Stuttering DAP Rep

"I promised in the maiden speech I made when I took over as the country's Prime Minister on April 3, 2009, that the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 will be reviewed comprehensively. As such, I would like to announce on this historic night that the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 will be abolished."
Quoting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in his speech made on September 15, 2011.

This is a bold decision made by Najib and it depicts the acknowledgment of public demand by Barisan Nasional. Yes we are moving in a correct direction, and it was Najib's courageous political judgment that made it possible. Despite the pressure given by the conservatives among UMNO, Najib carried out a reform that put his political career at great risk.

Najib caught most of the people by surprise because the ISA acts a lethal weapon for the governing party. In the midst of this good tiding, negative rebounds arise from the Malay right-wing group as well as the oppositional party, Pakatan Rakyat.

Ibrahim Ali said: Langkah Najib jangan sampai keris makan tuan.

Besides, PR claims that BN uses their policy because they are the ones who have been fighting for the abolition of ISA.

Undeniably, PR has great significance in the role of check and balance in Malaysia, but somehow i find their politicking strategy is somewhat ludicrous. It has been the opposition's signature style of making harsh comments on every single government's policy regardless of its efficacy. The attacks directed on BN seem quite old-fashioned and far-fetched to me.

In a more personal perspective, I have shifted my support from pro-PR to pro-BN. In the much dramatic year of 2008, I've witnessed the most undemocratic power seizure in Perak, thus explaining my pro-PR sentiment. But after 3 years, I have not seen tactical improvement in PR, worse still, their intra-coalition conflicts have put my confidence level down the drain. If you are a PR supporter, can u name me the leader of PR? The internal affairs are complicated enough to build a strong front and take over the federal government. If PR claims to be adapting full democracy, why not let Lim Kit Siang take the reign? Is there any religious or racial concern when it comes to leader selection?

This is when the PR representatives usually start to stutter. Because they cannot deny the fact that all the political actors are still bound to historical and cultural burdens. Even the core element, the Malaysian Constitution has stated clearly regarding the criteria of a national leader. So, what makes you different from the BN coalition and criticize about MCA and MIC allowing UMNO to dictate the government.

A clear directed prospect acts like a shield, whereas sound policies act like the swords in a fight of democratic power acquisition. Without these two factors, what kind of electoral support are you looking for? I may be wrong or less-informed, but through my observations, most of the PR leaders, especially the veteran ones are only good at making derogatory remarks. Here i must exclude Nurul Izzah Anwar, the MP of Lembah Pantai in the comments made above. She is the only oppositional voice that speaks with grounds and intelligence.

In conclusion, PR is currently in a poor position with the inflicted turmoil regarding the Hudud issue, i really doubt how far the coalition will withstand in the future.

Intervening Pakistan

As we all know, Pakistan has always been in trouble with allegations of human rights violations, be it extrajudicial execution or imprisonment of oppositional leaders. All these unlawful acts have invited enormous criticism especially among Western countries, nevertheless, I am not here to place judgments on Pakistani Government or the Blasphemy Law. After viewing today's BBC Hardtalk featuring Imran Khan, the leader of Tehreek-e-Insaf (opposition party in Pakistan), what triggers my thought on writing this blog post was the tone of Stephen Sackur (show presenter) which to me, he clearly advocated the intervention of United States in Pakistan. Just a remark, it was only my personal discernment, Stephen Sackur is a reputable and experienced foreign affairs correspondent, there is no doubt that he does his job professionally.

What I am more concerned today is whether the United States' intervention in Pakistan is rightful?

During the Hardtalk interview, Imran Khan stated that he wants Pakistan to be totally independent of United States' military campaign and monetary aids. Khan believes that a reform needs to take place for the betterment of Pakistan, instead of being a puppet government of the United States. Khan also repeatedly justified that the foreign aid will never reach to the hands of the needy ones. After much Q&A on the matter of human rights violations (specifically on the killing of Shahbaz Bhatti and Salman Taseer), Stephen Sackur expressed his point of view where United States had to intervene if Pakistani Government is not able to solve its problem. The guy has his point, you see, why didn't Pakistan take down Osama bin Laden on their own, since they have been constantly upholding their capability and sovereignty. Furthermore, when Osama was killed by U.S. special forces, it has turned into an awkward situation where it seems like Pakistani Government was sheltering Osama all these while. But after all, what gives United States the superiority in taking charge of a foreign country's affair?

United States has been working hand-in-hand with Pakistan in fighting Islamist Militia and partnering in counter-terrorism regimes, thus, the development of a close association between both since the emergence of terrorism fear around the world. But the close diplomacy tie has come to the brim of breaking down when Pakistan was recently alleged to be responsible over several attacks on U.S. targets in Afghanistan.

Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced in Washington, that the Haqqani network who launched the attacks was being directed by the Pakistan Intelligence Agency, ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). What comes next? What else would the U.S. ask for other than forcing Pakistan Government to make a clear dissension with the Haqqani network. This is a great example in describing United State's forceful, cogent and unilateral diplomacy.

Put yourself in the shoes of Yousof Raza Gilani and Hina Rabbani Khar, don't you feel a sense of humiliation? Pakistan is an independent state, not a sub-state of the United States, why does Pakistan has to constantly answer to the higher authorities of United States ? Why does Pakistan has to decide its foreign policy based on United States' preference? Doesn't Pakistan have its own sovereignty over policy-making? So what if the Pakistan doesn't give a damn about fighting the terrorist who are targeting United States?

When it comes to national affairs, the fundamental idea is making policies that will benefit own interest the most. But United States is acting like a bully, when people says 'NO' or 'SO WHAT', U.S. will threaten them with a back-fire. What the bully is gonna do next?

I'm waiting to be surprised by Hillary Clinton.
Who knows? She may be the next Condoleeza Rice.

Conforming to the redefined norm

i was in a cafe, having my coffee, doing my work, in the midst of the bliss, something happened, there goes my peaceful Sunday morning.

There was this 7-year-old girl who was jumping around producing the most irritating noise where it goes BOM BOM BOM where the word 'noticeable' would not do her any justice, while major-attention-grabbing would describe her best.

The irony comes in mind when i noticed her angelic pink chiffon dress paired with a pearl hairband, which is the exact contrary to her outrageous behavior and her constantly-swinging head. My involuntary-"WTF ARE YOU SERIOUS?"-response could only be expressed through my wide-opened, stunned eyes. before i even finish writing this down, another similar-aged girl did the same thing in front of me, again. okay let's face it, this is called 'children nowadays'.

while my head was still pondering for an explanation, i turned around and started observing the girls' parents. To my surprise, they were looking and smiling at their children. if i were to interpret the 'smile' from the parents' perspective, they were probably thinking: Oh look at my daughter, so energetic as always, oh before she stops jumping, i better quickly take a candid shot of her with my iphone, hahahaha...

Then i came to a conclusion. I simply over-reacted. Children misbehavior derived from my own understanding is perceived as nothing big deal nowadays, moreover, to some parents, they do cherish the 'cuteness' performed by their children occasionally.

I'm in no position to judge which is right or wrong, all i can say is parents love their children unconditionally and helplessly at times. But after spectating the 'jumping kids' incident, i will definitely give a second thought on having a baby in the future. the possibility of having kids who jump around in public places is a massive drawback for me. 

unless you are ready to be around with kids also known as trouble makers 24/7, you might want to think again and again and again before having unprotected sex with your partner.

The concept of 'SYSTEM' in Comparative Politics

In general, system means a mechanism consisting of interdependent parts within an environment. Applying the general concept of system in political context, it is a set of institutions and agencies concerned with formulating and implementing the collective goals of a given society (Almond, 2008). In order to explain how the political system works in the simplest form, it involves two keywords, inputs and outputs. A political system will turn the inputs such as citizens’ demands, into outputs, like government policies and laws, where the transforming will be done through a shaping structure. The transformation progress occurs within a given environment, domestic or international.

To have a better understanding of a political system, an in-depth study in the system structures and functions is generally compulsory in Comparative Politics. The reason is, some countries might be sharing similar political structure, but they might be performing different functions. Thus, assumptions are highly to be avoided while comparing. As a brief guideline on how to look into political structures, there are 6 components to be paid attention to. The components are political parties, interest groups, legislatures, executives, bureaucracies, and court. While functions mean the processes involved in making policy, it includes interest articulation, interest aggregation, policy making, policy implementation or adjudicator.

In A Systems Analysis of Political Life, written by David Easton, he managed to explain political life in systematic terms, contributing the least complex system analysis frameworks. System means a persistent co-variance, with coherence, endurance and interdependence components within the unit. Systems are very much like integrated realities, without their constituent parts, they lose coherence, resulting in losing their individualities. To Easton, systems are not “real” or “essential”, but they are no more than artificial constructions with heuristic value. Systems are value-neutral and ideologically indeterminate. Easton also proposed a definition of “politics” to become a standard in order to distinguish political systems specifically from many other systems. The standard is the authoritative allocation of social values. A mechanism in the distribution of social values or resources is mandatory because the values or resources are invariably in short supply. Social values range from material kind to spiritual qualities. The distribution will be determined according to which system it belongs to, maybe according to aristocratic position, religious status, gender, ranking within government.

In practice, no system is autonomous or closed. Each system receives most of its inputs from other neighboring systems and vice versa. For example, taxation policy, belongs to the economic system. In search of a favorable resolution, various political interest will be debated to determine the nature of the tax structure. When an authoritative political decision has been made regarding the taxation policy which is the political system’s output, will now reenters the economic system as input. As seen in the David Easton model, inputs will go through conversion or decision-making structures, resulting in outputs. Based on the outputs, feedback will be generated and to be considered as another form of input. Inputs comprised of demands and supports. Demands can come in many different forms, from demands for financial support, to demands for services, to demands for symbolic recognition. Unregulated demands will result in demand input overload, thus output failure occurs, ultimately, system breakdown. When demands do not reach the political process, system ‘starvation’ will occur. In order to keep the system in manageable level, all systems establish filtering devices that will select and limit the demands that get to enter the political process. Those demands that do not conform to certain specifications of importance, consensuality, feasibility will be disqualified.

Harold Lasswell defined political system as a recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the goals of a group.  The function of a system is to determine who gets what, when and how (Lasswell, 1936).  On the other hand, Aristotle sees political system as a steering mechanism which controls the ship of state. In Politics, Aristotle had the idea of what constitutes the best city and he managed to analyze different political systems. Aristotle once said every city is some form of partnership, and it is for the sake of some good. Agreements are the prerequisites in forming partnership. Partnerships between families will form a village, partnerships between villages will form a city. In the context of partnership, both unity and diversity must exist in different respects. To Aristotle, partnership that is formed by a multitude is self-sufficient. He also summarized the purpose of cities into, “... the city is not a partnership in a location and for the sake of not committing injustice against each other and of transacting business. These things must necessarily be present if there is to be a city, but not even when all of them are present is it yet a city, but [the city is] the partnership in living well both of households and families for the sake of a complete and self-sufficient life,” (Aristotle, 1280).

Aristotle also mentioned the requirement in becoming a ‘citizen’, which is anyone who can participate actively in the political partnership. Besides, a good citizen also should acknowledge and able to be ruled and to rule. Aristotle considers Monarchy as a system that lacks sense of politics where it is ruled by one person, and it means there will be no partnership, no sense of citizenry; therefore there will be no city. Aristotle often contrasts Monarchy with Republican, which is his primary attention in Politics. There are six political systems in the world according to Aristotle. The difference in these systems lies within the source of authority and power. The authoritative element must be either one or a few or many (Aristotle, 1279). He divided the six systems into two categories, correct and deviation. In correct political systems, the authoritative party will look out for the citizens’ common advantage. In contrary, the authority will only concern about private advantages in deviation systems. In the correct system group, there is Kingship, which is a form of monarchy, Aristocracy, power held by a few, and Polity, power held by majority. In the deviation system, there is Tyranny, a monarchy emphasizing advantages to the monarch, Oligarchy, which is in the view of advantages of the few who are in power, Democracy, which is in the view to the advantages of the poor.

Basically, political systems can be grouped into collectivism and individualist. In collectivism, the common notion is that one or a few or many men should rule the others, whether it be king, aristocrats, or majority. There are 11 types of political systems in collectivism, namely Autocracy, Communism, Conservatism, Democracy, Fascism, Imperialism, Monarchy, Pluralism, Plutocracy, Socialism, and Theocracy.

In Autocracy, a single person rules the country with supreme and unlimited authority. The autocrat has absolute power and he requires a massive amount of force to exert control over his people. As mentioned in The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli concerns only the acquisition and maintenance of power. Machiavelli suggests that authority and power are essentially coequal, whoever has the power has the right to command, but goodness does not ensure power. He believes that coercion creates legality, “Since there cannot be good laws without good arms, I will not consider laws but speak of arms,” (Machiavelli, 1965). Fear is better than affection in subjects, just as violence and deception can control them better than legality. “…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes” (Machiavelli, 1965).

Next, Communism means a system of equalizing the social conditions of life which abolishes inequalities in the possession of property. This system is run by collectivization of all private property. In this system, freedom of expression tends to be mediated by the state in order to maintain the ‘integrity’ of the collective society. The only way for this system to succeed is, if only every citizen is agree with the collective arrangement by the government, and only if the legislators are noble enough and not involving in personal acquisition.

Conservatism on the hand, tends to support the status quo and encourages changes occur in moderation. Whatever that is good in the past, conservatism tends to preserve, and upholding the value of tradition. In the Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke compared society to a living organism that has taken time to grow and mature, therefore it should not be uprooted suddenly (Burke, 1790).

There are two types of Democracy. First, direct democracy, which is a government by the people where the supremacy lies within the people. Second type is the indirect democracy, a government formed by popular representation. The government is run by constitutional representative government where delegated authority is renewed periodically. Nevertheless, this system might produce a tyranny of the majority, given the unlimited rule of the majority, according to Alexis de Tocquiville. If the majority is based on one dominant class, religion, or political persuasion, it would trample the rights of the minorities.

In the year 1919, Mussolini introduced Fascism which highlights the elements of pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, the complete rejection of parliamentary democracy, the cultivation of strong military government, and loyalty to a strong leader. Whereas Imperialism focuses on building and maintaining an empire, including states and people, over a wide geographical area. The empire is totally under the control of one dominant state.

The following system is Monarchy, which is a form of ruling whereby a king or queen holds absolute or limited power, usually the power is inherited. Nowadays, most European monarchies have become constitutional or limited, for example the British Monarchy. Often, monarchies represent a strong symbol of national identity. On the other hand, pluralism is a compromising system among the leaders. According to pluralism, individual rights and interests are protected by extra-constitutional check and balance. There is no single group holds the dominant power, because power is always shifting.

There is a type of system that is primarily influenced by the wealthy people and it is against any principle of individual liberty. This system has been criticized because of the enormous influence over political power from the wealthy people. Theocracy on the other hand is a system majorly run by priests or clergy. Theocracies are becoming more common as Islamic fundamentalism grows in strength. Last but not least, socialism is a system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state. Under Socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way according to the judgment of the legislator.

In a nutshell, all collectivisms share the concept that the social engineers or political leaders are better suited to run the commoners’ life. Quoting French Liberal philosopher Frederick Bastiat’s work, The Law : " if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men -- governors and legislators -- the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race."

The opposite of the collectivism would be individualism. The individualism group includes Anarchism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Objectivism, Capitalism, and Republic. Anarchism is a system that abolishes organized authority. Anarchists believe that all government is corrupted and evil. Anarchism ranges from pacifism to violent revolution.  The major problem of an anarchic society is there is a constant exposure to crime without an organized system of law.

During the nineteenth century in Europe, Liberalism was developed and further established parliamentary democracy. Liberalism means being free from church and state authority, along with the reduction of the power of royalty and aristocracy, free enterprise economics, free development of the individual, freedom of press, and religious toleration.

Libertarianism is a system which centers on a philosophy of freedom especially from governmental authority restraints. It is central to America: “liberty is one of the inalienable rights described in the constitution”. Similar to Libertarianism, Objectivism centers in freedom of the society. The only difference is it is based upon the philosophy of reality which supports individualism with reference to the nature of reality.

Next system is Capitalism which believes in the owning right to what you created or what you were born owning. Capitalism promotes inequalities where people are free to choose their own paths. Rich people do have more opportunities in life but it does not mean that they have to give their fortune away because of fairness.

Last but not least, the Republic, where political power is explicitly granted with the consent of the public and ruled by laws. The government protects the rights of the people. As mentioned by John Locke in the Second Treatise on Civil Government, the rule of law has close relationship to individual freedom and freedom could not exist without the presence of written law. Moreover, a good government must follow certain precepts. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (Locke, 1965).

20^th century philosopher Ayn Rand once said: "If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour. Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ‘the right to enslave’.” In conclusion, in the context of individualism, all men are equal, and no one should be taken away his own rights or taken advantage of.

In order to maintain a best-performing political system, a state must take all aspects into consideration, including the history and the on-going agendas of the state, the political socialization of the citizens, the economic condition, the relationship with other nations etc. Political system is constantly changing, the only difference lies in the degree of changes in each state. If there much conversion of inputs in the system within a short period of time, there will be outputs with great evolutionary impacts.      

I know it's a little bit all over the place, but overall it's quite comprehensive =)

-cally ting-

Comparing political system: PRC and MSIA

Political system is a set of institutions and agencies being collaborated together to formulate and carry out the state’s plans and policies in order to achieve their collective goals. By comparing political systems from different countries, we would be able to view a wider range of political alternatives and possibilities. Besides, we can understand our country’s political system better through a brand new perspective.  In my case study, I have chosen People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Malaysia for the comparison to be performed.

PRC practices the people’s congress system where state power belongs to the people which according to their constitution, the National People’s Congress (NPC) is the highest organ of state power. Besides, PRC claims that they are using the multi-party cooperation and political consultative system which is a relatively distinct system in the world. As what PRC been portraying all these while, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) acts as the ruling party, and there are other parties who run under the leadership of the CCP, they participate in discussion and management of state affairs as well. The cooperative relationship between CCP and other parties was based on the principle of “long-term coexistence and mutual supervision”.

Despite the idealistic belief that PRC is holding to, the international society views PRC’s political system as a communist-party-led state. The reasoning behind that is, apparently there is no independently organized and established political parties in PRC. Furthermore, the absence of a formalized institutional infrastructure in the country resulting in personal affiliations can play a significant role in the state management. PRC constitution suffers in its implementation, where NPC supposedly the highest organ of state power, is the weakest institution in practice. The NPC’s symbolic function further proves the international views correct.

As for Malaysia, our political system is federal parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. We apply multi-party system in a partially democratic way. Malaysia is run by 3 major branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. In executive branch, Yang Dipertuan Agong acts as the head of state, nevertheless, YDA only performs ceremonial duties. While the head of government is the Prime Minister who leads the cabinet. Our federal legislative power is vested in the federal parliament and 13 state assemblies. The judiciary arm is theoretically independent of the executive and legislative power, but the truth is the executive branch has a certain level of influence in the appointment of judges. This explains why Malaysia was said as a partially democratic country earlier on. Simply said, we do not practice total separation of power, where the executive branch apparently tended to dominate the political activities.

 Back to the terms of our forth prime minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, many constitutional amendments were made, where he successfully limited the power of the YDA, the judiciary power, increased the authority of prime minister where 26 state senators no longer are the majority as the other 44 are appointed by YDA at the advice of the prime minister. Malaysia practices multi-party system, where the ruling party, Barisan Nasional consists of United Malays National Organization (UMNO), Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and 11 other parties. In Barisan Nasional, the parties are mostly ethnically based. As for the opposition, we have an alliance called Pakatan Rakyat which is formed by DAP, PKR and PAS.

After explaining the different political systems in PRC and Malaysia, I am able to assess our political system in a new perspective. I have seen the alternative of practicing the one-party system like PRC did, but I doubt its workability in Malaysia context. Let’s say UMNO becomes the veto power just like CCP, there will be one distinct ruler which is Malays. In the context of a multi-racial background, this one-party system will only further divides the nation where the increasing resentment of other races for being inferior in political authorities will brings the country a chaotic fight just like the May 13^th incident.

Besides that, I think multi-party system suits our country the best compared to other systems. With the existence of different parties, there will be check and balance among the parties, where the opposition parties will always keep an eye on the ruling parties, vice versa. This kind of healthy supervision is beneficial to the citizens where we will be informed if there is any wrongdoing among the political parties. Multi-party system also display the democratic nature of our country where the citizens are given the right to choose their leaders via elections.

There is also a negative dimension in Malaysia’s partially democratic system which is the failure in implementing a total separation of power. The influence of the executive branch or the prime minister is too wide, to the extent of abusing its authority and affecting the judiciary and legislative decisions. This type of system is vulnerable towards foul plays and resulting in the loss of the citizen’s confidence in politics.

In conclusion, one system does not fit all. Different political system suits different countries depending on the country’s background, history, and goals. By looking at other political systems, we can understand our country’s political system better, thus, having a more comprehensive analysis and commentary. 

-cally ting-

Analyzing the Global Power Distribution

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the end of the Cold War around 1990, the United States has successfully remained as the superpower of the world until now. Unipolar is indeed the best power distribution system compared to bipolar and multipolar. Some might argue that, during the hegemonic period where United States dominates in economy, technology, military capabilities etc., there have been quite a number of occurrences of international agenda such as the 2001 terrorist attack in United States, 2003 Iraq War, 2011 Libya War. Please be reminded that there is a difference between the word ‘best’ and the word ‘perfect’. Of course, all the international incidents have proven that there are drawbacks in the United States hegemony, but still it is the best solution towards an international system that is in a state of anarchy, without the existence of a world government to enforce a system of rules. By being as the dominant state or the ‘big brother’, the United States leads the world in creating a set of rules or standard norms to be followed. This set of norms will provide world stability as long as there is no state challenging the rules. The role of a ‘big brother’ is vital to keep every other state disciplined. Although sometimes it might go against the norm of sovereignty, the intervention of the United States is somehow essential in keeping world peace. For example, in 2002, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation treaty and did not allow any physical inspection of its nuclear facilities which has been vastly developed without the knowing of other states. Tackling this threatening nation, the United States has managed to come up with an agreement with North Korea whereby they will stop producing nuclear weapons. With constant interventions on problematic states, the United States is doing the international society a big favor of preventing the emergence of great wars like World War II. 

On the other hand, the worst power distribution system for the current international system would be the multipolar system. With the existence of many great powers, there will be a race towards the highest position in the world hierarchy among the nations. Thus, in order to prove their capabilities, here comes the chaotic situation filled with major wars. It will result in rapid political changes in the world. For example, there are 3 super powers trying to get the highest position in the world, A, B and C. Say if A appears to be have the strongest capability and great chances in winning, B and C will form an alliance to prevent it from happening. When A is taken down by the BC-alliance, B will compete against C. The cycle continues, until two out of the three get totally collapsed, then only the winner will be crowned. But before that, the process of major wars will have really significant negative impacts on other non-involving nations especially small nations. With the current interdependent economic situation, what happens in one nation affects all others as well. 

The predicted polarity system in 2020 would be bipolar. With the largest population in the world, 8 to 10 percent annual economic growth, nuclear-armed military force, China will be engaging in a slow and periodic reigning of the world, replacing the United States. Knowing that superpower can be destructed by another superpower, the taking-over process would not be in the form of physical war, but monetary war. Economy is the foundation of a country’s strength, without the financial support, it is impossible to create a mighty military force. There is less chance for them to engage themselves in such high-stake physical encounter. As mentioned earlier, economy is an interdependent system. As strong as the United States is, if China is able to persuade other nations to join its bloc, and isolating United States by canceling their trades and moving their foreign investments to China, that will be the worst nightmare for the United States. The possibility of such occurrence is high, with the resentment of certain countries towards United States accumulated throughout these years like Russia, Iraq, North Korea and Britain. Plus, with the financial ability to provide incentives to other nations will aid in expanding the China-bloc. Last but not least, according to the Treasury Department of the United States, China is currently the largest foreign holder of the United States’ debt amounting to nearly $900 billion, it would not be a difficult choice to make between supporting the creditor or the debtor.

-cally ting-

quickie of the day

came across this statement and felt like sharing it here.

"We decry gutter politics as poisoning the very soul of our country, yet at the same time listen to and pass on, with a certain amount of guilty pleasure, rumours and gossip."

Quoted by Raslan Sharif

After reading Raslan's latest piece, "Ah, so the sleaze season begins" , i realized that i'm convicted with the guilt for showing contradicting stands towards these political scandals.

Just like any other Malaysian, i always complain or making negative remarks regarding the dirty politicking in our country where scandals are being used to pull the opponents off their chairs.

the ironic part is i actually enjoyed these sensational so-called news without myself knowing it. 

trust me, they never failed to surprise us.

it has become quite a topic to be discussed over the dining table, in the pantry, maybe at the bus stop?? LOL

oh ya it can be a real good ice-breaking topic as well, provided only if there is no political extremist involved in the conversation, if there is one, you better switch the attention to the next topic before it's too late. 

hahahahahah 

i think it is not possible for us to ignore these oh-so-inviting scandalous stories, we are just a bunch of curious beings after all. 

but we SHOULD NOT take these scandals seriously. 

just like reading tabloids, have a laugh, gossip a little, then get over it.

you are taking it way too seriously if you're starting to post comments filled with resentment and judgements on the internet.

it's merely another form of entertainment.

If we take it seriously, it only implies that creating scandals is the only way to survive in Malaysian politics

simply because the voters are buying it.

take it easy peeps.

 =P

-callytingtingtingting-