The same goes to parliamentary government. Is parliamentary government the best government model?

No, they are not. There are still many weaknesses that need to be improved. Generally, democracy is majority say. This is only good when majority is good and has high wisdom.

If majority likes war, then, democarcy constitutes to war, a case like US.

Another example such as Indonesia is majority malays. In case if majority is one sided and put other people as slave, is democracy still good?

While for parliamentary government. What is the qualification of someone who doesn’t know about engineering and doesn’t have engineering background to handle and control an engineering department? If someone who doesn’t know well on certain industry, but play role in deciding the rules and regulations for that industry, is this the right or effective way of doing work?

In view of all these weaknesses, shall we pull ourselves out of the circle and consider something which is more convincing for a better tomorrow?

Well, I have thought about these some time ago and I wish to share with all the buddy here on my opinion. I have named the new ideology as the ‘Wisdomism’, which I think it is a newer ideology which is better than democracy. I have posted it onto my website as follow:-
http://www.greatians.com/wisdomism.htm

Please do feel free to put your comments here. TQ.

A New Race based Malaysia by UMNO?

If one of the blogger here can be labelled as a headmaster, then I would like to label one of the frequent visitor here as the Supreme Court judge. At least I think the headmaster was doing his/her job if he/she was able to point out views that are factually wrong or illogical.

What about this Supreme Court judge? To him, he must have the final say in everything. Take for example his perverted view on ISA. To him, there is nothing wrong with the ISA; it is the abuse and arbitrary use of ISA. He just can’t see his own illogic. How can he say there is nothing wrong with the ISA when the act itself has provided for abuse and arbitrary use of power by the executive branch? Because of 9/11 and because of US Patriot Act, he sees nothing wrong with ISA. He just can’t see the abuse and arbitrary use of power is part and parcel of that legislation.

Who does?? That’s your freedom of speech. Exercise it!

SO, why should UMNO being treated as if it is above all others?

Just like any political parties in the country, it has to work as hard and as fairly.

Throw some lights here.

“The results indicated the voters had broken the ethnic and religious barriers. Voting no longer based on ethnicity or religion any more.

“Voting also shows we are heading more towards a Malaysia that is suitable for all Malaysians regardless of race and creed as in Perak where the Malays had voted for the DAP and Chinese for PAS…”

Yes, we the voters broke ethnic barriers in our choice of candidates. But when will the choice of our leaders based on ethnicity be broken down? Have not the Rulers in those states got the guts to choose his mb based on a different race and religion for the best of his state? The question we all must ask ourselves is if there is a malaysian version of Lee Kuan Yew in our midst can he be the next prime minister? If not why?

Cheers

Even Pauline Hansen was given her “two cents”worth of her extreme rightish views in the OZ free press and media would only suggest how matured is the audience in developed democracy………..are you suggesting our Malaysian audience are not matured enough to differentiate between good speech and flawed speech and do not possess that intellectual ability to chastise one that is not universally right

I beg to differ

Hallelujah!

So far there are some signs that things are changing.

One recalls in August 2007, New Straits Times (NST) withdrew the column of social activist Zainah Anwar. Zainah’s writing last appeared in the paper on July 27, 2007 on which she wrote about the futility of censorship with the advancement of information technology. She said that the “new media”, such as blogs and news portals, had made obsolete the regulation of public opinion and ideas. This is absolutely vindicated by March 8th 2008 election results.

Now the Star has seized the initiative and gave Zainah Anwar a new column “Sharing the Nation” in which she wrote abouit “How the Tables Have Turned” (against the BN) on page 31 of Sunday Star 30th March.

We also observe how Double Datuk Group Chief Editor of The Star, Wong Chun Wai was busy engaging and interviewing the new Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng, and the new Mentri Besar of Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim in his Cafe Latte series.

The Sun that had even before the election dedicated more space to “neutral stories’ (than NST & THe Star) has on 27th March published Dr Mahathir’s views on “ Rulers and politicians” touching on the Wang Ehsan issue.

Even TV 3 gave quite a coverage to an interview of Dr Mahathir critical of the government.

I hope these initiatives concerning self directed internal reforms of MSM would continue for greater non partisan ship and professionalism to our journalistic profession and industry under the “New Malaysia”.

As a matter of fact, they don’t and they are going to spank the 5 states govern by the opposition coalition. Constant sabotage, and don’t bother to release the Hindraf 5 despites call by various opposition leader.

We will never have a new Malaysia, that is a NO, Pak Lah will be chosen again end of this year, why, becos if other leader within UMNO is chosen, he might not be as stupid, ignorance, deaf, sleepy, arrogant as Pak Lah. Many will still prefer him, because he will continue to deny the Opposition state since his coalition has been denied by the Rakyat from this 5 states and Royal family.

It may at times be visited and read by readers of different political leanings, strains and beliefs who are just as passionate in their views, and sparks may fly in the face of the exchange. Occasionally, we have visitors who visit this blog solely to provoke and mock regular readers of this blog with their personal views. However, obnoxious these characters may be, it is important that we understand that while we look forward to reading comments made by those who share our views, we would be making a mockery of the freedom of speech if we limit the same to those who do not.

Then we may get a regular contributor who behaves like the typical school headmaster taking to task or chiding his students who to him have the audacity to challenge him and his views on the issues as if he alone has the monopoly to the truth. Should we fault readers who choose to show their annoyance? That too is freedom of speech.

When such exchanges get out control and the parties resort to ‘un-civil’ behavior to solve civil issues, the moderator is placed in the unenviable position of having to do what he or she is supposed to do i.e. moderate. But you can only moderate views and not behavior.

Factor into the equation the fact that there are serving politicians who would not hesitate to quote postings by his supporters made on this blog in order to ridicule the leader of the opposition, then the challenges represented by the use of unfettered free speech unrestrained by the norms of civil behavior, take on a certain urgency which can only be resolved by the administrator having to resort to blocking the IP address of those who persist in this less than civil behavior to preserve the integrity of this blog.

My 2-cents.