Pages

Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, 5 December 2018

Blog, Tweet and Facebook 6/12/2018 走火人魔了



Blog, Tweet and Facebook    6/12/2018     走火人魔了
        花了55年,砂国政府才学到要保护砂国就是要砂的执政党和反对党。马来亚政党统统都要滚回马来亚。 这外来党只会搞破坏,一心一意就是想吞吃砂国。砂原本的银行全吞了。石油和天然气95%全拿了。我们期待2019年尾能执行100% 拥有权。Petronas 要在我们砂生意要申请准证。这是第一出击要让这些掠夺贼知道,谁才是砂石油天然气的拥有者。 
        是时候人民要站起来捍卫砂国主权。第一步就是连根拔起这些外来党。 我肯定张健仁外号[脏贱人],黄庆伟,俞利文,林思健,尤其是张健仁(享受州国双薪)等等等等会大失所望。时间到了。
        509后,希盟成功入住布城后,个个DAP政客们都[得意忘影,丑态百出,太邪了]。别怪人民里里外外都把你们这些政客们清清楚楚看了几遍。知道你们都很狗的面向顺服马来亚主子。够了,够了。 这种违宪的[国州关系的模型],本来就是这模样。 55年,我们看到就是砂国人被马来亚牢牢的套住上锁:过去是这模型;现在照样;未来也一样。 所以要[解套],唯一的办法就是去除马来亚政党在砂国撒野,去除这种违宪的关系,去除沙砂两国跟马来亚11州再玩下去。 我总觉得这是Allah善意的安排。要咱们善用这一套脱马独立。 GE14 就是终结这种违宪的关系。给我们子子孙孙一个良好的交代。
        对沙砂两国来说,没有GE15了。砂罗越肯定势在必行往脱马独立这方向进行。14/12/1960年,联合国[去殖民化宣言1514号议决] 给与人民[自决权]。这就是用手中一票决定砂罗越未来走向。 11月做了一些民调知道至少80%或更多的民众要砂脱马独立。 敢敢表态的虽然不多。但是,我相信2021年投脱马独立会是非常非常非常多。会有排山倒海的趋势。以砂人爱砂国的前提来推理。这是我们福州话说:这种书是不用读的都知道的。
        过去55BN的种种不堪行为和做法是令一般人无限厌恶和反感。那些够狗的官爷们总是对首相有很多表态。尤其有这种排场有很多奢望和幻想的首相Dr M这邪魔。他就是很享受被狗狗部长们仰望的那种病态心理。 我每次看美国,英国,新加坡,澳洲,。。。。等等等国家,呀,没有这种情形啊。
        现在,好了,我想这也是Allah善意的安排来试探人心。 嗯。。嗯,这DAP大部长/大管家来了,说了这番话:[迎接首相排场不够壮观,] 张健仁赖省公署。还说[制造敦马不受欢迎假象]。谁看了都是一把火。火冒何止三丈。说好新马来西亚[要守民主规矩和规范]。不浪费资源,他人时间,精力等等搞排场玩这种戏码。 看,张管家怎么了。 曝露的是肤浅,低俗,够贱,欠缺高尚文化修养。。。。真的非常非常非常非常。。。。可耻。
        来了,DAP周长佑:[相较过往接待方式落差大,有欠专业],另一只很够狗的也沦陷了。 这些DAP精英们像中邪了,或是被邪灵上身了。不然,怎么509 后,完全变了样。 都是那么的贱,低俗的,肤浅的,欠缺高尚文化修养。。。。真的非常非常非常非常。。。。可耻。 完全跟一般人想象的有如此大的落差。 
是非黑白对错根本乱成一团。 真的不敢相信大家的选择。不过,这也是Allah善意安排告诉咱们未来选代表要更加精明。
        1/12/2018Dr M邪魔来砂国办私事,要在砂国为PPBM插旗侵略砂国。这邪魔当年在位22年,恶名昭彰,一直打压殖民沙砂两国。他在位22年,拒绝拨款给咱们发展。石油天然气和其它税收后,更苛刻的对待沙砂两邦国。 99%砂人来讲,我们没有拿粪便准备泼你,也算是砂国是够温和了。还要什么排场欢迎。 张健仁外号脏贱人和周长佑,我想,一定是用肚子思考,所以才如此。。 可耻。 为了个人官位和利益,连灵魂都出卖了。
         1/12/2018, 这邪魔,嘿。。。。嘿,还偷用国有的航空来办私事呢。这种公器私用的行为是可耻的,这样的低级,不守规范和规则的首相还要砂民怎样迎接他。DAP林吉祥口中:[联邦国里历时最贪婪的一位首相]。现在一家亲啊,是非黑白对错不用分了。都可以了。
 








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.