How can I set a good example!

(Baonghean) - There was a man who was once the second-highest ranking leader in the capital, famous throughout the country for commuting to work in a government car worth nearly four thousand buffaloes. Ten years ago, he retired, but instead of returning to his own home, he resolutely remained in his government-owned villa from then until now.

When asked why he didn't give up his house, he calmly said, "I live comfortably. Ten years ago, I requested a place to live, but since I haven't found one yet, I'll just stay here." The authorities responsible for providing housing for this former "public servant" said they had shown him several places, all large, beautiful houses that even the average person wouldn't dare dream of, let alone the urban poor. Yet, he shook his head vigorously at every suggestion. It seems he doesn't like change and prefers staying where he is. And this familiar place is located on a central street in the capital's central district. Each square meter of land here is worth approximately one billion dong on the market. The public servant's villa he's clinging to is four hundred square meters; multiplying that reveals a mountain of money. That mountain is difficult for anyone to surpass. Therefore, it seems he's determined to stay, even though he already owns a villa in one of Hanoi's most beautiful and luxurious urban areas.

From a legal standpoint, it's utterly absurd. The villa was an official residence provided to him while he was in office. Now that he's retired, he should unconditionally return it to the State, not haggle over a price or offer "adequate compensation" before agreeing to move. From an ethical standpoint, it's also unacceptable. A high-ranking official like him would surely have received land and built houses from the State several times before. And he already had his own villa, so why is he stubbornly clinging to something that doesn't belong to him? Where is his integrity and the qualities of a Communist Party member? Clearly, his behavior is neither empathetic nor reasonable. The relevant agencies are also at a disadvantage. For ten long years, they've been powerless against the stubbornness of this obstinate individual. They should have followed the law; if he refuses to return the house, they should have forced his return. But some argue that, regardless, he is a high-ranking official who has made many contributions to the capital. Here, we need to clarify the meaning of the word "contribution" in order to have a reasonable understanding and solution. Contribution means giving something valuable to the common cause. So let's try to count what "valuable things" he contributed to Hanoi. What personal strategies did he have that benefited the country and its people? Probably none, because no one has ever mentioned any special innovations during his time as a leader, besides the famous innovation of using luxury official vehicles exceeding the permitted standards. Contribution also means giving one's resources to serve the collective. It is true that he dedicated himself to serving the collective. But it wasn't unpaid service. The collective treated him fairly. Specifically, he received a regular monthly salary, without missing a single penny. He even received salary increases ahead of schedule. He received bonuses regularly, and likely received all the titles and honors. He fully enjoyed all the benefits stipulated by the State. He even has more than others. At the end of his life, he'll have a large villa to retire in. So where exactly is the contribution he's talking about?

This absurd and shameless procrastination has spread throughout the country in recent days. The greed is glaringly obvious; let's not even mention the word "contribution"—it only adds to the shame. If officials and party members behave like this, how can they be worthy of setting an example for the people?

Confidant