By ERIK ESPINA
THE “day-one critics” and political adversaries of this presidency are on the offensive and almost festive over a recent presidential pronouncement relating to EJKs (extra-judicial killings). A clear case of over-eagerness to transpose their meanings and version of their translation, in the minds of men, based on the edited language of President Rodrigo Duterte. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear.
Statements, however have to be taken in their complete and un-adulterated context. One cannot pick and choose what he wants to listen to without appreciating the context, environment, and more propitiously the nature/culture of the speaker (style, delivery, and nuances), etc., and the history of his background vis-a-vis pronouncements.
Indeed, how simple can the world be for those who would consider that a lawyer, a long-time prosecutor, and a president at that, would be so inclined to simply waive his lifetime training and experience, by negating policy statements, just to incriminate himself before the public. The environment may be so inhospitable amidst the “amnesty” issue garnished with “Red October.”
But this presidency is not about ready to shoot its own foot. Those who seriously took the time to examine the entire speech can read how the President shifted from inter-related topics, from Senator Pangilinan, to being free from corruption continuing into EJKs as his only “sin.” The operative words which to my mind were abbreviated by the President, are “allegations of corruption” and “blame of EJKs.” This is the full sentence which was not delivered on the occasion.
Examining his style based on previous presidential speeches, shows consistency in his favorite topics, an ability to hop from one point to the next, at times with words left unspoken. Perhaps his mind is working far ahead than his lips in a mental framework of competing points he may wish to make. His policy statements to the police regarding drugs, albeit aggressive and subject to various wayward interpretations by opponents, may be summated by his unequivocal support for the uniformed services. That they protect their lives when the criminal is armed.
