBC World News.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11161631

[7] Lee, Min. "Hong Kong Police Inspect Bus Hostage." 30 August 2010. CBS news.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/29/ap/asia/main6816420.shtml

Pro-Cantonese Protests in China

On Sunday, July 25th, more than a thousand Pro-Cantonese protesters gathered in Guangzhou. Despite being denied the permission to demonstrate, the event had in turn sparked two more parallel marches in Hong Kong and Guangzhou in the following week, bringing a local language policy issue to the attention of the Cantonese speaking masses worldwide. [1]

Language policy is a country's discouragement or favoring the use of a particular language. [2] The protests came about as a reaction to a recent proposal by local politicians in Guangzhou who were pushing to replace some of the Cantonese prime time shows with Mandarin programs on Guangzhou TV. Although Su Zhijia, deputy party secretary of Guangzhou, announces that “the city government has never had such a plan to abandon or weaken Cantonese,” [3] protesters felt the need to protect their language and its culture that was being eroded in China.

Cantonese is the second most widely spoken dialect in China and the native tongue of many in Guangzhou, but Mandarin is the fastest growing language in the world, and the national language of China. The move for more Mandarin on TV seemed at first glance to be an effort to accommodate visitors and athletes who do not understand Cantonese for the upcoming Asian Games being held in November. Yet, with the history of the government's efforts to bring China under one language, protesters feared a hidden political agenda.

The language conflict has historically been part of the political struggle in China. National political power is concentrated in the north, where the capital Beijing is located. Cantonese, however, was nearly adopted as the country's official language in 1912 when the Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen, “Father of the Nation”. The Nationalist movement's leader was from Guangdong, a prosperous southern province made rich by its status as the only region open to trade with the West at the time. “Historically, Cantonese speakers from the south have been revolutionaries.” says Chip Tsoi, a current affairs commentator and radio show host of Hong Kong's RTHK.

Mandarin became China's national language after the communist revolution and is the country's most widely spoken dialect. “Speak Putonghua, write standard Chinese, use civilized language, be a civilized person.” [4] In Guangzhou's schools, students are taught that mastering Mandarin is important for competing for jobs and university slots. In fact, they were discouraged and penalized for speaking Cantonese at school and at home. Protesters in Guangzhou fear that the proposal to change the language of the television media is a more severe attack on Cantonese, by isolating older generations who did not ever learn Mandarin and hindering the younger generation from learning it.

Cantonese is widely spoken in Hong Kong, Guangdong Province (whose capital, Guangzhou, was once known by the name Canton), and its neighboring areas in southern China.[5] While Guangzhou and Hong Kong are two of southern China's most prosperous cities, they are separated by political boundaries. Guangzhou is part of the stricter mainland China where the official language in Mandarin, while Hong Kong, along with Macau, are the two special administrative regions, and home to the world leading international financial centers.

After hearing news of the protest, 200 Pro-Cantonese activists marched in protest for their fellow Cantonese speakers in Guangzhou, since it is freer to protest in Hong Kong than it is in mainland China. Their fears of Cantonese being eroded in their fellow city are not unfounded. Already fewer than half of the 12 million people in Guangzhou speak Cantonese.

The decline of Cantonese is also evident in America. Generations of Cantonese-speaking immigrants from southern China built America's first Chinatowns but have been swept aside by the new wave of Mandarin speakers and Chinese-American parents who press their children to learn Mandarin for its advantages as China's influence grows in the world stage.[6]

The protests were not in vain. Guangzhou TV stated that it refuses to change its current set-up of a mix of Cantonese and Mandarin programs. These demonstrations have brought to light the plight of Cantonese and questions of China's government's plan for the language.

[1] M., J. “The medium is the message.” 27th July, 2010. The Economist. 22 August 2010.
[2] Spolsky, Bernard. “Language Policy.” 2004. Cambridge University Press. 22 August 2010.
[3] Ng, Carmen. “Cross Border Protests Aim to Save Cantonese.” 2 August, 2010. The Washington Post. 22 August 2010.
[4] Kuo, Lily. “In China, protests underscore a rift over dialects.” 8 august, 2010. The La Times. 22 August 2010.
[5] Wong, Edward. “Move to Limit Cantonese on Chinese TV is Assailed.” 26th July, 2010. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.
[6] Semple, Kirk. “In Chinatown, sound of the Future is Mandarin.” 21 October, 2009. The New York Times. 22 August 2010.