Pages

Powered By Blogger

Tuesday 27 November 2018

Blog, Tweet and Facebook 28/11/2018 A good system & People



Blog, Tweet and Facebook   28/11/2018    A good system & People
        Good leaders are prone to fall victims in a bad system and our history has proved so.  A good system can restraint, will and discipline bad leaders to  abide by the rule of laws. 
        In the age when the majority of people were ignorant and low in literacy, a very strong and dominating good leader like Lee Kuan Yew was a must to lead people and put the country on the track of democracy.  In the age like now when the majority of people are knowledgeable and high in literacy, a good system on the track of democracy is more important to provide the conducive environment for economic and capital development. 
        A good system can nurture good leaders whereas a bad system can make good leaders fall victims to bad practices like corruption, collusion and other vices that you can name of.  We have enough examples to prove so.
        We all are ordinary and so we need laws to restraint and discipline us.  Finland is a good example of how a good system works and the consensus people reach for the good and well-being for everybody for us to refer to.  It is a government based on CAT – Credibility, Accountability and Transparency.  It is the true practice of democracy -- the government  by the people, for the people and of the people. 
        Finland has a good democratic system which involves people from every level to participate in the affair of the country.  They have the sunshine laws to the public.  When everything is open to the scrutiny of the people, which leader dares to act secretive to plunder, exploit and rob at will?  When every citizen is directly or indirectly involved in politics, is it easy for anyone to go astray in the process?  Hence, I say that a good system is better than having a very strong and dominating leader like Lee Kuan Yew who was a must in the age of ignorance and illiteracy.
        In the age of knowledge and literacy, a good system is more important than having a very good, strong and dominating leader like Lee Kuan Yew who was important in the age of ignorance and illiteracy.   Compared with the leaders like the late-Marcos Ferdinad of the Philippines, late-Suharto of Indonesia, Mahathir of Malaysia (1963 up to now) (well-marked with cronies in corruption and collusion)…. a very good, strong and dominating leader like Lee was a must.  But he was just the few of the few, the unique one. 
        No matter how good the system is, it is useless without the involvement of the public in the process.   The public must take the interest and welfare of the country seriously.  When everyone is concerned about the development of the country and takes the affair of the country to their hearts,  what affair are not people-centric, minded and oriented? 
        Hence, a good system plus people plus good leaders can bring a country to a new height. 

Government and Politics

Finland Table of Contents SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT of its present system of government in 1919, Finland has been one of the more fortunate members of the Western community of democratic nations. Compared with other European states, the country was only moderately affected by the political turmoil of the interwar period; it passed through World War II relatively unscathed; and, although right on the line that divided Europe into two hostile blocs after the second half of the 1940s, it survived as an independent nation with its democratic institutions intact.
        This enviable record was achieved against formidable odds. Although the constitutional basis of their government grew out of long-established institutions, Finns had never been fully free to govern themselves until late 1917 when they achieved national independence. Swedish and Russian rulers had always ultimately determined their affairs. Finnish society was also marked by deep fissures that became deeper after the brief civil war (1918), which left scars that needed several generations to heal. In addition to class and political divisions, the country also had to contend with regional and linguistic differences. These problems were eventually surmounted, and by the 1980s the watchword in Finnish politics was consensus.
         A skillfully constructed system of government allowed Finns to manage their affairs with the participation of all social groups (although there were some serious lapses in the interwar period). Checks and balances, built into a system of modified separation of powers, enabled the government to function democratically and protected the basic rights of all citizens. The 200-member parliament, the Eduskunta, elected by popular vote, was sovereign by virtue of its representing the Finnish people. An elected president wielded supreme executive power and determined foreign policy. Although not responsible politically to the Eduskunta, the president could carry out many of his functions only through a cabinet government, the Council of State, which was dependent upon the support of the Eduskunta. An independent judiciary, assisted by two legal officials with broad independent powers--the chancellor of justice and the parliamentary ombudsman--ensured that government institutions adhered to the law.
           Working within this system during the 1980s were a variety of political parties, an average of about a dozen, ranging from sect-like groups to large well-established parties, the counterparts of which were to be found all over Western Europe. The socialist wing consisted of a deeply split communist movement and a moderate Finnish Social Democratic Party that by the late 1980s was a preeminent governing party.  The center was occupied by an agrarian party, the Center Party, which had been in government almost continuously until 1987; the Swedish People's Party; and a formerly right-wing protest party, the Finnish Rural Party.  The right was dominated by the National Coalition Party, which was fairly moderate in its conservatism.  In the 1970s and the 1980s, the mainstream parties, and even a good part of the Communist Party of Finland, had moved toward the center, and the political spectrum as a whole was slightly more to the right than it had been in previous decades.
          A constitutional system that was conservative in nature had allowed these parties to work together, yet within constraints that permitted no single group to usurp the rights of another.  Nevertheless, the variety of parties had made it very difficult to put together coalitions that could attain the strict qualified majorities needed to effect fundamental changes.  Only since the second half of the 1960s had it been possible, though at times difficult, to find a broad enough multiparty consensus.
        Powerful interest groups were also involved in Finnish politics, most noticeably in the negotiation and the realization of biannual income policy settlements that, since the late 1960s, had affected most Finnish wage-earners. Interest groups initially negotiated the terms of a new wage agreement; then it was, in effect, ratified by coalitions of parties in government; and finally the Eduskunta passed the social and economic legislation that underlay it.  Some observers complained that government's role had become overly passive in this process and that the preeminence of consensus actually meant that Finnish politics offered the populace no real alternatives.   Yet most Finns, remembering earlier years of industrial strife and poverty, preferred the new means of managing public affairs.
        There was also broad agreement about Finnish foreign policy.  The country was threatened with extinction as an independent nation after World War II, but presidents Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen, both masters of realpolitik, led their countrymen to a new relationship with the Soviet Union.  The core of this relationship was Finland's guarantee to the Soviet Union that its northeastern border region was militarily secure.   Controversial as the so-called Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line was initially, by the 1980s the vast majority of Finns approved of the way Finland dealt with its large neighbor and were well aware, too, of the trade advantages the special relationship had brought to their country.
        Working in tandem with good Finnish-Soviet relations was the policy of active and peaceful neutrality, the backbone of Finnish foreign policy. Advocating, as a neutral state, the settlement of disputes through peaceful, legal means was a role Finns adopted willingly.  A high point of this policy was the part the country played in planning and in hosting the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  Another facet of active neutrality was a committed membership in the United Nations, most notably in the organization's peacekeeping forces.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Constitutional Development

The Constitution
GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS
Legislature
President
Council of State
Legal System
Civil Service
Provincial Administration
Local Administration
Electoral System
Aland Islands
POLITICAL DYNAMICS
The Social Democratic Party
The Center Party
The National Coalition Party
The Communist Party
The Swedish People's Party
Smaller Parties and the Greens
Interest Groups
FOREIGN RELATIONS
For more information about the government, see Facts about Finland.

Sunday 25 November 2018

Blog, Tweet and Facebook 26/11/2018 Will and Way


Blog, Tweet and Facebook    26/11/2018  Will and Way
        It is said, “Where there is will, there is a way.”  Did you know that about 100 countries have become independent in the late 50 years?  Were they blessed with any laws to become independent?  Is there any law in this world granting the colonised countries to become independent on their accord?  Stop being idiotic to get so entangled in the dominator-centred rule of laws.  If you are so federal-minded, centred and oriented, you can never get free from this self-entanglement.  There is no hope for Sarawak to become an independent country once again. 
Where majority of Sarawakians want Sarawak independence, there is the way to gain Sarawak independence.  Did you know that how difficult Bangladeshi struggled to gain their independence?   We Sarawakians can avoid the ordeal of Bangladeshi through votes.  We can vote Sarawak out of the federation of Malaysia.  Who says we cannot?  Do you agree that miracles are in the hand of God but wonders are in the hand of man?   So, I say, “kuala Malaysia or not, we Sarawakians decide.  Sarawakians want Sarawak independence.”  The realisation of this dream for Sarawak independence will become really true some day if Sarawakians are determined to fight for Sarawak independence.  The time will come sooner or later.
The declaration of decolonisation on 14th December, 1960 (1514 XV) grants people the rights  for freedom and justice.   You may argue that provisions set by the United Nations are not biding.  Well, unless you want to go your own way and remain isolated, otherwise, why do you think the resolutions of the United Nations are not biding?  
        It is idiotic to get so entangled in those laws based on unequal treatment.  How can we get free from being tethered if we are entangled with those irrational laws? 
        Will Registrar of Societies grant Sarawak Liberation Movement the permit?  Without the permit, do you mean that they cannot carry on their work to fight for Sarawak Independence?   Try to think outside the box.  Avoid being so ‘dog’ (follow the set rules or patterns blindly) in thought.  
        Sarawak is for Sarawakians and only Sarawak-minded, oriented and centred Sarawakians can create a better future for Sarawak.  Sarawakians are determined to create role model of Sarawak like Singapore for the whole wide world to refer to.
        We should be prepared to uproot all the Malayan parties in Sarawak.  I hope to see all the Malaya flags to fly out of Sarawak one day.

Wednesday 21 November 2018

Blog, Tweet and Facebook 22/11/2018 To break the curses


Blog, Tweet and Facebook   22/11/2018     To break the curses
        To break the curses of more Sarawakians to become traitors,  we Sarawakians should take it as our responsibility to vote Sarawak out of the federation of Malaysia or the grip of Malayan government in real essence. 
         The mould of federation and state in relationship tethered BN-crowned puppeted-political Sarawakian clowns to dance according to the string pulling of the Malayan colonial masters.  Now the PH-crowned puppeted-political Sarawakian clowns will dance in the same way as those BN-crowned ones.  These crowned puppeted-political Sarawakian clowns are under the spell of their Malayan colonial masters.
        My half a year observation of these PH-crowned Sarawakian political clowns/PHcSpc, I have noticed that they are so federal-minded, oriented and loyal.  They are too obsessed, attentive and role-model focused to think ouside the box anymore.  They have lost themselves in Federal-State Model to think to fight for the rights of Sarawak, not to say Sarawak Independence which is out of their mind.
        To rank them in the list of betrayal, Chong Chieng Jen take position 1; Wong King Wei No. 2;  Kelvin Yii Lee Wuen No. 3; Alan Ling Sie Kiong No.4; Larry Sng No.5; ….these clowns are too busy in the mad-rat-race to think for the interests of Sarawak as a whole.  This is another batch going to sell Sarawak for their self-interests and official positions.  How many more will follow behind them is just too sad for us to count. 
        In my eyes, they are trapped and bounded to work for the big interests and benefits of the Malayan government in the name of Malaysia.  This is how Sarawak has been plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed and bullied through the help of federal minded, obsessed, and oriented Sarawakians to help them to accomplish their mission and vision to colonise and dominate Sarawak.
       To break the spell, I strongly that Sarawak should become an independent country like Brunei and Singapore.   With all the resources at our disposal and the human capital, we can develop Sarawak on par with Singapore, Brunei, Dubai, Finland, Norway and the like.  There is no hope for Sarawak if we still continue staying in the Federation of Malaysia which stands for plundering, exploitation, oppression, suppression, robbing and bullying.  It is humiliating and ashamed to all Sarawakians being colonised and treated like slaves all the time.  What are we to the Malayan government?  Is it not idiotic to preach patriotism to the colonised people when YB Hannah Yeo, (DAP) preached patriotism in the function with the backdrop emblazoned with the words ‘A day of patriotism’.
        With the awareness of Sarawak as a trust territory to the Malayan government, we have the autonomy and we Sarawakians can decide to quit from Malaya government in the name of Malaysia for good.  So 2021, Sarawak election, I hope all the Sarawakians with some exceptions will stayed united in one heart and mind to vote for Sarawak Independence.  I believe that the United Nations are waiting for us, Sarawakians to take a bold step to Sarawak Independence.   Many big countries near and far are interested to invest in Sarawak and develop my homeland, Sarawak indirectly.  Yes, we are ready!

Blog, Tweet and Facebook 22/11/2018 今天的故事,明天的历史。



Blog, Tweet and Facebook   22/11/2018     今天的故事,明天的历史。
         第一个人说, “砂罗越是砂罗越人的/S4S。”是Stephen Kalong Ningkan,咱们砂的第一位首长.  之后,SUPP采用S4S这口号连接当时砂人。结果,马来联邦霸权以内安法令就把黄金明关起来。SUPP 从此噤声。后来被收编当了政府。当了政府后,就自然而然,移身转向迎合以霸权的意愿为意愿。结果,被人民唾弃了。
        2012,内安法令停止了。2013开是被打压很久的S4S口号又开始复活了。从一群爱砂罗越人从新出发。 过程中,也分野了S4S大队,SIA S4SSLMS4S等等。像基督教的教会分了很多教堂,但是还是以耶稣为主信奉上苍。各帮人马有各帮人马的原则做法和作风。各帮人马要如何合作,还在磨合期。各做各的,也是一中选择。
     5/11/2018,和平集会,我也去凑人数。顺便回娘家。顺便要去看人家的公司的书仓。这家公司有分门别类的的藏书。 为了赶上集会,星期天4/11的课还挪后到2/12上呢。 这一趟回娘家,我发现我85岁的阿爸很S4S哦。全家大小都知道了:砂罗越原来是  托管给马来亚,有自治权,可以自决独立的一天。 
        大姐/大姑姑出马了。一位宅妇会如此热忱,肯定引起好奇。刚好大妹子还在Kuching。她和大嫂特地从Australia回来照顾我阿妈。她跌倒了,动了手术需要特别照顾。大嫂在Australia是专门照顾老人家的。大妹配合大嫂一起回家。
        那天,我大妹子和大侄女陪我去集会。 我大大声的喊了我自己准备好的口号“Kuala Malaysia or not, we Sarawakians decide.”其实,我还想喊第二句口号,“We Sarawakians want independence.”可是,有人说,今天不要喊,因为今天是快闪的集会。  其实他们在4/11/2018 也有集会。我没有准备参加。
          2021是砂国选举,这就是[生死战:脱马/留马] 经过55年打压,砂人多少都有点傻傻的。被马来亚殖民了还不知道。 最近,我做民意调查:[A. 砂罗越脱马独立好; B. 继续留马只要自主权] A99.99%.   很多人不知道砂罗越原来是托管给马来亚的,因为当年我们没有自治能力,现在有能力了,可是马来亚霸权,在这过程当中,以各种手段,不平等协约把砂的石油和天然气,主要税收像印花税,income  tax, 进出口税等等都[占为自有/鲸吞]。每年霸凌去的税收+石油和天然气高达3000多亿。每年愿意给回的只有区区40-50亿。为了要收买人民,当然,有再潵点。 搞笑得很。用咱们砂的钱来送礼。蒙骗百姓。
         人民所累积的怨恨和愤怒已经登顶了。 砂人透过醒觉的努力,希望砂罗越人可以用手中那一票的自决权决定砂罗越的未来。我们把那些有独立议程的代表送进砂议会完成 [联合国赋予的去殖民化的自决权]来决定砂罗越的未来。 只要有51% 的代表在砂议会启动独立议程,砂议会就可以宣布独立。一宣布独立,砂议会就通知联合国。我相信联合国也在等我们独立等得好辛苦了。
        独立后的砂罗越会跟新加坡,文莱,Dubai,芬兰,挪威等等看齐。我们砂国会变成第二个Dubai或芬兰。 不被打压后的砂国有自己的丰富的资源迈向无限的发展空间。想想这是多么美好的前景和愿景啊。维护砂罗越是每个砂罗越人的责任和使命。但愿每个砂人懂得用手中宝贵的一票[联合国1960年去殖民化宣言][1514号议决]赋予的自决权去决定砂罗越的未来。(林梅芳稿)