This is ridiculous. Conferring with this strange old man, listening to his protests to the government, to opposing principles with the government, and to its people is fine with me. For the sake of expression, I am willing to pay attention. To him.
But as the discussion went deeper, I felt stunned. I always wanted to react in every little detail he said. But it turned out that he did not grant my opinion to be heard. Though at times, I insisted to comment to some of his grumbles forcing him for a quick time to listen to me. But that restricted time was never a chance for me to convey all my thoughts about those sensitive issues he sighted.
This I wanted to tell him.
First, when he attacked the government – the inaccuracy of tax assessments, the mediocre projects of the government, the fraudulent people ruling the government. In other words, he was implying that the ruthless corruption in our government is uncontainable. It is true that our country belongs to the top ten most corrupt in Asia. Thus, there’s no point of arguing whether the government is corrupt or not. Corruption has already been handed over from generations to generations and it is contagious. The question is of who is to be blamed. Isn’t it that the people themselves are held liable for choosing the set of people to run the government? The point is why do we elect bad leaders?
Now, could the blame be put to the people who designated these leaders? And who are these people? They are those who complain the most regarding the flaws and nuances of the government but fail to consider several factors, which may also include them, that would likely affect the efficacy of its governance as a whole. They are those who criticize every politician with regards to his political strategies when they could always do productive things other than mocking these officials. They are those who think they know what is impartial and just when it comes to democratic affairs when in fact they don’t. They are those who claim logical to every prone issue yet established irrational judgments. And who are these people again?
I continue with the issue on activism. I am not an activist, at least not for now. But I have several encounters with full-fledged activists who profess their dedication to freedom of expression and exposition. I have witnessed their sincerity to elucidating sensitive concerns to the public; for instance, their active demonstration on several poverty problems, their keen commitment to calling for greater subsidy for social services and a lot more. These activists are not pretentious; because they’re true. Every word they utter constitutes their principles, their stand. Without them, there would be no one else to remind the people and the government of every thing that has to do with the welfare of the whole citizenry. They are our night watchmen that guard every insightful matter up to the deepest and most risky ones. They are those whom should we raise our voices because they listen; and if they listen, they mean it. The wrong notion we have on this matter is that we think that these activists are merely oppositionists- with the government; but they are not, not necessarily as I believe. They are just those who claim for just and equality with the prejudice our government practice; because they are concern.
And I know we can all be: concerned citizens. Of course, we have our own ways. I am not even exclaiming that rallying in streets as what these activists are doing nor serving for a position in the government are the only ways for society awareness. My point is as long as we keep the vigor to push onwards for the establishment of a productive community with a healthy government and responsive people, then we can call for a celebration because we have already reached what we all desire.
But again, the question is: when will this time be?
At least now, I’ve already vindicated these issues that bothered me. To that old man, a stranger, may he be given consolation to his grievances. Let his revelation and mine be a possible way.