Neutralization: A euphemism for ordering a kill.

He “protests too much for my liking,” to borrow a line from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, aptly describes the protests of Senator Ronald Dela Rosa as he sparred with Senator Risa Hontiveros and human rights lawyer Jose “Man” Diokno over the use of the word “neutralization” is a euphemism for “to kill.” This was during a Senate hearing last Monday to which former President Rodrigo “IWKY” Duterte was called. There he stated and admitted in many words that “I have a death squad” (“Vesti”, 10.29.24). Straight from the horse’s mouth. In my opinion, this is not a bombshell because this part of it is an open book. But this is getting ahead of ourselves.

Dela Rosa, former Philippine National Police chief and chief architect of Duterte’s brutal war on drugs that has reportedly killed more than 30,000 people, may be right when he quotes Google that “neutralization” simply means “to make something ineffective, to counteract, to nullify.” ” In military parlance it means “to incapacitate or incapacitate; neutralize the enemy’s position.” In my 24 college chemistry courses, the word “neutralize” had to do with acids and the like.

But everyone and their relatives know that in a police context, the verb “neutralize” means kill; “to be neutralized” means to be killed. The noun “Neutralization” means killing. The title of Patricia Evangelista’s bestselling book, Some People Gotta Kill: A Memoir of Murder in My Country (Random House, 2023), comes to mind. The main headline was at the heart of the police officer’s chilling remarks.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Oxford definition of “euphemism” is “a mild or indirect word or expression in place of a word considered harsh or harsh when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.” Its verb form is “euphemized,” a process called “euphemization.” It comes from a Greek word that means “to speak well” or “to use words of good omen.” The name Euphemia is of Greek origin.

Flashback: The arbitrary killings during the Marcos dictatorship were euphemized (by victims, survivors and their relatives) as “rescue,” which is exactly the opposite of what rescue should mean, which is rescue. It’s stuck. I heard the words “jin salbid” (was saved) from people in remote parts of Mindanao and the Visayas during the dark years of military rule. Perhaps they meant “savages”? There was no time to dwell on the nuances when persecuted people were on the run and captured activists were kept in “safe houses” – a euphemism for torture chambers. Pompyang (dulcimer) meant clapping the victim’s two ears.

Duterte, who fancies himself called “The Punisher,” does not use euphemisms to soften his unprintable expletives. How many times did he bark: “Patya!” is a Visayan imperative command meaning “Patayin mo!” or “Kill them!”, accompanied by a lot of dirty curses? (In Ilonggo/Hiligaynon we say “Patya ang suga” or “turn out the lights.”)

Article continues after this advertisement

But what’s in this word? Again, in the words of the bard, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet), and a general order to kill using euphemisms such as “neutralize” would be just as criminal. Self-defense is a common justification as the suspect is said to have resisted or “nanlaban”.

The Duterte-era word “tokhang,” a combination of “katok” (to knock) and “hangyo” (a Visayan word meaning “to ask”), meant inviting small-time drug users, dealers and couriers to come out of their homes. Woodworking took on a new meaning. Tokhang didn’t have time to become a euphemism for just a scary invitation. Overnight, Tokhang’s guards turned into murderers. Those who were included in the list of Tokhans “had to be killed.” Tokhang involved random killings with reward points for those who followed orders. “Natokhan” meant “bite the dust.”

All of this was at the core of the Senate investigations, and it is on this basis that the International Criminal Court is collecting cases of crimes committed against humanity during the Duterte administration.

Trying to neutralize former Senator Leila de Lima was one of Duterte’s unspeakable crimes. In her case, neutralization did not mean physical killing, but killing her spirit. She was forced to spend nearly seven years in solitary confinement without bail because of trumped-up drug charges against her. As Chair of the Commission on Human Rights and Secretary of Justice during the presidency of President Benigno Aquino III, she investigated and exposed killings in Davao City, where Duterte was mayor. As president, Duterte used all his powers to silence De Lima and force false witnesses to testify that she received money from drug sales. After Duterte’s term ended, these witnesses recanted one by one, and De Lima was acquitted of the three charges against her. Justice was on her side. She could not be neutralized. Imagine these two being within spitting distance of each other in a Senate hearing.

Neutralization can take many forms. Dela Rosa’s thunderous statements about the meaning of neutralization raised an additional question: Would he consider De Lima’s seven-year imprisonment a form of neutralization? Yes or no?

—————-

Send feedback to (email protected)