ON A POSITIVE NOTE
I've learned that no matter what happens, or how bad it seems today, life
does go on, and it will be better tomorrow.
I've learned that you can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she
handles these three things: 1) a rainy day, 2) lost luggage, 3) tangled
I've learned that regardless of your relationship with your parents, you'll
miss them when they're gone from your life.
I've learned that "making a living" is not the same as "making a life."
I've learned that life sometimes gives you a second chance.
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on
both hands. You need to be able to throw something back.
I've learned that if you pursue happiness, it will elude you. But if you
focus on your family, your friends, the needs of others, your work and
doing the best you can, happiness will find you.
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I usually
make the right decision.
I've learned that even when I have pains, I don't have to be one.
I've learned that every day you should reach out and touch someone.
People love that human touch - holding hands, a warm hug, or just a
friendly pat on the back.
I've learned that I still have a lot to learn.
Finally, I've learned that you should pass this along to someone you care
about. I just did. Sometimes you just need a little something to make you
smile.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
求求你，不好这么快大选。。。燕姐才到过26个国家，62个城市，也只花了三百多万，她还没环游完这个世界，还没花够！！
黄燕燕2年出国开销325万元
世博大马馆册子被揭错误百出
继被行动党华都牙也国会议员冯宝君追问之后，旅游部长黄燕燕又再被国会议员提问出国访问的开销。这回提问的议员，竟然是其马华同僚——马华前总会长兼班登国会议员翁诗杰
根据黄燕燕在国会的书面回答指出，本身自成为旅游部长以来，共耗用了325万令吉出国拜访，其中于去年耗用了167万令吉，而今年起截至10月则耗用了158万令吉。
翁诗杰与黄燕燕曾在马华历史性的328重选时隶属不同派系，其中翁诗杰是俗称“翁派”的领军人物，而黄燕燕则被指是隶属马华总会长蔡细历的“蔡派”大将。
翁诗杰的提问是，自黄燕燕受委当旅游部长以来，共进行了多少次海外访问，所耗资的费用多少，以及所带来的效益为何？
根据黄燕燕的书面回答，“自被委任以来，截至2010年10月，旅游部长共出国16次，曾到访26个国家、61个城市。”
出国拜访有助旅游业成长
回答指出，黄燕燕出国推广大马旅游业的举动，成功帮助国家旅游业的成长。
“根据联合国世界旅游组织的报告，全球的游客在去年下滑了4.2%，而全球旅游业的收入也下降了5.7%。”
“基于全球旅游业的萎缩及为了吸引更多游客前来马来西亚，我们必须主动出击推广我们的国家。”
黄燕燕也指出，本身到世界各地推广大马，成功在2009年提升大马在 “到访过的最受欢迎国家”排行榜的位置，从第11位上升到第10位。
“由于我们在2008年只排在第11位，因此这是一个巨大的成功，只有2个亚洲国家成功打入10大，即大马和中国。”
“这些努力的成果是，在今年1月至8月间，前来拜访我国的游客已增加1618万人或15.2%，比起2009年同期的成绩只有1538万人。”
“事实上，比起2008年只有2205万名游客，2009年的游客总人数也增加了2365万人或7.2%。”
陆兆福斥“超级旅游部长”
值得一提的是，黄燕燕早在本周二以书面方式回答翁诗杰，但在今日揭露此事者，却是民主行动党亚沙国会议员陆兆福。
他今日在国会走廊召开记者会指出，325万令吉只是黄燕燕的个人开支，並不包括官员的费用。
他希望黄燕燕往后可以用更专业的方式吸引外国游客访马，并非每个月出国旅游。
“如果黄燕燕每拜访一个国家，即可吸引数以万计的该国游客到我国观光，那么，黄燕燕可以被称为‘超级旅游部长’。”
大马馆册子拼音错误百出
此外，陆兆福也对旅游部在上海世博会中，分发英文文法错误百出的小册子表示震惊。
他也对旅游部的懒散态度表示失望，並呼吁该部正视此事，或收回有关小册子加以修正。
陆兆福说，“来自多个不同国家的游客会前往上海世博会，而当他们拜访大马馆，都会被派发一份小册子。”
“正当这些小册子旨在推广我国的时候，为何这些充满明显错误的小册子能派发给外国游客？它只会为我国带来坏印象，对旅游部带来的伤害更深。”
这两名反对党议员指出，小册子共有12个拼音错误，连相当基本的英文字眼城市“city”都会被拼错成“ctry”，多元文化“'multicultural'”则被拼错成“nulticultural”，及邀请“invite”被拼错成“incite”。
其他的英文错字包括将“development”拼错成“decelopment”，及“visitors”被拼错成“visitious”。
陆兆福对旅游部在没经官方校对便派发小车子的决定，表示难以置信及震惊。
据早前报导，大马馆的屋顶曾漏水，根据黄燕燕上个月在国会下议院的书面回答，她已指示承包商立刻采取行动维修屋顶。
黄燕燕较早前也提供一份书面答复予冯宝君，回答自己在2010年8月18日至29日，率团到纽西兰及澳洲访问的费用。她与其伴侣及助理3人，在这10天总共花费了24万4720令吉的公帑。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pua Kai Chek: 求求你，不好这么快大选。。。燕姐才到过26个国家，62个城市，也只花了三百多万，她还没环游完这个世界，还没花够！！！
Jason Leng Kek Mun: Woo Hoo...我区国会议员是非常尽责旅游的部长，难怪没空回来处理武吉公满山埃问题。
...........................
........................................
世博大马馆册子被揭错误百出
继被行动党华都牙也国会议员冯宝君追问之后，旅游部长黄燕燕又再被国会议员提问出国访问的开销。这回提问的议员，竟然是其马华同僚——马华前总会长兼班登国会议员翁诗杰
根据黄燕燕在国会的书面回答指出，本身自成为旅游部长以来，共耗用了325万令吉出国拜访，其中于去年耗用了167万令吉，而今年起截至10月则耗用了158万令吉。
翁诗杰与黄燕燕曾在马华历史性的328重选时隶属不同派系，其中翁诗杰是俗称“翁派”的领军人物，而黄燕燕则被指是隶属马华总会长蔡细历的“蔡派”大将。
翁诗杰的提问是，自黄燕燕受委当旅游部长以来，共进行了多少次海外访问，所耗资的费用多少，以及所带来的效益为何？
根据黄燕燕的书面回答，“自被委任以来，截至2010年10月，旅游部长共出国16次，曾到访26个国家、61个城市。”
出国拜访有助旅游业成长
回答指出，黄燕燕出国推广大马旅游业的举动，成功帮助国家旅游业的成长。
“根据联合国世界旅游组织的报告，全球的游客在去年下滑了4.2%，而全球旅游业的收入也下降了5.7%。”
“基于全球旅游业的萎缩及为了吸引更多游客前来马来西亚，我们必须主动出击推广我们的国家。”
黄燕燕也指出，本身到世界各地推广大马，成功在2009年提升大马在 “到访过的最受欢迎国家”排行榜的位置，从第11位上升到第10位。
“由于我们在2008年只排在第11位，因此这是一个巨大的成功，只有2个亚洲国家成功打入10大，即大马和中国。”
“这些努力的成果是，在今年1月至8月间，前来拜访我国的游客已增加1618万人或15.2%，比起2009年同期的成绩只有1538万人。”
“事实上，比起2008年只有2205万名游客，2009年的游客总人数也增加了2365万人或7.2%。”
陆兆福斥“超级旅游部长”
值得一提的是，黄燕燕早在本周二以书面方式回答翁诗杰，但在今日揭露此事者，却是民主行动党亚沙国会议员陆兆福。
他今日在国会走廊召开记者会指出，325万令吉只是黄燕燕的个人开支，並不包括官员的费用。
他希望黄燕燕往后可以用更专业的方式吸引外国游客访马，并非每个月出国旅游。
“如果黄燕燕每拜访一个国家，即可吸引数以万计的该国游客到我国观光，那么，黄燕燕可以被称为‘超级旅游部长’。”
大马馆册子拼音错误百出
此外，陆兆福也对旅游部在上海世博会中，分发英文文法错误百出的小册子表示震惊。
他也对旅游部的懒散态度表示失望，並呼吁该部正视此事，或收回有关小册子加以修正。
陆兆福说，“来自多个不同国家的游客会前往上海世博会，而当他们拜访大马馆，都会被派发一份小册子。”
“正当这些小册子旨在推广我国的时候，为何这些充满明显错误的小册子能派发给外国游客？它只会为我国带来坏印象，对旅游部带来的伤害更深。”
这两名反对党议员指出，小册子共有12个拼音错误，连相当基本的英文字眼城市“city”都会被拼错成“ctry”，多元文化“'multicultural'”则被拼错成“nulticultural”，及邀请“invite”被拼错成“incite”。
其他的英文错字包括将“development”拼错成“decelopment”，及“visitors”被拼错成“visitious”。
陆兆福对旅游部在没经官方校对便派发小车子的决定，表示难以置信及震惊。
据早前报导，大马馆的屋顶曾漏水，根据黄燕燕上个月在国会下议院的书面回答，她已指示承包商立刻采取行动维修屋顶。
黄燕燕较早前也提供一份书面答复予冯宝君，回答自己在2010年8月18日至29日，率团到纽西兰及澳洲访问的费用。她与其伴侣及助理3人，在这10天总共花费了24万4720令吉的公帑。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pua Kai Chek: 求求你，不好这么快大选。。。燕姐才到过26个国家，62个城市，也只花了三百多万，她还没环游完这个世界，还没花够！！！
Jason Leng Kek Mun: Woo Hoo...我区国会议员是非常尽责旅游的部长，难怪没空回来处理武吉公满山埃问题。
...........................
........................................
電影《父後七日》 。。。這是一部不可多得的好國片，也是少見笑談生死的好電影，強烈建議親子偕同欣賞
電影《父後七日》
老實說，其實我一直不大敢看這部片，倒不是怕勾起回憶裡的畫面，當然這也是理由之一。
最大的障礙是，我很怕一身披麻帶孝的造型，感覺很怪，可能是小時候殭屍片看太多，有陰影，怕死人會突然從棺材裡蹦出來，而最接近棺材的，就是一身披麻帶孝的那一群人。
只是想歸想，前幾天朋友約看《父後七日》時，倒是沒考慮太久，心情像是愛看鬼片的膽小鬼，有人陪，怕什麼。
《父後七日》這部電影很特別，一開始就用了帶點喜感的音樂揭開父親死亡的訊息，道士悠然的華爾滋也讓死亡在此時多了點戲謔的輕鬆。
如此的鋪成，成功消融了我在進戲院前內心的陰影，少了恐懼，多了點幽默看待生死的心境，電影也由此揭開序幕。
道士阿義的角色最成功，完全撐出了這個角色近百分百的發揮，個性鮮明，長相喜感，讓我原本印象中B咖的演員，有了完美A咖的表現。
女兒阿梅的個性也很討喜，小聲說，我喜歡這類女孩的個性，有能力但不強勢，能登國際也能鄉土俗的好女孩，典型上的了台面，下的了廳廚的好女人。
哥哥大志的角色還算喜感，只是有點小可惜，電影裡交待他與父親的感情過少，所以有點撐不起最後掩面而泣的力道。
阿琴的角色蠻讚的，大剌剌的個性很具鄉土味，在她身上能輕易找回都市缺少的人情味。她扛了不少電影的笑點，還算稱職的甘草人物。
表弟小莊的角色有點可惜，好不容易用母親用興趣與道士阿義搭上了線，卻沒能在最後開花結果。也許是我期待太高，可能是「叫哥哥」那段讓我笑出聲，難免會開始期待後續師徒的發展。加上小莊媽媽又是道士阿義無緣的情人，導演也花了不小的篇幅開了情史笑梗，卻未交待阿義與小莊媽媽後續的情緣，這段浪漫似乎落的有點虎頭蛇尾。
想說的是，《父後七日》算是一部相當具誠意的國片，電影過程中不時有亮點，成功引起觀眾一波又一波的情緒。笑中帶淚，淚中帶笑，近乎無冷場的劇情讓人不難想像「林榮三文學獎」首獎作品原著的精采程度。
印象深刻的一幕，是女兒阿梅載著父親遺照經過大橋時，阿梅回憶起父親為自己臨時慶生的畫面，成功道盡景物依舊，人事全非的陣陣心酸感。
只是容我雞蛋裡挑骨頭一下，可能是電影起了漂亮的頭與精采的中段內容，讓我開始期待結局導演要給我上的是什麼人生大菜？
就我個人的觀感，結局應該能再深刻一點，父親走後的七天，第七天的處理似乎太過匆促，感覺有點像是梗都用完，所以只好如此般的簡捷。電影末尾，如果導演想表達的是對生命的無力感，是日子還得過下去的無奈感，那阿梅與朋友喝酒那段，似乎加的有點贅。
結局的力道如果能有阿梅在橋上與父親那段回憶與真實的情感力道，感動的尾勁一定會教人更加深刻。
總結，這是一部不可多得的好國片，也是少見笑談生死的好電影，強烈建議親子偕同欣賞，一方面同遊，一方面讓小朋友及早看見生命的盡頭，讓他們自然而然思惟親情的珍貴，也讓每個人都能在親見死亡的末路儀式後，更能擁有笑看生死不過彈指間那般遼闊心境，那般豁達人生……
(攝影、文字 / 塵襲)
‧塵襲2010年最新生命勵志小說《極地之光》
http://heavener.pixnet.net/blog/post/27121344
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
（当应念：OM MOLI ZHIYI ， SO HA。。。。每天口念，心念千次，万次！！！）
（OM GURU LIAN SHENG XITI HOM。。。。。。今天起，千次，万次！！！）
老實說，其實我一直不大敢看這部片，倒不是怕勾起回憶裡的畫面，當然這也是理由之一。
最大的障礙是，我很怕一身披麻帶孝的造型，感覺很怪，可能是小時候殭屍片看太多，有陰影，怕死人會突然從棺材裡蹦出來，而最接近棺材的，就是一身披麻帶孝的那一群人。
只是想歸想，前幾天朋友約看《父後七日》時，倒是沒考慮太久，心情像是愛看鬼片的膽小鬼，有人陪，怕什麼。
《父後七日》這部電影很特別，一開始就用了帶點喜感的音樂揭開父親死亡的訊息，道士悠然的華爾滋也讓死亡在此時多了點戲謔的輕鬆。
如此的鋪成，成功消融了我在進戲院前內心的陰影，少了恐懼，多了點幽默看待生死的心境，電影也由此揭開序幕。
道士阿義的角色最成功，完全撐出了這個角色近百分百的發揮，個性鮮明，長相喜感，讓我原本印象中B咖的演員，有了完美A咖的表現。
女兒阿梅的個性也很討喜，小聲說，我喜歡這類女孩的個性，有能力但不強勢，能登國際也能鄉土俗的好女孩，典型上的了台面，下的了廳廚的好女人。
哥哥大志的角色還算喜感，只是有點小可惜，電影裡交待他與父親的感情過少，所以有點撐不起最後掩面而泣的力道。
阿琴的角色蠻讚的，大剌剌的個性很具鄉土味，在她身上能輕易找回都市缺少的人情味。她扛了不少電影的笑點，還算稱職的甘草人物。
表弟小莊的角色有點可惜，好不容易用母親用興趣與道士阿義搭上了線，卻沒能在最後開花結果。也許是我期待太高，可能是「叫哥哥」那段讓我笑出聲，難免會開始期待後續師徒的發展。加上小莊媽媽又是道士阿義無緣的情人，導演也花了不小的篇幅開了情史笑梗，卻未交待阿義與小莊媽媽後續的情緣，這段浪漫似乎落的有點虎頭蛇尾。
想說的是，《父後七日》算是一部相當具誠意的國片，電影過程中不時有亮點，成功引起觀眾一波又一波的情緒。笑中帶淚，淚中帶笑，近乎無冷場的劇情讓人不難想像「林榮三文學獎」首獎作品原著的精采程度。
印象深刻的一幕，是女兒阿梅載著父親遺照經過大橋時，阿梅回憶起父親為自己臨時慶生的畫面，成功道盡景物依舊，人事全非的陣陣心酸感。
只是容我雞蛋裡挑骨頭一下，可能是電影起了漂亮的頭與精采的中段內容，讓我開始期待結局導演要給我上的是什麼人生大菜？
就我個人的觀感，結局應該能再深刻一點，父親走後的七天，第七天的處理似乎太過匆促，感覺有點像是梗都用完，所以只好如此般的簡捷。電影末尾，如果導演想表達的是對生命的無力感，是日子還得過下去的無奈感，那阿梅與朋友喝酒那段，似乎加的有點贅。
結局的力道如果能有阿梅在橋上與父親那段回憶與真實的情感力道，感動的尾勁一定會教人更加深刻。
總結，這是一部不可多得的好國片，也是少見笑談生死的好電影，強烈建議親子偕同欣賞，一方面同遊，一方面讓小朋友及早看見生命的盡頭，讓他們自然而然思惟親情的珍貴，也讓每個人都能在親見死亡的末路儀式後，更能擁有笑看生死不過彈指間那般遼闊心境，那般豁達人生……
(攝影、文字 / 塵襲)
‧塵襲2010年最新生命勵志小說《極地之光》
http://heavener.pixnet.net/blog/post/27121344
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
（当应念：OM MOLI ZHIYI ， SO HA。。。。每天口念，心念千次，万次！！！）
（OM GURU LIAN SHENG XITI HOM。。。。。。今天起，千次，万次！！！）
65 to 68......work, work, work......until last day you die
Singapore News
S'pore may need to raise retirement age to 68, says Lim Boon Heng
By Hetty Musfirah | Posted: 28 October 2010 1620 hrs
SINGAPORE: Singapore's Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng has indicated that the country may need to raise its retirement age to 68.
Mr Lim, who's in Finland accompanying President S R Nathan on his state visit there said Singaporeans need to work longer as their life span increases.
That is because they need to accumulate more for their old age.
Mr Lim who is also the minister in charge of issues on ageing in Singapore, cited Finland as an example, and will use this trip as an opportunity to study how the Finnish are dealing with their ageing population.
Mr Lim added there are areas that Singapore can emulate. One of which is to mobilise the elderly to organise themselves and form retirement communities that can provide mutual support and friendship.
A law that will make it mandatory for employers to offer re-employment to workers beyond the age of 62 will be in place by 2012.
"We are raising the retirement age, through the process of re-employment from the current 62 to 65 in January 2012. Beyond that we would have to examine how we can further raise the retirement age. In Finland, they have raised it to 68, so it gives us an indication about where we should be heading.Because the Finns are not living longer than us, we have a life expectancy of about 80, I think the finns are little less than us," said Mr Lim.
-CNA/ac
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Patrick Lee Song Juan via theonlinecitizen:
All MIW Ministars have one great thing in common..can talk through their orifice. Must talk what! with so high pay. But care less of people's feelings and whether conditions of individuals are conducive to certain work environment....Big man too as 'Chair mei' (blind) of Council for 3rd Age. Lim Boon Heng
These (_*_)s' ...can work till they die ..it doesn't matter...they are served on golden platters. Everything fits these ministars like a T. So please don't 'TCSS' Lim Boon (bey) Heng.
So die die must work..don't work also die (no money for food), work also die (deprived of social wellness in their golden years). Die of greater old age stress !!! {_!_}....Work..die..die also work..no work also die..die also work..no die also work..finally work and die !! Heaven awaits the working dead !! LOL!
http://www.facebook.com/leesjuan
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SINGAPORE RAISED TO 65 IN 2012..........
ENOUGH.....LAH
RAISE SOME MORE TO 68, THEN 70..............WORK UNTIL THE FINAL CALL....BAHASA SAID: MENGHEMBUS NAFAS YANG TERAKHIR.......
it is time for Singaporeans to think about: why have to work until the last day??? The government should give something to senior citizens........
做到死,做到老翘翘..............SUSAH, SANGAT SUSAH!!!!!!!!!
S'pore may need to raise retirement age to 68, says Lim Boon Heng
By Hetty Musfirah | Posted: 28 October 2010 1620 hrs
SINGAPORE: Singapore's Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng has indicated that the country may need to raise its retirement age to 68.
Mr Lim, who's in Finland accompanying President S R Nathan on his state visit there said Singaporeans need to work longer as their life span increases.
That is because they need to accumulate more for their old age.
Mr Lim who is also the minister in charge of issues on ageing in Singapore, cited Finland as an example, and will use this trip as an opportunity to study how the Finnish are dealing with their ageing population.
Mr Lim added there are areas that Singapore can emulate. One of which is to mobilise the elderly to organise themselves and form retirement communities that can provide mutual support and friendship.
A law that will make it mandatory for employers to offer re-employment to workers beyond the age of 62 will be in place by 2012.
"We are raising the retirement age, through the process of re-employment from the current 62 to 65 in January 2012. Beyond that we would have to examine how we can further raise the retirement age. In Finland, they have raised it to 68, so it gives us an indication about where we should be heading.Because the Finns are not living longer than us, we have a life expectancy of about 80, I think the finns are little less than us," said Mr Lim.
-CNA/ac
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Patrick Lee Song Juan via theonlinecitizen:
All MIW Ministars have one great thing in common..can talk through their orifice. Must talk what! with so high pay. But care less of people's feelings and whether conditions of individuals are conducive to certain work environment....Big man too as 'Chair mei' (blind) of Council for 3rd Age. Lim Boon Heng
These (_*_)s' ...can work till they die ..it doesn't matter...they are served on golden platters. Everything fits these ministars like a T. So please don't 'TCSS' Lim Boon (bey) Heng.
So die die must work..don't work also die (no money for food), work also die (deprived of social wellness in their golden years). Die of greater old age stress !!! {_!_}....Work..die..die also work..no work also die..die also work..no die also work..finally work and die !! Heaven awaits the working dead !! LOL!
http://www.facebook.com/leesjuan
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SINGAPORE RAISED TO 65 IN 2012..........
ENOUGH.....LAH
RAISE SOME MORE TO 68, THEN 70..............WORK UNTIL THE FINAL CALL....BAHASA SAID: MENGHEMBUS NAFAS YANG TERAKHIR.......
it is time for Singaporeans to think about: why have to work until the last day??? The government should give something to senior citizens........
做到死,做到老翘翘..............SUSAH, SANGAT SUSAH!!!!!!!!!
Jailing of dissident Liu Xiaobo 'solved the problem' of how committee should recognise Chinese activists
China made peace prize decision for us, says Nobel judge
Jailing of dissident Liu Xiaobo 'solved the problem' of how committee should recognise Chinese activists
China's decision to jail dissident Liu Xiaobo for 11 years convinced the Nobel committee to award him this year's peace prize, according to one of the judges.
Geir Lundestad of the Norwegian Nobel committee confirmed speculation that the unusually tough sentence made Liu an obvious choice. He said Beijing's decision "solved the problem" of how to recognise Chinese activists.
He said the judges had gradually come to believe they had to "address the China question".
"If we had given a prize to a dissident from Cuba or Vietnam, fine, there are difficult situations in those countries," he said during a talk at Oxford University. "But the question would then be: why don't you address China?
"And we felt that the credibility of the prize depended on this – we had to address this issue – despite the complexities that this would involve."
He added: "The next question was who should we give the prize to?
"We've studied this for several years: who are the right dissidents? We felt, obviously, that Liu was very important in his own right.
"But the Chinese government solved the problem for us. On 25 December 2009, they punished him, they sentenced him to 11 years in prison.
"And automatically, he became not only one, or perhaps the leading representative of human rights, but he also became a universal symbol of human rights."
Liu's sentence, for incitement to subvert state power, was one of the harshest handed to a dissident for many years.
He was convicted for his co-authorship of Charter 08 – a blueprint for democratic reforms in China, and other essays.
No one from the Chinese foreign ministry was available to respond Lundestad's remarks this evening.
Lundestad's comments, which may fuel accusations in the state media that the west is seeking to impose its values on China.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters yesterday that Liu was "convicted by Chinese judicial authorities for breaking China's laws".
He added: "We oppose any attempt to make an issue of this, and we oppose anyone infringing on China's judicial sovereignty in any way."
Others have suggested that Liu's win could give ammunition to moderates in government.
"The hardliners who decided on this [harsh] course on Charter 08 brought this considerable embarrassment on themselves," said Nicholas Bequelin, Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch.
Prior to the announcement of the award, Lundestad said that China's deputy foreign minister, Fu Ying, had warned the committee not to give the award to a dissident.
It is still unclear who will collect Liu's prize at the ceremony in December. His wife Liu Xia is under house arrest but has invited more than 140 other people – including dissidents and celebrities – to attend the event in Norway on his behalf.
A Chongqing woman who friends said was seized by police in the middle of the night after tweeting that she would march with a banner supporting Liu has been allowed home, her friend said today.
Zhang Shijie, a blogger who first tweeted Mou Yanxi's detention, said she was unharmed but "tired and scared". He added that police had kept her mobile phone and computer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/27/china-peace-prize-decision-nobel-judge
Jailing of dissident Liu Xiaobo 'solved the problem' of how committee should recognise Chinese activists
China's decision to jail dissident Liu Xiaobo for 11 years convinced the Nobel committee to award him this year's peace prize, according to one of the judges.
Geir Lundestad of the Norwegian Nobel committee confirmed speculation that the unusually tough sentence made Liu an obvious choice. He said Beijing's decision "solved the problem" of how to recognise Chinese activists.
He said the judges had gradually come to believe they had to "address the China question".
"If we had given a prize to a dissident from Cuba or Vietnam, fine, there are difficult situations in those countries," he said during a talk at Oxford University. "But the question would then be: why don't you address China?
"And we felt that the credibility of the prize depended on this – we had to address this issue – despite the complexities that this would involve."
He added: "The next question was who should we give the prize to?
"We've studied this for several years: who are the right dissidents? We felt, obviously, that Liu was very important in his own right.
"But the Chinese government solved the problem for us. On 25 December 2009, they punished him, they sentenced him to 11 years in prison.
"And automatically, he became not only one, or perhaps the leading representative of human rights, but he also became a universal symbol of human rights."
Liu's sentence, for incitement to subvert state power, was one of the harshest handed to a dissident for many years.
He was convicted for his co-authorship of Charter 08 – a blueprint for democratic reforms in China, and other essays.
No one from the Chinese foreign ministry was available to respond Lundestad's remarks this evening.
Lundestad's comments, which may fuel accusations in the state media that the west is seeking to impose its values on China.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters yesterday that Liu was "convicted by Chinese judicial authorities for breaking China's laws".
He added: "We oppose any attempt to make an issue of this, and we oppose anyone infringing on China's judicial sovereignty in any way."
Others have suggested that Liu's win could give ammunition to moderates in government.
"The hardliners who decided on this [harsh] course on Charter 08 brought this considerable embarrassment on themselves," said Nicholas Bequelin, Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch.
Prior to the announcement of the award, Lundestad said that China's deputy foreign minister, Fu Ying, had warned the committee not to give the award to a dissident.
It is still unclear who will collect Liu's prize at the ceremony in December. His wife Liu Xia is under house arrest but has invited more than 140 other people – including dissidents and celebrities – to attend the event in Norway on his behalf.
A Chongqing woman who friends said was seized by police in the middle of the night after tweeting that she would march with a banner supporting Liu has been allowed home, her friend said today.
Zhang Shijie, a blogger who first tweeted Mou Yanxi's detention, said she was unharmed but "tired and scared". He added that police had kept her mobile phone and computer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/27/china-peace-prize-decision-nobel-judge
Rise, ERP! Collapse, the Singapore dream!
Rise, ERP! Collapse, the Singapore dream!
Posted by theonlinecitizen on June 20, 2008 128 Comments
Choo Zheng Xi
An angry tongue-in-cheek critique of ERP hikes (TOC op-ed).
If you are superstitious, a cave-in in the Central Business District (CBD) that left a 5m-wide hole in the ground could be more than bad engineering.It happened on the same day it was announced that five new Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries were to go up by 7 July, bringing the islandwide total to a eye-popping 65.
However, signs are never easy to interpret. So if I were asked about what exactly the cave-in could be symbolic of, I would have to choose from several plausible answers.
1. Collapse in the credibility of the mainstream media
Anyone who read the front page article on the Straits Times would have been left slightly puzzled. How could such bad news have come off sounding so good? Upon deeper thought, that bewilderment will turn to anger, tinged with grudging respect for an excellently-disguised propaganda effort.
To add salt to the visceral pain any sane motorist would feel at this piece of bad news, the front page of the Straits Times trumpeted, in its subtitle, how “changes are aimed at making city traffic flow smoothly in the evenings”.
To me, this is the equivalent of cutting off someone’s legs to save him the fatigue of walking and expecting him to feel gratitude.
To add insult to injury, the article goes on to extensively quote from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) playbook, offering the public statistic after shocking statistic of ever-slowing road speeds. In the body of the article, an LTA spokesman offers the coup de grace: “The majority of people who pay do not get that experience [of uncongested driving].”
The logical conclusion, naturally, is that we should make it more expensive for more people to pay, hence making the experience more enjoyable for the ones left who can.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the last private cars left on the road in Singapore 2050 will belong to the well-paid individuals who made the policies which taxed everyone else off the roads.
If that’s not perverse, I don’t know what is.
This might have been mitigated if the ST featured a perspective from someone who actually drove a car without a motorcade.
Unfortunately, the other voices in the article belonged to Member of Parliament and head of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport Mr Cedric Foo, and his deputy chairman, Mr Ong Kian Ming. Because of their service to our country, they are millionaires (they don’t actually have motorcades).
Or perhaps I am just narrow minded, unable to see the big picture, and we really should thank the Government for helping us smoothen the gravelled arteries of our county.
Unfortunately, we have little to be thankful for, which brings me on to the next possible interpretation of the cave in.
2. Collapse in the ingenuity of our leadership
It never strikes me how incapable our top civil servants are of finding a creative solution out of the problem we’re in.
The syllogism by which they’ve derived the solution is as follows:
1) There is congestion from people driving cars.
2) People drive less if they have to pay more.
3) Ergo, the more we make people pay, the less they will drive, hence eradicating the scourge of congestion.
This syllogism might make us all happier if there was a corresponding cap or decrease in cost of public transport. Unfortunately, the “Private Vehicle Department” people and the “Public Transport Division” staff do not seem to be on talking terms. Taxi fares have recently gone up, and bus fares were last raised in September 2007. Call this a hunch, but I feel another public transport price hike in the air.
This leads to the sad conclusion that many of us will soon be walking to work in the CBD. Good luck to you if you live in Pasir Ris.
The use of the language of the criminal law is indicative of how the establishment views driving. Motorist need to be “deterred” from driving by a starting deduction of $2, as “it has become increasingly more difficult to deter motorists with 50-cent jumps”.
It has become apparent that Singaporeans are completely sanitised to this miniscule increment. In fact, with ever-increasing wages, job prospects, and inflation, monetary disincentive is next to meaningless.
So why stop at the language of the criminal law, when you can actually use the full force of the damn thing? A more creative method of solving this problem is to mandate specific days on which motorists are allowed to drive according to the colour of their car, and penalise the black sheep (or cars) that break this coding system with mandatory imprisonment. As the roads will be packed with uniformly-coloured vehicles, violators will be easily spotted.
As there are seven colours of the rainbow, we can have one for every day of the week, so no motorist needs to be left behind.
3. Collapse of the Singaporean dream
Is the Government trying to lose the next elections? Despite Mr Foo’s protestations that “We should not mix up road usage measures like ERP with means to cope with general inflation”, I think the verdict of the motorcade-less masses will be unanimous: this is bad timing par excellence.
Perhaps to test the waters of public opinion for the sharks of dissatisfaction, Mr Foo and Mr Ong have been unhappily chosen to be the first to defend the hikes. One almost feels sorry for them. Almost.
Coming on the back of increased prices of basic foodstuffs like rice, vegetables and chicken, the Government isn’t just shooting itself in the foot, it is taking a machine gun to its leg.
But, the Government will protest, people who fret over the price of basic necessities are not the ones who drive anyway!
And this is where, in all seriousness, the Government has completely lost touch with the sentiments of its people.
Those who are turning to temples for free food handouts today are precisely those who are dreaming so fervently of a better tomorrow. Materialistic as it may sound, many Singaporeans from all strata of society look forward to the day when they get their own car keys. The stories most prominently highlighted in the Straits Times are of scholars or businessmen who came from humble backgrounds and who have done well for themselves.
Pride in private ownership is a sentiment that our Government, which has based its rule on a foundation of economic performance legitimacy, should understand well.
It would be the darkest hypocrisy for them now to put this dream out of the reach of the ordinary Singaporean by pricing us off the roads and then have their propagandists make us believe they are doing this for our own good.
If these are the guys behind our country’s steering wheel, I can’t help wishing they’d hand over the car keys to someone else.
*The title of this article has been changed from its original one by request from the author.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/rise-erp-collapse-the-singapore-dream/
Posted by theonlinecitizen on June 20, 2008 128 Comments
Choo Zheng Xi
An angry tongue-in-cheek critique of ERP hikes (TOC op-ed).
If you are superstitious, a cave-in in the Central Business District (CBD) that left a 5m-wide hole in the ground could be more than bad engineering.It happened on the same day it was announced that five new Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries were to go up by 7 July, bringing the islandwide total to a eye-popping 65.
However, signs are never easy to interpret. So if I were asked about what exactly the cave-in could be symbolic of, I would have to choose from several plausible answers.
1. Collapse in the credibility of the mainstream media
Anyone who read the front page article on the Straits Times would have been left slightly puzzled. How could such bad news have come off sounding so good? Upon deeper thought, that bewilderment will turn to anger, tinged with grudging respect for an excellently-disguised propaganda effort.
To add salt to the visceral pain any sane motorist would feel at this piece of bad news, the front page of the Straits Times trumpeted, in its subtitle, how “changes are aimed at making city traffic flow smoothly in the evenings”.
To me, this is the equivalent of cutting off someone’s legs to save him the fatigue of walking and expecting him to feel gratitude.
To add insult to injury, the article goes on to extensively quote from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) playbook, offering the public statistic after shocking statistic of ever-slowing road speeds. In the body of the article, an LTA spokesman offers the coup de grace: “The majority of people who pay do not get that experience [of uncongested driving].”
The logical conclusion, naturally, is that we should make it more expensive for more people to pay, hence making the experience more enjoyable for the ones left who can.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the last private cars left on the road in Singapore 2050 will belong to the well-paid individuals who made the policies which taxed everyone else off the roads.
If that’s not perverse, I don’t know what is.
This might have been mitigated if the ST featured a perspective from someone who actually drove a car without a motorcade.
Unfortunately, the other voices in the article belonged to Member of Parliament and head of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport Mr Cedric Foo, and his deputy chairman, Mr Ong Kian Ming. Because of their service to our country, they are millionaires (they don’t actually have motorcades).
Or perhaps I am just narrow minded, unable to see the big picture, and we really should thank the Government for helping us smoothen the gravelled arteries of our county.
Unfortunately, we have little to be thankful for, which brings me on to the next possible interpretation of the cave in.
2. Collapse in the ingenuity of our leadership
It never strikes me how incapable our top civil servants are of finding a creative solution out of the problem we’re in.
The syllogism by which they’ve derived the solution is as follows:
1) There is congestion from people driving cars.
2) People drive less if they have to pay more.
3) Ergo, the more we make people pay, the less they will drive, hence eradicating the scourge of congestion.
This syllogism might make us all happier if there was a corresponding cap or decrease in cost of public transport. Unfortunately, the “Private Vehicle Department” people and the “Public Transport Division” staff do not seem to be on talking terms. Taxi fares have recently gone up, and bus fares were last raised in September 2007. Call this a hunch, but I feel another public transport price hike in the air.
This leads to the sad conclusion that many of us will soon be walking to work in the CBD. Good luck to you if you live in Pasir Ris.
The use of the language of the criminal law is indicative of how the establishment views driving. Motorist need to be “deterred” from driving by a starting deduction of $2, as “it has become increasingly more difficult to deter motorists with 50-cent jumps”.
It has become apparent that Singaporeans are completely sanitised to this miniscule increment. In fact, with ever-increasing wages, job prospects, and inflation, monetary disincentive is next to meaningless.
So why stop at the language of the criminal law, when you can actually use the full force of the damn thing? A more creative method of solving this problem is to mandate specific days on which motorists are allowed to drive according to the colour of their car, and penalise the black sheep (or cars) that break this coding system with mandatory imprisonment. As the roads will be packed with uniformly-coloured vehicles, violators will be easily spotted.
As there are seven colours of the rainbow, we can have one for every day of the week, so no motorist needs to be left behind.
3. Collapse of the Singaporean dream
Is the Government trying to lose the next elections? Despite Mr Foo’s protestations that “We should not mix up road usage measures like ERP with means to cope with general inflation”, I think the verdict of the motorcade-less masses will be unanimous: this is bad timing par excellence.
Perhaps to test the waters of public opinion for the sharks of dissatisfaction, Mr Foo and Mr Ong have been unhappily chosen to be the first to defend the hikes. One almost feels sorry for them. Almost.
Coming on the back of increased prices of basic foodstuffs like rice, vegetables and chicken, the Government isn’t just shooting itself in the foot, it is taking a machine gun to its leg.
But, the Government will protest, people who fret over the price of basic necessities are not the ones who drive anyway!
And this is where, in all seriousness, the Government has completely lost touch with the sentiments of its people.
Those who are turning to temples for free food handouts today are precisely those who are dreaming so fervently of a better tomorrow. Materialistic as it may sound, many Singaporeans from all strata of society look forward to the day when they get their own car keys. The stories most prominently highlighted in the Straits Times are of scholars or businessmen who came from humble backgrounds and who have done well for themselves.
Pride in private ownership is a sentiment that our Government, which has based its rule on a foundation of economic performance legitimacy, should understand well.
It would be the darkest hypocrisy for them now to put this dream out of the reach of the ordinary Singaporean by pricing us off the roads and then have their propagandists make us believe they are doing this for our own good.
If these are the guys behind our country’s steering wheel, I can’t help wishing they’d hand over the car keys to someone else.
*The title of this article has been changed from its original one by request from the author.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/rise-erp-collapse-the-singapore-dream/
Why we gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel
Posted by theonlinecitizen on October 23, 2010 7 Comments
The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, responds to China’s criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Liu Xiaobo, who is currently serving an 11-year jail sentence in China. Jagland’s response was first published in the New York Times.
Thorbjorn Jagland
THE Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.
The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.
The modern state system evolved from the idea of national sovereignty established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. At the time, sovereignty was assumed to be embodied in an autocratic ruler.
But ideas about sovereignty have changed over time. The American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen replaced the control of the autocrat with the sovereignty of the people as the source of national power and legitimacy.
The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism. The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.
Today, universal human rights provide a check on arbitrary majorities around the world, whether they are democracies or not. A majority in a parliament cannot decide to harm the rights of a minority, nor vote for laws that undermine human rights. And even though China is not a constitutional democracy, it is a member of the United Nations, and it has amended its Constitution to comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.
However, Mr. Liu’s imprisonment is clear proof that China’s criminal law is not in line with its Constitution. He was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system.” But in a world community based on universal human rights, it is not a government’s task to stamp out opinions and rumors. Governments are obliged to ensure the right to free expression — even if the speaker advocates a different social system.
These are rights that the Nobel committee has long upheld by honoring those who struggle to protect them with the Peace Prize, including Andrei Sakharov for his struggle against human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his fight for civil rights in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the Chinese government has harshly criticized the award, claiming that the Nobel committee unlawfully interfered with its internal affairs and humiliated it in the eyes of the international public. On the contrary, China should be proud that it has become powerful enough to be the subject of debate and criticism.
Interestingly, the Chinese government is not the only one to criticize the Nobel committee. Some people have said that giving the prize to Mr. Liu may actually worsen conditions for human-rights advocates in China.
But this argument is illogical: it leads to the conclusion that we best promote human rights by keeping quiet. If we keep quiet about China, who will be the next country to claim its right to silence and non-interference? This approach would put us on a path toward undermining the Universal Declaration and the basic tenets of human rights. We must not and cannot keep quiet. No country has a right to ignore its international obligations.
China has every reason to be proud of what it has achieved in the last 20 years. We want to see that progress continue, and that is why we awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Liu. If China is to advance in harmony with other countries and become a key partner in upholding the values of the world community, it must first grant freedom of expression to all its citizens.
It is a tragedy that a man is being imprisoned for 11 years merely because he expressed his opinion. If we are to move toward the fraternity of nations of which Alfred Nobel spoke, then universal human rights must be our touchstone.
Responses to “Why we gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel”
1.
Peter Sellers 23 October 2010
This should be framed in bold letters and put up all over Singapore.
2.
Singaporean 24 October 2010
In that case, we should nominate the following Singaporeans for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Chia Thye Poh
Lim Hock Siew
Said Zahari
Vincent Cheng
Teo Soh Lung
Francis Seow
JB Jeyeratnam (posthumous)
Tang Liang Hong
Chee Soon Juan
etc.
Singapore is a member of the UN, and should comply with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/10/why-we-gave-liu-xiaobo-a-nobel/
Posted by theonlinecitizen on October 23, 2010 7 Comments
The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, responds to China’s criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Liu Xiaobo, who is currently serving an 11-year jail sentence in China. Jagland’s response was first published in the New York Times.
Thorbjorn Jagland
THE Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.
The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.
The modern state system evolved from the idea of national sovereignty established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. At the time, sovereignty was assumed to be embodied in an autocratic ruler.
But ideas about sovereignty have changed over time. The American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen replaced the control of the autocrat with the sovereignty of the people as the source of national power and legitimacy.
The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism. The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.
Today, universal human rights provide a check on arbitrary majorities around the world, whether they are democracies or not. A majority in a parliament cannot decide to harm the rights of a minority, nor vote for laws that undermine human rights. And even though China is not a constitutional democracy, it is a member of the United Nations, and it has amended its Constitution to comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.
However, Mr. Liu’s imprisonment is clear proof that China’s criminal law is not in line with its Constitution. He was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system.” But in a world community based on universal human rights, it is not a government’s task to stamp out opinions and rumors. Governments are obliged to ensure the right to free expression — even if the speaker advocates a different social system.
These are rights that the Nobel committee has long upheld by honoring those who struggle to protect them with the Peace Prize, including Andrei Sakharov for his struggle against human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his fight for civil rights in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the Chinese government has harshly criticized the award, claiming that the Nobel committee unlawfully interfered with its internal affairs and humiliated it in the eyes of the international public. On the contrary, China should be proud that it has become powerful enough to be the subject of debate and criticism.
Interestingly, the Chinese government is not the only one to criticize the Nobel committee. Some people have said that giving the prize to Mr. Liu may actually worsen conditions for human-rights advocates in China.
But this argument is illogical: it leads to the conclusion that we best promote human rights by keeping quiet. If we keep quiet about China, who will be the next country to claim its right to silence and non-interference? This approach would put us on a path toward undermining the Universal Declaration and the basic tenets of human rights. We must not and cannot keep quiet. No country has a right to ignore its international obligations.
China has every reason to be proud of what it has achieved in the last 20 years. We want to see that progress continue, and that is why we awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Liu. If China is to advance in harmony with other countries and become a key partner in upholding the values of the world community, it must first grant freedom of expression to all its citizens.
It is a tragedy that a man is being imprisoned for 11 years merely because he expressed his opinion. If we are to move toward the fraternity of nations of which Alfred Nobel spoke, then universal human rights must be our touchstone.
Responses to “Why we gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel”
1.
Peter Sellers 23 October 2010
This should be framed in bold letters and put up all over Singapore.
2.
Singaporean 24 October 2010
In that case, we should nominate the following Singaporeans for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Chia Thye Poh
Lim Hock Siew
Said Zahari
Vincent Cheng
Teo Soh Lung
Francis Seow
JB Jeyeratnam (posthumous)
Tang Liang Hong
Chee Soon Juan
etc.
Singapore is a member of the UN, and should comply with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/10/why-we-gave-liu-xiaobo-a-nobel/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)