i am no advocate of violence, but i believe if you push a
person too far into the corner, with no where to maneuver, he will
lash out, just like a cornered dog.
I understand your point, your concern as well as your sympathy for
the seemingly 'poverty oppressed'. But there is no necessity for
violence. Why confrontation when there are opportunities for
deliberation?
Take the arsonist Mr.Ong, our fellow citizen for example.
Perhaps in his irrational view, the MP had done nothing for him.
Was it true? I seriously doubt it as no one goes hungry in Spore.
CDS, charitable organisations, religious sanctumns and even common
laymen samaritans helps.
But there is only so much one can help. Thus, Mr. Ong too,
must help himself. Perhaps he is too old for jobs, but i had seen
even limping old men gathering tin cans. That is not something a
society can be proud of, but there are limitations a society can do
without taxing our young to the hilt.
It is something Mr. Ong must decide for himself to make
himself relevant to job offers for the opportunity to earn a better
living. More often than not, the fault partially lies with us,- are
we too fussy, argumentative, dont take orders, behave atrociously,
etc, and made employers pissed off with us?
No. Violence MUST NOT be an answer. Allow one to go scot free and
you will have a terrorist nation on your hands.
We all sympathise underdogs. But when the underdogs start biting
and harming others, sympathies must end and solutions found to
solve the impasse.
Even gangsters such as loansharks are willing to sit down for
talks with a neutral 3rd party. What more we ordinary cilivised
people to seek peaceful options instead of murder and mayhem where
unintended innocent victims get hurt as well?
