THINGS are just getting too exciting on the so-called Gucci Gang controversy after alleged swindler DJ Montano broke his silence on Korina Today at ANC Friday evening, where he repeatedly denied he bilked Australian landscape designer Brian Gorrell of $70,000 (Aus). He also denied several other allegations against him, including cocaine addiction, his being fired from the school where he was teaching, and his fleeing the country when the Gucci Gang controversy exploded in the World Wide Web. He and his family cried for vindication and the restoration of their honor that was allegedly ruined by the controversial Brian Gorrell blog, with their lawyer saying amen.

But the TV interview left so many gaps that have put DJ’s side in this hullabaloo in great doubt. For one, merely showing himself to the public was really not enough because he miserably failed to show that truth is on his side. Take for example his sister’s defense that at one instance, Brian had to send the money to her because during that time, DJ was out of the country. Proving that was too simple. He could have highlighted the date of the Western Union transaction receipt and the stamps on his passport indicating his departure and return to the country. Or he could have brought with him what was left of his plane ticket. Can a passport or a plane ticket be too heavy to be brought to that TV studio? With grave accusations hanging over his head and with millions of people around the world waiting for him to speak up, a luggage full of documents should have been beside him during the entire interview.

Also, for an issue as controversial as this one, the choice of the show where to first air your side and the host who would bestow credibility to your story is very critical. Making the wrong choice will simply mean a waste of time. Even the framing of the questions, the manner by which the host asks questions and when to ask them should have been seriously considered. And I always thought the role of media, as popularized by humorist Finley Peter Dunne, is to comfort the afflicted. But that TV show proved it all wrong. Making matters worse for DJ was the distracting upsurge in decibels during changeovers – it ruined the show’s spontaneity, and made obvious that it was taped, or worse, may have been sanitized.

For all these, it appears there was lack of seriousness on the part of Mr. Montano to vindicate himself before the public. The court case he is planning to file against Mr. Gorrell may even their score but it may just mean that, and nothing more – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The court may eventually vindicate him, or not, but legal mumbo-jumbos could not give the public what they deserve to know. The Gucci Gang controversy does not only involve the children of the rich, as it has already become public property because of the many social malaises it has exposed. That is why the public needs to know the truth. But DJ’s unresponsive TV appearance and the events leading to it suggest sheer callousness and the indifference of the rich. Simply put, he just doesn’t care what people think, and all he wants is for the law to go after Brian. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

The callousness and the indifference of the rich is a social tragedy, according to William Shakespeare. This cruel phenomenon dehumanizes individuals like the benevolent Timon of Athens (The Story of Timon of Athens, 1608), who became bitter and vengeful after his supposed friends, whom he had showered with expensive gifts, ignored him upon knowing he had become bankrupt. The tragedy of callousness and indifference lie in the fact that they are the parents of all evils – from the personal malevolence of egoism and greed to the societal crimes of fraud and corruption. Describing the callous and the indifferent as “detested parasites,” Shakespeare said they have no conscience, and that they will turn deaf and blind amid sorrows and tragedy.

What’s more tragic is the fact that at some point, callousness and indifference are being encouraged by our legal system. Take for example the so-called Anti-Mendicancy Law (Presidential Decree 1563), which penalizes people who give alms to beggars and punishes beggars for being beggars. In that law, a mendicant is defined as one “who has no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment and who is physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling and instead uses begging as a means of living.” The catch there is the line “who is physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling”. Passed in 1978, the law says that if you give alms to such a person, you will be fined P20. (In Cebu City, giving alms to beggars will cost the generous not only P20 but P1,000, according to City Ordinance No. 1996.) If you are legally classified as a mendicant, you will either be meted with a fine of not more than P500 or be sent to prison for not more than two years, or both. Not only that, if you are a “habitual mendicant”, you will fined not exceeding P1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding four years, or both. Where will the poor mendicant get that amount?

Such a law does not only encourage callousness, but institutionalizes it. It does not only condone indifference, but justifies it. Imagine getting fined for being generous? All holy books, from the Bible and the Torah to the Koran and the Bhagavad gita, want us all to be generous and but such has been made illegal! And how can one “apply himself to some lawful calling” when there are no jobs available? If there are any jobs out there, one would still need a TESDA certificate or a college diploma to get hired. More questions: Minimum wage? Security of tenure? Social security benefits? Leave credits? Etc, etc, etc. If you are poor, how can you get a job when you can’t even buy a nice shirt for a job interview?

Callousness and indifference indeed dehumanizes people. While generosity is ingrained in the human heart, the institutions that have given birth to callousness and indifference made many of us heartless robots and zombies. Comfort zones have become more important than other people. And they don’t mind being called a thief, a swindler or a crook. For them, what’s important is the satisfaction of their animal instinct to survive.

Reason? A person who is calloused and indifferent is in isolation and all alone by himself, according to Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, who wrote: “Any sense of community is external or, even worse, nonexistent (to them). They feel nothing for others and are unconcerned with what might happen to them. They are surrounded by a great emptiness. Filled by it, in fact. They are devoid of all hope as well as imagination… devoid of any future.”

This brings us back to the TV interview, where the show’s slogan says: Your Questions. Now. But it is tragic to note that Mr. Montano’s piles of denials never answered any of the public’s questions. They have been clouded by callousness and indifference.

One Response to “Of callousness and indifference”

• 1
  dawn
  April 22nd, 2008 12:15

  wow this is excellent, kudos to you.

Leave a Reply