- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 0 Hour
- Reading permission
When one goes through the web, it is not difficult to find comments written by web viewers and readers in Japan and most of western countries expressing support for Philippines to illegally occupy the island belonging to China. From the ways they express their opinion, it is no surprise to note that these web commentators have the same kind of mentality as the Western politicians, particularly from the US. Their sense of righteousness is zero and thus no body can expect them to talk with sense and reasons. Their points of argument do not justify on behalf of Philippines the rights to occupy something that legally does not belong to them. |
At this instance, I wish to elaborate to them by telling them a simple story and see whether they can understand it.
A rich man had a lot of houses some of which were inherited from his ancestors. The houses were situated in various different places over a large area. He had documentary proof to verify his ownership of all the houses. However, most of the houses far from where he stayed were left vacant. One day, one of his children went to one of the far away houses to do some gardening and at that moment, a man staying near by suddenly tried to kidnap him. However, when the rich man noticed it, he quickly sent some guards to the place to stop the kidnapping. That man became furious and argued that the house was vacant for a long time and was not occupied by anybody. Since he stayed nearest to the house, he therefore had the right to take possession of the house and therefore he was then the rightful owner. When the rich man noticed that this man had made a claim, an outrageous claim on his house, he told the man that house was legally his property and he had proof to substantiate it. However, that man refused to listen and admit it even though he knew very well he himself never owned that house. His only point of argument was that that vacant house was near to his house. Therefore he had more rights than any body to claim ownership of that house.
On a hypothetical case, assuming that this man had bought a house hundreds of km from where he stayed and the house was left vacant for a long time. One day, a house owner near by took possession of his house and argued strongly with him that that house actually belonged to him because it was left vacant and was nearest to his house. Will he accept such an argument? Definitely not unless he is out of his mind.
Back to the same story again - Despite the fact that it was an outrageous claim made by that man, the rich man was kind enough to try to help this poor man and then made a proposal to him and said that though he was the legal owner, he was prepared to share with him to jointly renovate that house and then share the rental income. However, this poor man though he had acquainted a far distant gangster head who told him that he could give him protection whatever he did. The condition was that he had to buy some arms from him. Without consideration and hesitation, he agreed to his condition because he felt that the rental income from the illegally occupied house could make him affordable to pay for the purchase of the arms. Therefore he stood firm on his stand and refused to accept the rich man’s proposal but continued to illegally occupy that house and openly claimed it to be his. This was because his gangster head friend said he could recommend someone to help him renovate the house and then share with him on the rental income.
From the above story, it is clear that if that man was just and righteously minded, he should have considered himself lucky that the rightful owner of the house had agreed to jointly renovate the house and then share the rental income with him because to him, this was like a gift from the sky. The most important thing of all was that if he accepted that proposal, he would have some constant income from the share of the rental without the worry of facing any hassle or problem. Though he noticed it that if accepted the idea put forward by his gangster head friend, he would not be able to enjoy the rental income free of problem, but he still insisted on that outrageous stand.
Obviously the reasons behind his option are –
Firstly, being personally envious and jealous of the wealth of this rich man, out of no human logical reason, he generates a feeling of hatred against him. This only reflects the inferior part of the intrinsic human nature that he possesses. Secondly, he understands that this rich man is a very kind, moderate, helpful and tolerant person and will never be a bully and therefore he has no worry of being beaten. And thirdly, because of instigation by his gangster head friend whose legs he himself is so anxious to embrace, he therefore chooses to obey his instruction and to become nasty and adopt a very disgusting attitude towards the rich man.
Therefore if he is punished for his nuisance, will any body with normal human sense say that he does not deserve it? If yes, there is only one answer and that is they are of the same category.