SILENCE MEANS ADMISSION

In a recent press conference in Malacanang, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima was asked by one media representative what the government was doing with respect to Sultan Kiram's men who had been  intercepted by the government carrying guns and bolos, and about the innocent Muslim Filipinos who continue to be subjected to atrocities and human rights violations by the Malaysian security forces.

Sec. De Lima immediately replied that charges, essentially illegal possession of firearms, were not being prepared against Kirams's men.  But she kept silent on what the government is doing to help the innocent Muslim Filipinos whose lives  continue to be put in the harm's way because of the ongoing atrocities in Sabah.

If I were one of the journalists who heard De Lima's ostensible attempt to sideline what really should be the more important part of the question, i.e. human rights violation,  I would have outright pursue the question.  I don't really know why he or she did not.  Chances are, if it were Edwin Lacierda, the President's relatively more seasoned "shock-absorber," he might have reacted considerably more differently.    

At any rate, what seems to be a minor lapse of de Lima -- or rather it might in fact be her true intention to ignore that part of the question for very obvious reasons -- had surely not escaped the observation of some of the presidents' men therein present, e.g.  Lacierda.  Whether or not silence was the best or most convenient strategy under situations like that is anybody's wild guess.  For one thing, silence generally connotes "paduda" On fact, for another,  silence means admission.  Does it therefore goes to say that the government, through De Lima, admits the emerging widespread perception that from beginning to end, De Lima's boss has always been been in Malaysia's sides in all matters related to the Sabah standoff?