Is reclaiming what is not rightfully ours right?
By Coy PonteSunday Post Columnist
EVEN THE MERE CONCEPTION of any non-environment-friendly project for personal financial gains is already corruption in the most audacious sense. Every one of us should consider this at feeling level especially with the current state Earth is facing. While governments and peoples all over the world strongly espouse cleaning-up of rivers, waterways and shorelines, establishment of fish sanctuaries, replanting and protection of mangroves, it is a wonder why some businessmen would come to think of reclaiming some 500 hectares of shoreline and, of all places, in Panglao! I don’t see Bohol’s land mass to be so crowded.
Indeed, Panglao Island is the prime gem of the province’s tourism crown but this does not mean that business ventures away from the place don’t have the chance to bear sufficient returns. Tourists, if they are the target market of this more than ambitious project, would even bother to go as far as Bataun just to spend 350 pesos for a few seconds ride on a zipline. This is a fact. Surely, whatever are planned to be placed on the said reclamation site can be more easily done inland. Besides, reclamation cost alone is more than enough for businesses which will start earning even before the land filling would be half done. Are the planners really after profits that come from the businesses that would be opened on the area? Or are they just planning to earn out of the mere implementation of the project regardless of the outcome? There is always an optional shortcut to a seemingly tedious venture. Common sense dictates that the earlier an investment earns the better the business is.
True, we can rightfully claim to be Mother Nature’s stewards, being the planet’s highest form of thinking creatures. But does this mean we have the right to alter our environs in whichever way we please? Does this give us the right to destroy even our own habitat? It is an undeniable fact that the investors and developers will not be physically affected by any untoward and adverse effect of the said project. As long as they have the earnings, why care. They can spend their lives anywhere else in the world. But, what about the locals? They are the ones who shall forever spend the rest of their lives with whatever change – social, economic, moral – the project brings. Good if the results would all be positive for them, but what if there are negative consequences? Was their welfare so considered during the planning? Nothing can ever be right without the good of the majority of the people.
Even the term ‘reclamation’ itself is not right. Earth is not man’s creation therefore no man can rightfully ‘reclaim’ what is never his, in the first place. It is only Mother Nature who has the right to change the face of the Earth. Even then, we wrongfully accuse her by naming such changes as disasters. We must understand that we are just tenants here and we must heed what our Landlord so requires.
This brings me to another unconscionable ‘reclamation’ – that of some church funds which were, without transparent reasons, separately kept. The money came from parishioners for the church, so obviously, the church minister has the right to manage such funds. I can’t see the logic behind the move of a handful of lay people to ‘reclaim’ such. It brings to mind an anecdote of a layman who was rather unhappy to give his tithe. Someone grossly advised him: “Throw up all your coins to the air. What goes up to the heavens are for God and what falls back to the ground are yours for the picking.†He was happy then because he got back all of his coins. Had he come to me, I should have told him to climb up the summit of Tan-awan and throw into the air all his paper bills. He should have been spiritually happier.
Our Wordigras phrase for the week is “Serving God with money in mind is not serving Him at all; it is corrupting the ego.â€
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=24702.0
