can the hatchet be buried?

Lets bury the hatchet and get on with life. The election is over, the victor has been announced. There is no need for the viciousness to continue beyond the 9 days. It was already bad to see people fighting like vipers just to contest for power and wealth. It is time to let go and offer some graciousness. There will never be a Mother Teresa in politics. But there are gentlemen who will arrive on the political scene now and then. We lament that not many good men and women are willing to come forward to serve the nation. Is that true? There are many not so good men, there are evil men, but there are also very good men. Why is it that only the second best are offered to the people as leaders of the nation? Or why would good decent men who would willingly step forward to do their little parts for the people stay away? The last general election is perhaps the sanest of all elections we have had. There was almost a complete absence of personal attacks on any poltiicians. No dirty linens aired. Not until the Gomez incident. Even then, the opposition too were behaving like angels. They tackled issues, some controversial, but nothing personal. No good and decent man would want to get involved in gutter politics. No one would want to be threatened or be sued for wanting to serve people, society and nation. Try to imagine the fear that go through Gomez's mind all those days, putting aside the issue of guilt? And when it was over, it was all a storm in a teacup not worthy even to appear in court. But the pressure of being under siege is unnerving and nightmarish at the very least. Would any good men or women want to place themselves in such a situation? And not for a crime, and could be just a presumed intent. Unless the viciousness mentality is removed, we will only have the second best to serve the country. Our politics will never dream of becoming first world. I am not even asking for forgiveness. For there is nothing to warrant forgiveness.

when religious laws take over the country

Housewive ‘I am not a prostitute’ Indonesian moral guardians pick up frightened lady on street with 28 others, including 63-year-old woman. Amy Chew. Reuters May 12, 2006 "PROSTITUTE!" shouted the jeering crowds as a frightened housewife was led out to a show trial enforcing a controversial morality by-law. The evening before, on Feb 27, Lilies Lindawati was detained by officials of Tangerang, 35km west of here, while waiting for a bus home after dark, an offence under the local authority’s anti-prostitution regulations. With Lilies in tow, the officers went on to round up 28 other women. A 63-year-old woman buying rambutan on the roadside was arrested, as were two young girls eating at a stall. They were bundled off to City Hall where they were held for a night and brought to trial the next morning. "There is lipstick and compact powder in your bag. That means you are a prostitute," said the judge, who spoke through a microphone at a makeshift court on the City Hall grounds. Crying, Lilies replied that it was common for women to carry lipstick and compact powder. "But he refused to accept my explanation," said Lilies as she sat on the floor of her one-bedroom house, which she shares with her husband and two children.... Lilies was fined 300,000 rupiah (S$54). She could not pay the fine and was sent to jail with nine other women who also could not afford the fine. This is what can happen what religion takes over in the running of a country and when religious freaks passed themselves around as the agents of god.

gomez, a storm in a teacup

So Gomez is guilty but let off with a stern warning. Perhaps this is the best settlement given the circumstances. From the govt's point it will save a lot of embarrassment and unfavourable publicity in the international arena should the defence put up a strong case and get him acquitted. There is always such possibility in a court of law. The findings and judgement is made by the court and not even the police or prosecutor. Domestically the people found the case repulsive and it will only erode whatever little goodwill that is left. To expend this credit will cost them dearly in the next election. From Gomez and the WP, it is a nightmare that is over. A storm in a teacup which they could do without, and could not afford the time and finance to go through a lengthy legal process. They just did not have the money to fight an expensive court case and I don't think they will have the money to sue anyone. They definitely cannot do a Durai. They are a small party with limited resources.

the sneaky president

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: Chen Shui Bian said he had not lose the face of the Taiwanese during his trip overseas and was proud of what he had done. He sneaked into Libya under the cloud of darkness, refused permission to land in US territories except a short stop over in Alaska, near the north pole when he was heading south to Costa Rica in south America. Then he used the ruse of fuel shortage to gain entry into Indonesia in a little island more than 3000 miles from Jakarta and overstayed, leading to an investigation by the Indonesian govt. And he is very proud of all his sneaking around as a Head of State when others will be received with all the plomp and pageantry that a Head of State deserved. No wonder they called him Ah Bian.

mahathir's half truth on the crooked bridge

Mahathir quoted a letter by Choktong claiming that Choktong had agreed to the bridge and that Badawi's govt was wrong to give up the bridge idea. In that letter, it gives the impression that Choktong had compromise Singapore's position on the bridge and Mahathir has a point to carry on with the bridge. But actually Mahathir was speaking half truth or selective truth. He did not tell the whole truth that Choktong sent him another letter to retracted what he had said in his earlier letter. The New Straits Times article below clearly explained what happened. A LETTER from former Singapore prime minister Goh Chok Tong to former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in April 2002 agreeing to Malaysia’s proposal to build a half-bridge across the Johor Strait was rendered void by another letter later that year. Parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Ministry Ahmad Shabery Cheek said the initial discussions between Goh and Dr Mahathir were on a package deal. "It involved issues such as raw water and land," Ahmad said. But when further developments rendered it difficult to continue discussions on the package deal, Dr Mahathir wrote to Goh in October that year to say that no resolution could be reached on the bridge issue. A week later, Goh replied saying that if this were the case, his first letter would have to be ignored as it was written with the whole package in mind. Ahmad was replying to Senator Datuk Syed Ali Syed Abbas Alhabshee on why Malaysia did not hold Singapore to Goh’s first letter.