Colour Blind but Islamopobic USA and Obama’s empty rhetoric

Colour Blind but

Islamopobic USA

COMMENT: BLACK OBAMA WILL CRY FOR THE BLACK PROFESSOR. Let us wait and see whether he try to say sorry or invite Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan to dance with his family.

Mr Obama, walk your empty talk!

Try to practically mend ties with Muslims.

NEW DELHI, Aug 15 – An India government minister Saturday criticised detention of a top Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan at a United States aiport allegedly over suspicion of his surname “Khan”, China’s Xinhua news agency reported.

“I don’t think that this manner of detaining the name of religion is justified. But in the US, several examples have surfaced where frisking takes place more than required, according to us. I have always felt – even when I was frisked there – that the way they frisk us we should do the same for them here,” Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni told the media.

Continue reading

Fascist Myanmar SPDC Junta

Fascist Myanmar SPDC Junta

I have edited and adapted to the Myanmar context from the original letter to Malaysiakini by TCM. I hope that  Malaysiakini and TCM could understand and forgive for this. They should even be proud that they could contribute a very good letter for the fellow Myanmar/Burmese citizens.

It never ceases to amaze me why Burmese people continue to tolerate the SPDC Junta and Tatmadaw’s raping of Burma. Okay, I can understand if the leeches (pronounced ‘cronies’) like the military, but why anyone else?

Corruption

Everyone knows that corruption is a plague in Myanmar condoned and willingly spread by SPDC.

What is corruption by the SPDC Military government?

In its simplest form, it is the illegal raping of a county’s economic wealth – meant for the benefit of the citizen – for the personal accounts of the privileged few.

If every employee of a bank, for example, jointly conspired to steal money from your account, which you had trusted them to manage, would you continue placing your money in that bank? Furthermore, would you elect some of these same employees to represent you in more important matters affecting your children? It’s as simple as that. So why continue to tolerate SPDC?

Racism

As long as human beings have an independent thought process, there will always be some level of racism. That’s inevitable.

However, institutionalized racism is a whole different thing, which Myanmar Tatmadaw Generals practices.

This is apartheid, i.e., a policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination for a particular race(s).

Racist discrimination is found in all aspects of Myanmar society, i.e., entrance to higher educational institutions, scholarships, employment, land grants, business opportunities, licenses, etc. It has become the new religion of Tatmadaw.

Cronyism

This goes hand-in-hand with corruption and racism. In Myanmar, corruption and racism is unique.

Even within a particular race, further discrimination is encountered through cronyism. This is why no matter what form of institutionalized racist laws are implemented, not all persons of that race will reap the benefits.

In Myanmar, it’s the elite Military and ex-military personals and a few members of Swan Arrshin, Kyant Phut e.t.c. that will benefit. In view of this unique system of racial discrimination, the non-privileged poverty- stricken Burmese citizens will forever remain poor while the privileged elite Generals and cronies will have a larger share of the economic pie.

Intelligence

When we choose a person to represent us in a legal suit, we want a person who is competent and who will be able to safeguard our interests.

When we choose a doctor, we want a person who is familiar and competent with our ailment.

Similarly, when we choose a person to represent us in the government, we want a person who is competent and will be able to safeguard our interests. So why why should we accept military candidates?

Democracy vs. Fascism

Democracy

A democratic government is a government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. One of the crucial elements of a democratic system is a strong opposition. The opposition is a vital part of the democratic system.

Fascism

  • Do not confuse Fascism with Nazism.
  • Nazism is not a government structure.
  • Fascism is a government structure.

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems. (Read Burmese Muslims, Mixed blooded Indians and Rohingyas e.t.c.)

  • Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior to another based upon race, creed or origin.
  • Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocations and employment.
  • It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two-tiered legal system.
  • In fascism, one segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second class.

 

 

Don’t cry for me grandpa, Minister Mentor

Don’t cry for me grandpa, Minister Mentor

  

There is a Burmese saying_

Kyaw poo dar_khan naing thee

Naar poo dar_ma khan naing”.

  • Most of the peaple could bear the heat on the back of the body (prefer to work hard even under the sun)
  • but could not stand the (heat/ pressure) in the ears (read: brain / stress / undue pressure from the boss).

Some of us could prefer to work hard but could not stand the mental torture, pressure, or stress.

Yes! Even our Prophet (PBUH) had taught us_

If you do not want to donate to a beggar, use polite words to apologize.

But never insult the beggar even after you donated a large some of money.

Getting / money or not is far less important than getting an insult.

Money goes into the pocket only but the insult goes deep into our hearts.

So feeding the human’s mental ego is sometimes more important than just feeding the mouths.

Successive Burmese Governments used to discriminate us as foreigners, migrants, mixed blooded persons, Kalas (Migrant Indians/Indians), Kala Dein (Indian descendent)  and “Mi Ma Sit_Pha Ma Sit”. (The words meaning Bastards used by the the Burmese Chinese General Ne Win on Burmese Muslims. I think he never look at his own BASTARD FACE in the mirror!)

Most of us emigrated (migrated out) and left Myanmar not because of economic reason. As the professionals we could earn enough to stay in upper-middle strata in Myanmar and could earn some respect not only from the non-Muslims but from the Monks and even from the Military authorities. We just hate the unfair general discrimination on our race and religion. (As all the Military leaders are corrupt, we could even do anything in Myanmar after paying bribes. If the payment is good enough we could even get their daughter’s hands.)

Once the governments could fulfill (actually all the government leaders wrongly thought like that! They think they had done favours on their on citizens but actually the people are the masters of the governments. Although the governments’ policy and guidance  are important, it is the people who really works hard to achieve every thing for the country. And the give the salaries, of cause from their tax money, to those political leaders.) the physical and psycological needs of its citizens_

Food, shelter, clothing, employment is important but should understand that they also should take care of their social, mental and psycological needs.

SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT FAILS BECAUSE OF THAT FAILURE>

Just read the following article.

Don’t cry for me grandpa Lee,

Goodbye and thank you

Excerpts from article by SEAH CHIANG NEE.  Singapore’s emigration rate, one of the highest in the world on a per capita basis, is a blow to the government.

YEARS of strong economic growth have failed to stem Singapore’s skilled youths from leaving for a better life abroad, with the number topping 1,000 a year. 

This works out to 4%-5%, or three in 10, of the highly educated population, a severe brain drain for a small, young nation, according to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. 

Such high-end emigration is usually associated with less better-off countries where living conditions are poor. Here the opposite is the case. 

The future doesn’t look better, either, despite Lee holding out promises of “a golden period” in the next five to 10 years. 

The emigration rate, one of the highest in the world on a per capita basis, is a blow to the government, particularly to Lee, who takes pride in building up this once poor squatter colony into a glittering global city. 

They are people who abandoned their citizenship for a foreign one, mostly in Australia, the United States and Canada. 

The emigrants, mostly professionals, don’t leave Singapore out of poverty but to seek a better, less pressurised life.  

Lee recently said the brain drain is touching close to this family. 

Lee’s grandson, the elder son of Prime Minister Hsien Loong, who is studying in the United States, has indicated that he may not return.  

Over the years, the children of several Cabinet ministers have also made Britain or the US their home.  

Lee, aged 84, has often spoken on the issue with emotions, once tearing when referring to the losses.  

However, he has offered no reasons for the exodus beyond economic opportunities, although the government more or less knows what they are.  

Singaporeans who have or are planning to emigrate are given a host of 10 questions and asked to tick the three most important ones. They include the following: –  

> High costs of living 

> Singapore is too regulated and stifling 

> Better career and prospects overseas 

> Prefer a more relaxed lifestyle 

> Uncertain future of Singapore. 

Some liberal Singaporeans believe Lee himself, with his authoritarian leadership and unpopular policies, is largely to blame.  

Singapore’s best-known writer Catherine Lim calls it a climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government.

Globalisation, which offers opportunities in many countries like never before, is a big reason for the outflow.  

Many countries, including populous China, are making a special effort to attract foreign talent. 

Others who leave were worried about the future of their children living in a small island, and look for security and comfort of a larger country. 

The exodus is more than made up – at least in numbers – by a larger intake of professionals from China and India. 

“The trouble is many of the Chinese then use us as a stepping stone to go to America, where the grass is greener, Lee said. 

Some feel the large presence of foreigners, and the perks they enjoy over locals in military exemption as well as in scholarships, are themselves strong push factors.  

They see the foreigners as a threat to jobs and space, undermining salaries and loosening the nation’s cohesion. 

“I just feel very sad to see the Singapore of today with so many talented, passionate Singaporeans moving out and being replaced by many foreigners,” said one blogger. “I feel sorry for the future.” (Me too, for Myanmar.)

Lee recently made a passionate appeal to youths to think hard about their country. He said they had received education and opportunities provided by Singaporeans who had worked hard for it. 

“Can you in good conscience say, ‘Goodbye! Thank you very much?’ Can you leave with a clear conscience? I cannot,” he said.  

But many Burmese just need to say this even although they could not get the same kind of welcome from their host countries. Some need to work illegally, some as refugees and many professionals have to do the manual works. So you Singaporeans are luckier than us. Just leave the old grandpa enjoy his own great authority on new comers, or new immigrants.

 

 

Look Burmese Democrats, are UK Politicians really secular?

Look Burmese Democrats!

are UK Politicians really secular?

Burmese opposition used not very secular UK Politicians to shutup Burmese Muslim grieviences. Burmese opposition activists and journalists pointed at the so called democratic SECULAR UK government and politicians but they failed to see or are blinded that although British  Politicians claimed to be secular,  they used this LAME EXCUSE to shutout other religious practices except Christian and Judism.  

In the democracy index, analysed in The Economist’s annual publication, The World in 2007 that grades 167 countries out of 192 independent states according to their degree of democracy. Among the “Full democracies” Britain is 23rd. Not impressive at all!

Do you know what my favourit hero, young Saya Daw U Ottama’s (named Mg Paw Tun) advise to his brother (Tun Kyaw Aung) ,

“Young brother, in any exam you have to aim for the first position.”

And he threw away his second prize medal for the fifth Std. awarded by British District Chief, into the Kaladan river. So no need to look up at how UK treat its non Christian citizens according to U Ottama’s wise advice. No need to copy them!

Christian British have the upper hand so they pretend to put religion out of politics jut to maintain the Status pro! Look how they treat the British Muslims with contempt. Britain’s democracy on religion is just a shit you all Burmese Democrats wish to copy for Buddhist Burma?

We want full democracy; respecting the Human Rights of all the citizens irrespective of race, religion or creed. And the Individual freedom in the corruption free Myanmar. May be I am day dreaming a Utopia.

Secular = 

(A)adj.

  1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
  2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
  3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
  4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

 (B) Noun.

  1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
  2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. The word was derived from the secular education movement for the complete separation of religious teaching from other forms of education.
 

But we could see the hypocrisy when  they could print or publish Islam bashing articles in their web pages and newspapers.

Hypocrisy = Noun, pl. -sies.

  1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
  2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge.]

 

br-par-cr-2.png

Anti Heathrow expansion protesters hang banners from

Parliament building in London, Britain, 27 February 2008. …
 

br-par-cr.png

bishop.jpgDr. Geoffrey Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior figure in the Church of England, has faced a barrage of criticism since making the remarks, first in a BBC interview and then in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice, that the adoption of Sharia law in Britain seemed “unavoidable”.

According to Lambeth Palace, the archbishop “sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims”. His lecture was “well-researched” and involved consultation with legal experts, especially people with knowledge and experience of Jewish and Islamic legal systems.

sharia councils in some places already exist informally. “It might be better to formalise them under British law, to make sure they do correspond to British law. But there are real practical difficulties.”

Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Hulme, condemned the “kneejerk” response to the remarks as a “shame on our nation”.He told Radio 4’s The World at One: “We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media … is quite disgraceful.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, who was quoted at length by Williams, said: “These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens and I really think we, as Muslims, need to … abide by the common law. And within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles.”

With his plea for recognition of the Muslim legal system in Britain, the archbishop of Canterbury has outraged his people. The comments delighted some Muslims, but outraged many others in Britain.

The Sun tabloid labeled him a “a dangerous threat to our nation,” and the Daily Express wrote that he had capitulated to Muslim extremists. The tabloids used words such as “outcry” and “rage” to describe the public reaction and called for him to resign.

The archbishop, leader of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, had suggested that Shariah, the Islamic legal code, should be introduced in Great Britain — at least parts of it. He said that religious judges should be allowed to make rulings on some civil matters and that British courts should recognize those decisions — in cases dealing with marriage, divorce or disputes, for example.

“The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values,” the spokesperson for Prime Minister Gordon Brown coolly commented. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham labeled it “a recipe for disaster.”

Shariah is a touchy subject in the debate about the role of Islam. And to the horror of the British public, opinion polls taken of the country’s Muslim residents show that up to 40 percent want the right to apply Islamic justice in their areas of residence.

A system of “Shariah councils” has long existed in Britain where Muslims can go to seek rulings on marital issues and other disputes. Although these rulings are not binding in any way under British law, many Muslim families still observe and adhere to them.

While Williams has since been backed by other senior bishops, the media’s reaction has been poisonous, drawing lurid headlines accusing him of everything from cowardice to tacit support for Islamic terror. Some editorialists have called for him to resign, but the Church of England said Sunday he would not do so.

The REAL IDIOT John O’ Sullivan wrote in New York Post on Thursday, February 14, 2008

Now, there’s space in British law for private arbitration, as Rowan Williams said. Businesses sometimes build it into contracts; Jewish courts have long handled disputes that both parties voluntarily submit to them for resolution. (SHIT, JEW LAWS ARE OK in SECULAR UK but Muslims are not allowed to practice according to their own Laws!)

I heard on the BBC that British legal system is based on BIBLE (is this secular?) and could not accept the Islamic Laws.

 After all these racist Britishs were the ones who already had the experience of Islamic Religious laws as Customary Laws in their Muslim Colonies, to name a few even Burma, India, Malaysia etc.. Now only all the UK government and Law makers are acting fool, dumb or idiotic of their historical experiences.

Medical bodies investigate and punish breaches of professional ethics.

The IDIOT John O’ Sullivan insulted the Bishop.

Alas, in the course of persuading both sides not to push their disputes to the point of breaking up Anglicanism, Rowan Williams as primate (first bishop among equals), has repeatedly turned the other cheek – and repeatedly got slapped by both sides. More, he has shown a genius for putting his foot in it with ill-judged public statements – for instance, that terrorists “can have serious moral goals” or that Western market transactions might be “acts of aggression” against the world’s poor – that then require several rounds of further explanation.

One Sharia “court” in a London suburb, Leyton, has reportedly more than 7,000 divorces.

If UK is truely secular, could you explain the following_

Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed, widely known as Mohamed Al Fayed,  an Egyptian businessman and billionaire. He is the owner of Harrods department store in Knightsbridge, the English Premiership football team Fulham Football Club and other business interests. His fifth child, Dodi from Al Fayed’s first marriage was killed with Diana, Princess of Wales and Henri Paul, the driver of the car and employee of the Fayed-owned Hôtel Ritz Paris, during the infamous car crash in Paris, 1997.

He arrived in Britain in 1974 .

In 1979, Al Fayed bought the Hôtel Ritz Paris, and restored it to its former glory for which he was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour (Legion d’Honneur) by the then President of France, Francois Mitterand.

 In 1985, he and his brother Ali Al-Fayed bought House of Fraser, a group that included the famous London store Harrods, for £615m. 

For years, Al Fayed unsuccessfully sought British citizenship, despite having four British children and paying millions in taxes; also donating vast sums to charities including Great Ormond Street Hospital. Both Labour and Conservative Home Secretaries repeatedly rejected his applications on the grounds that he was not of good character. He took the matter to court, but failed.

When we heard the news of our Burmese Buddhists and Christians easily getting PR and Citizenships, we wonder whether Al Fayed was denied citizenship just because of his faith, ISLAM.

Al Fayed’s eldest son, Dodi had a close relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales. Both were killed in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997. Al Fayed has since made repeated allegations that the deaths were not accidental but rather the result of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving Prince Philip and MI6. We need to consider whether his accusations were possible or not as we could not get any prove from any side. But there is no smoke without fire. If Dodi were a Christian, who knows the fairytale could end with they live happily together… 

And just look at the Anglo-Burmans in GREAT SACULAR England_

Margaret Thatcher introduced a new laws for British citizenship  in the year 1982. Where although the grandfather was three quarters English and his teenager child is still classified Anglo-Burman whereas the father, whose ID goes back to before the new law was introduced, was not.

It is of course absurd and patently unjust but I dare say that although it effects Burmese British all of you just keep quiet!. It’s as if the Burmese military regime had taken its cue from Margaret Thatcher’s new laws for British citizenship introduced in the same year 1982.

The new citizenship effecting on Burmese

and favour the EU (READ:ALL CHRISTIANS)

jacqui_smith.jpg(Non EU) Foreigners living in Britain will be expected to go through a new expanded citizenship process or leave the country, under new plans outlined by ministers today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted to end the situation where foreign nationals “languish in limbo” by living here but not adapting to the British way of life.

Even the ultra-wealthy – (Ha Ha like Al Fayed) who can currently avoid some of the conditions imposed on less well-off immigrants – will be expected to apply for British nationality or permanent residence.

“You will not be able to languish in limbo. Once your period of temporary residence comes to an end you will need to apply for the next stage or leave.”

Winning citizenship will take at least six years from the point someone arrives in the UK, a year longer than at present because of a new stage of “probationary citizenship”.

The probation period will last 12 months if the foreigner takes part in community activities such as volunteering, charity fund-raising, running a sports team or playgroup, or working as a school governor.

Migrants who do not take part in community work will have to wait longer – the existing five years plus a minimum of three years’ probation.

This type of community work may even be made compulsory, said a Green Paper published today.

The rules will not apply to Europeans –

including those from the eastern European countries

which recently joined the EU.

But Ms Smith also announced a new review of access to welfare payments, such as child benefit, by people from other European Economic Area countries.

Ms Smith went on: “I don’t think it is a good thing to have people who are permanently living here but have not taken that step towards permanent citizenship.”

Full access to benefits – such as jobseeker’s allowance and income support – will no longer be granted after a person has been in the UK for five years.

Applicants will instead have to wait until they have completed their probationary period.

New conditions will be introduced on winning British citizenship, such as an emphasis on being law-abiding. (For EU members no need  to be a LAW -ABIDING  person?)

If human rights laws prevented someone with a criminal record from being removed from Britain, they would have to serve five years’ probationary citizenship, it added.

Minor offenders could have to serve three years’ probationary citizenship, and extra time could also be imposed on applicants who had been convicted of violent, drug or sex offences.

Parents whose children commit crime could be barred from citizenship or permanent residence in the UK, the document suggested.

“If people won’t play by the rules in this country their journey to citizenship should be halted or slowed down,” said Ms Smith.

A new fund financed by a surcharge on immigration applications will be set up to give cash to areas of the country which experience problems due to immigration – such as over-subscribed schools.

The fund is expected to raise tens of millions of pounds a year.

A draft Bill based on today’s proposals is due this summer with full legislation expected in November.

Changes will apply to new arrivals after the new laws are passed, and not to foreigners already living in the UK, so reforms are only likely to affect migrants arriving from 2010.