PHDRAMA in the high seas with a script that was written as the story went along.
This new controversy surrounding the May 19 resupply mission to Ayungin Shoal by the Philippine Navy shows the embarrassing ineptitude of Marcos Jr.’s administration in handling our dispute with China in the SCS especially in their subsequent media presentations after each ‘mission.’
But what if it was a case of a bad PR plan that went worse leading to a desperate act of public image redemption.
Two articles in one media outfit alone, in this case Inquirer.net is very confusing to me it made me think something is really off-tangent.
The incident as reported by the AFP claimed that the Chinese Coast Guard “seized” provisions meant for our troops stationed at the BRP Sierra Madre when the same were air-dropped to them on said date, sometime 19 May.
But;
1. If this happened on May 19 why was it reported only yesterday, two weeks or half a month after the incident?
2. If the Chinese were able to “seize” the air-dropped cargo, why so? Did our Navy miss their drop zone so badly it ended up near the China Coast Guard ship for them to be able to “seize” the cargo?
Mind you the CCG vessels are quite large in size so it’s not that easy nor that fast to retrieve something on the water while a ship that huge is all ahead or even half ahead.
Imagine driving a car and you have to make a u-turn. Now imagine a trailer truck doing the same u-turn. Then imagine a ship almost ten times as large doing the same thing but floating in the ocean.
It’s even harder when the object to be retrieved is in front of the ship as the ship’s Captain would have to execute a ship side maneuver to get the object closer to the lowest part of the ship typically either side of the ship’s aft portion.
You get my point?
The ship had to be maneuvered in a way that they can deploy a smaller vessel like a dinghy with some personnel on it to retrieve cargo on the water. Basic seamanship.
Granting the CCG did retrieve the cargo meant for the BRP Sierra Madre, why would a Captain of any nationality or of any ship for that matter go through all the risk and hassle of retrieving the cargo only to throw them back overboard upon retrieving them? What an absurdly.
What if the Navy missed so bad on their drop zone it landed on the CCG ship’s deck? It’s a joke of course but it’s not impossible. Hahaha.
3. Today, 04 June at around 10:42 AM an article written by John Eric Mendoza was published by the Inquirer with the title, “Ayungin resupply 'largely successful' despite CCG's 'obstruction' -AFP.”
4. Early this morning about 11 hours before that article by Mr. Mendoza was published, another article was already up in the Inquirer website— reporting on the same incident. However, the author Frances Mangosing titled it: “China Coast Guard seizes PH supplies for Ayungin.”
With all those circumstances it is very hard for a skeptic like me to believe the PH Navy’s narrative.
To recap:
• The time elapsed between the incident and the media report suggests there was no sense of urgency further suggesting there were no irregularities committed by the Chinese.
• The manner described or the lack of detailed explanation as to how the CCG allegedly “seized” the provisions.
• The manner by which the CCG personnel acted when in position of the “seized” cargo — contrary to human nature, common sense, and the rules of the sea.
• Conflicting narrative by two different authors reporting on the same incident in the same news outfit. One highlighted the alleged “seizure” the other a successful ‘mission.’
It doesn’t help that almost simultaneous with this latest press briefing of the AFP, Chinese media is posting a video recorded by CCG personnel of at least two Filipino troops aboard BRP Sierra Madre allegedly pointing guns or some sort of weapons at them.
Haayst! Lahat na lang ata ng nasa ating gobyerno ngayon ay depende na lang talaga sa amats.
Amats is real. Bow.
At sa nagsasabing di credible kasi dapat madaming award. Ohw ayan Inquirer. Net galing. Hirap magserve ng dalawang Amo anu?
This new controversy surrounding the May 19 resupply mission to Ayungin Shoal by the Philippine Navy shows the embarrassing ineptitude of Marcos Jr.’s administration in handling our dispute with China in the SCS especially in their subsequent media presentations after each ‘mission.’
But what if it was a case of a bad PR plan that went worse leading to a desperate act of public image redemption.
Two articles in one media outfit alone, in this case Inquirer.net is very confusing to me it made me think something is really off-tangent.
The incident as reported by the AFP claimed that the Chinese Coast Guard “seized” provisions meant for our troops stationed at the BRP Sierra Madre when the same were air-dropped to them on said date, sometime 19 May.
But;
1. If this happened on May 19 why was it reported only yesterday, two weeks or half a month after the incident?
2. If the Chinese were able to “seize” the air-dropped cargo, why so? Did our Navy miss their drop zone so badly it ended up near the China Coast Guard ship for them to be able to “seize” the cargo?
Mind you the CCG vessels are quite large in size so it’s not that easy nor that fast to retrieve something on the water while a ship that huge is all ahead or even half ahead.
Imagine driving a car and you have to make a u-turn. Now imagine a trailer truck doing the same u-turn. Then imagine a ship almost ten times as large doing the same thing but floating in the ocean.
It’s even harder when the object to be retrieved is in front of the ship as the ship’s Captain would have to execute a ship side maneuver to get the object closer to the lowest part of the ship typically either side of the ship’s aft portion.
You get my point?
The ship had to be maneuvered in a way that they can deploy a smaller vessel like a dinghy with some personnel on it to retrieve cargo on the water. Basic seamanship.
Granting the CCG did retrieve the cargo meant for the BRP Sierra Madre, why would a Captain of any nationality or of any ship for that matter go through all the risk and hassle of retrieving the cargo only to throw them back overboard upon retrieving them? What an absurdly.
What if the Navy missed so bad on their drop zone it landed on the CCG ship’s deck? It’s a joke of course but it’s not impossible. Hahaha.
3. Today, 04 June at around 10:42 AM an article written by John Eric Mendoza was published by the Inquirer with the title, “Ayungin resupply 'largely successful' despite CCG's 'obstruction' -AFP.”
4. Early this morning about 11 hours before that article by Mr. Mendoza was published, another article was already up in the Inquirer website— reporting on the same incident. However, the author Frances Mangosing titled it: “China Coast Guard seizes PH supplies for Ayungin.”
With all those circumstances it is very hard for a skeptic like me to believe the PH Navy’s narrative.
To recap:
• The time elapsed between the incident and the media report suggests there was no sense of urgency further suggesting there were no irregularities committed by the Chinese.
• The manner described or the lack of detailed explanation as to how the CCG allegedly “seized” the provisions.
• The manner by which the CCG personnel acted when in position of the “seized” cargo — contrary to human nature, common sense, and the rules of the sea.
• Conflicting narrative by two different authors reporting on the same incident in the same news outfit. One highlighted the alleged “seizure” the other a successful ‘mission.’
It doesn’t help that almost simultaneous with this latest press briefing of the AFP, Chinese media is posting a video recorded by CCG personnel of at least two Filipino troops aboard BRP Sierra Madre allegedly pointing guns or some sort of weapons at them.
Haayst! Lahat na lang ata ng nasa ating gobyerno ngayon ay depende na lang talaga sa amats.
Amats is real. Bow.
At sa nagsasabing di credible kasi dapat madaming award. Ohw ayan Inquirer. Net galing. Hirap magserve ng dalawang Amo anu?
