Philippine Daily Inquirer/OPINION/by Ma. Ceres P. Doyo
If I were a whistle-blower testifying in court or a Senate hearing on what I know, critics may dismiss me as not credible. Why? Because I present too many details and my testimony sounds too rehearsed and contrived. People normally do not remember too many details about the past, the insignificant stuff especially, that, if I may argue, can in fact add credence to my testimony.
Damned if you do remember, damned if you don’t.
Remembering with precision is now raised before whistle-blowers on the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam. While alleged scam queen Janet Lim-Napoles said too many I-don’t-knows and invoked her right to stay mum many times at a Senate hearing, main whistle-blower Benhur Luy provided many details.
Not everything Luy presented came straight out of that part of his brain where memory resides. A lot of the damning stuff came from his notebooks, lists, and other hard and soft copies that he kept while he was working with Napoles. While much of the stuff may be considered official documents (receipts, vouchers and checks used in business transactions), some are personal in nature (lists and scribbles on a notebook).
I don’t intend to be a whistle-blower someday, but I keep a lot of hard and soft stuff related to my work as a journalist that I can dig up at a moment’s notice to buttress or enhance an article I am working on. I fancy thinking that some of these may someday become pieces needed to complete a jigsaw puzzle or solve a mystery.
Once I dug up my old reporter’s notebooks to find out if a person I had interviewed in the distant past had casually mentioned something that might cast doubts on this person’s later statement about a crime committed.
If I were a whistle-blower testifying in court or a Senate hearing on what I know, critics may dismiss me as not credible. Why? Because I present too many details and my testimony sounds too rehearsed and contrived. People normally do not remember too many details about the past, the insignificant stuff especially, that, if I may argue, can in fact add credence to my testimony.
Damned if you do remember, damned if you don’t.
Remembering with precision is now raised before whistle-blowers on the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam. While alleged scam queen Janet Lim-Napoles said too many I-don’t-knows and invoked her right to stay mum many times at a Senate hearing, main whistle-blower Benhur Luy provided many details.
Not everything Luy presented came straight out of that part of his brain where memory resides. A lot of the damning stuff came from his notebooks, lists, and other hard and soft copies that he kept while he was working with Napoles. While much of the stuff may be considered official documents (receipts, vouchers and checks used in business transactions), some are personal in nature (lists and scribbles on a notebook).
I don’t intend to be a whistle-blower someday, but I keep a lot of hard and soft stuff related to my work as a journalist that I can dig up at a moment’s notice to buttress or enhance an article I am working on. I fancy thinking that some of these may someday become pieces needed to complete a jigsaw puzzle or solve a mystery.
Once I dug up my old reporter’s notebooks to find out if a person I had interviewed in the distant past had casually mentioned something that might cast doubts on this person’s later statement about a crime committed.