Vandalism. I think not.

A commentary of article:En bloc tussles take nasty turn as market cools (by Lim Wei Chean, Melissa Sim, The Straits Times, 11/08/08)

I wonder if there is no other way to persuade people effectively besides using vandalism. In Laguna Park case where vandalism is used to persuade residents who do not want to sell their units in the en-bloc sale. I guess that the residents in favour to the collective sale are trying to terrorize who against them and hence, the deal between all the units’ holders and the investor will prevail thereafter.
However, I do not want to talk about persuading people via vandalism. What I want to highlight here is expressing emotions via vandalism. In Laguna case, we can infer that the motif behind is not only because of those in favour are persuading those not-in-favour, but also because of the pending deal between them and the investor. They cannot wait to sell their property in this cooling property market to avoid the fall of the price of their units. They need something to express their feeling towards those who against without using any verbal method, but with vandalism.
More than a decade ago, the similar issue rose to the height when Michael Fay vandalized public facility to express his emotion. His action brought furies over the people reside in the island and also the government. It continued to happen until finally he, with his fellow ‘gang’ members were charged and caned. The latter caused protest from foreign government and human right activists due to the action taken by the government as the punishment for them.
Vandalism, as what we know, is an action of obstructing or destroying property (ies). This may caused fear from people who worry that their possession will be destroyed by vandals and they will suffer from material loss.
Vandal may say that vandalize people’s property is the only way to show their hate to the particular people if they cannot speak out their emotion and expression. They say that this is merely a way to speak out. If it is a way to express views and emotions, what is wrong about it? Should it be considered as good?
We live in a society where freedom to speak is protected as long as it does not offend other groups of people, touch sensitive issue such as race and religion and cause loss or damage materially. Thus, vandalize is totally wrong as it does not fulfil the requirement of not causing loss or damage materially. Vandalism is not a way to express views or emotions; it is a destructive manner of irresponsible people who damaging other’s possession for their own pleasure in expense of the possessor. The action can be described as a crime and the vandal could then be punished.
On the other hand, there are also people supporting this cause as a freedom. They put it as freedom of expression. People have the right to speak up and express their emotions. I dare say those people never take into account that there are people agonise from the action of vandals. It is a freedom that seizing others’ right to obtain security in life due to the anxiety to suffer from losses. It is no longer a freedom if it is depriving people from their own freedom, freedom to live safely. Should we still say that it is a freedom of expression or maybe should we call it a freedom to oppress and terrorise?
Vandalism, once again, is wrong. If people keep ignoring this issue and it grows in this society, people will inevitable feel vulnerable. Thereafter, it may fuel distrust to each other and slowly but surely will dynamite our peaceful society to a society full of havoc.