Forget the Red Tape and Bureaucracy - Save the Man!

This news that CTV has been following for the last two weeks REALLY disturb me:

CTV: Visa Denied for Brother Willing to Donate Kidney

CTV: Community Joins Search for Life-saving Kidney

Ibrahim Essandoh (left), a 42-year-old immigrant who has called Canada his home for the last 25 years, is fighting for his life with a serious kidney disease. Doctors say that a kidney transplant is the only way to save Mr. Essandoh’s life. Fortunately, Ibrahim’s brother Thomas is willing to donate one of his kidneys to Ibrahim, and is a perfect match for the donation.

There is one problem: Thomas (below right) lives in Ghana in West Africa, and Canada is not allowing him to fly across the ocean to do this life-saving operation. Immigration department has denied the application for a visitor’s visa even though Ibrahim had the medical documents from St. Paul’s hospital explaining his medical conditions and the urgent need to have the transplant done. The immigration office had subsequently requested Mr. Essandoh to submit DNA documentations to prove that Thomas is indeed his brother. Ibrahim did that, but the visa is still not granted to date.

What I don’t understand is: why do we even need proof that Thomas is Ibrahim’s brother?! We are talking about a life-saving procedure here! Does it even matter if Thomas is indeed Ibrahim’s brother? There is medical proof that Thomas can save Ibrahim’s life, and that is ALL that matters. If someone is afraid that Thomas will enter Canada and not leave, add as many conditions as you want when granting his visitor’s visa. Have people escort him to the hospital upon his landing in Canada, and supervise him until he is fit to fly back to Ghana. Do whatever, but allow a human being to give a gift of life to another fellow human being! What IS the hold-up?

Bureaucracy and political red tapping often sicken me to no ends, and this is just another great but sad example.

Facebook Group to Support Mr. Essandoh: Click here to enter

Olympic Torch a 3-Foot Joint?

The Olympic Torch was unveiled a while ago now, but I am not sure why there is this sudden buzz of the shape of it. Below are a few articles that talk about this Toronto-designed Olympic Torch:

Jim Rome: Olympic Torch Looks Like a Joint

Seattle Times: About that Reefer-bished Vancouver Oly Torch

Now, I am not a pothead, so I don’t have first-hand knowledge of how a "fatty" should look like. Having seen people roll up a marijuana cigarette, though, I must attest, when you look at the Olympic Torch sideways (see below left), it does show a remarkable resemblance (right).

This is probably just a silly story that gets reported out-of-proportion, but how ironic is it that, the capital city of pot in the world gets a chance to host the Winter Olympics, and one of the biggest symbols of the Game shows such eerie resemblance to the item that Vancouver is so infamous for.

As sports talk radio host Jim Rome mocks, the "higher" part in the Olympic motto has just taken on a whole new meaning in Vancouver... higher... yeah right... If you ask me, I am honestly feeling ashamed of our city's infamy when it comes to marijuana.

Please Give Her Compassion

I cannot help but really feel for this story:

Province: Mom faces deportation over girl’s illness:

Vancouver 24hrs: Please give me compassion:

Hesanna Santiago (left), 44, came to Canada through the federal government’s live-in caregiver program. Under the program, she can apply for immigrant status after completing 24 months of live-in care in 3 years. Mrs. Santiago has done that, and was in the process of being able to bring her family over from the Philippines.

That was until she learned that her 12-year-old daughter Angelika (bottom right) has developed a very serious chronic kidney disease, and requires dialysis as many as six times a day. Immigration officer has told Santiago that her immigration application will be denied because her daughter will put too big of a strain onto Canada’s health care system.

Politicians are quickly jumping on the issue, criticizing the federal government to be cruel and inhumane. Local MP Don Davis quickly criticized the federal government for requiring people in the live-in caregiver program to have to go through two rounds of medical examination, saying that it is unfair because regular immigration applicants only need to have one medical examination.

Make no mistake about it – I feel for Mrs. Santiago, and would plead with the government to treat her with compassion and let her family come over. I also disagree with the fact that a live-in caregiver can fulfil her legal requirements, and then gets denied of what she has worked for because a family member has fallen ill. The policy requires review and changes, there is no question about that. But where are these opposition MPs when the law was first passed? Why did they not voice a complaint back then? I know politicians are, by nature, opportunistic creatures, but please, represent the people, plead for compassion, but don’t use these poor people as your political ammunition – it disturbs me.

To Immigration Minister Jason Kenney – I plead with you to grant Ms. Santiago and her family landed immigrant status. I know this would put a financial burden on our health care system, but Ms. Santiago has done her part in living honestly and diligently to earn her chance to become a Canadian. Canada has never been a country that shuts others down because of financial reasons – please, treat her with empathy, not because we owe her anything; not because we are “higher than thee,” but because it is the right thing to do.

Every Vote Counts

Politicians and athletes are two groups of people who love to use clichés to avoid stepping out of line. The line “every vote counts” is as genuine an invitation to ask for you vote as the “it is what it is” when an athlete tries to rationalize what his/her performance is weak. Having said that, “every vote counts” is actually true, very true.

When the residents of Delta South went to the polls this past Tuesday, they probably did not know that the race would come down to a handful of votes. Wally Oppal (left), the province’s attorney general, was in a tough fight against independent candidate Vicki Huntington (below right). At the end of the day, Oppal appeared to have won the seat, but only by a mere 2 votes (CTV reports Friday evening that it is 3 votes). Because the margin of victory is so small, a court-ordered recount will take place later this month to check things over. (for details of this news, check out this link from CTV)

I do not necessarily care which way the re-count goes (except I feel a little bitter that Oppal bolted from my riding to vacate his seat for a hand-picked candidate by the Liberals), but if you are either a supporter of Oppal or Huntington, wouldn’t you be a little uneasy these days? If you are a supporter of either one, but did NOT go to vote this past Tuesday, how would you feel if the final result shows that the candidate you support is on the losing end?

Together with the fact that voter-turnout falls below 50% for the first time in a LONG while, it saddens me to know that so many people just do not care about this very precious democratic right that thousands and millions around the world are dying to have. Yes, I know many people do not like politics, and politicians are widely despised (and in many cases, rightfully so), but exercising that democratic rights is entirely different from supporting politics or supporting a politician. Casting an empty ballot is an expression of your disapproval of the candidates and/or the system; not casting a vote just means you do not care what the politicians do to you and your community.

Last year, we saw the Dosanjh vs. Young fight in Vancouver South during the federal election whose margin of victory was 21. This year, we have the Oppal vs. Huntington fight in Delta South. Can we still afford not to vote?

What Now, Canucks?

The Vancouver Canucks’ aspirations to win a Stanley Cup came to a crashing end on Monday, and though the season is now officially over, a lot of lingering questions remain. You sports fans out there have probably read, discussed, and debated a great deal about some of these topics already. Here’s my two-cents-worth:

Overall Team’s Needs: While these needs are probably needed by every team, in the series against the Blackhawks, they became extremely apparent top priorities for the Canucks: speed on the defence, and a couple of scorers with creativity. Against a team that has average speed, the Canucks defence can play a phenomenal brand of shut-down hockey because everyone is so sound in his positioning. They were exposed against the quicker, puck-moving Chicago forwards, when defencemen could no longer stand around and use their sticks to deflect passes and block shots. In addition, the Canucks’ offence has become very predictable when spearheaded by the Twins. The cycle game works great when the other team is just trying to play the Canucks’ brand of defence, but if you have noticed how many passes were deflected or blocked when the team played Chicago, you’d know that they need some other options.

Mats Sundin: I won’t say Sundin is a bust necessarily, as I believe he brought a swagger to the team that kept the other teams honest when checking the Sedins’ line. Having said that, Sundin also plays a brand of hockey that is similar to that of the Sedins’ line. When dueling it out with a team for a 7-game series, teams can learn how to shut down the same game. In that sense, I don’t think Sundin is the right fit for the Canucks’ future, especially if GM Mike Gillis is intending to bring the twins back.

Mattias Ohlund: I feel saddened that the game’s speed is starting to surpass “Olie’s” game. Ohlund is a great positional player, and his plus/minus rating in the playoffs suggests that he is still playing the game at a fairly high level. It does not appear that he will be back next year; however, my feeling is: if the Canucks can still put a good mix of defencemen together with speed and skills, he should be brought back.

Henrik and Daniel Sedin: They are solid, front-line offensive players who can perform magic on ice. The problem, however, is that they only seem to come together as a package, which would be extremely costly for the Canucks. And though some of the past playoff demons were excised this year, the twins still were unable to serve as the game-breakers when the game is on the line. If the Canucks can get good value for them, I would not feel offended to see them traded.

Roberto Luongo: How soon we forget? After the St. Louis series, Luongo joked about being treated like a demi-god in the city. Six games later, some people are trying to run him out of town. Did Luongo play well against Chicago? No. Is he worth 7+ millions per year when it appears that no single goaltender, not Brodeur, and not Luongo, can single-handedly win a team a game, much less a series anymore? It’s questionable. I think Luongo is still an invaluable asset to the team; the melt-down in the Chicago series has more to do with the lack of speed on the Canucks’ D than Luongo’s ability to “steal” a game. Unless the salary cap’s maximum amount is substantially reduced to a point where it is not viable to keep Luongo, I think it is still a no-brainer that the Canucks should keep him.

Coaching: When the Canucks missed the playoffs in 2008, people question whether coach Alain Vigneault is too “defence first” of a coach. Game 4 against Chicago did not help shake that never-fading feeling in my heart. While “Coach V” has nothing to do with the slow-footed personnel he is given, he still has a tendency to get too conservative when the Canucks have a lead. GM Gillis probably will try to provide the coach with more speed through free agency and drafts – it’s up to Vigneault to prove that he can coach an offensive-minded game.

Needless to say, it will be an interesting spring/summer in Canucksville.

One Year Later: The Truth Behind Sichuan’s Earthquake

On May 12, 2008, a large earthquake rocked the province of Sichuan, China. After the quake that killed tens and thousands of people, reporters and journalists arriving at the scene discovered something very unusual: in many towns where many people have died from collapsed buildings, the only buildings that had collapsed were schools. Looking at the ruins of these fallen buildings, people noticed that there were definitely problems associated with the buildings: big pebbles embedded in the cement, and steel bars that are way too narrow – hence the term “tofu constructions.” Seeing these, people cannot but ponder: is the large number of casualties due strictly to a natural disaster, or were there human factors that made a natural disaster much, much worse?

In the year that follows, families of the casualties were running from place to place, trying to seek justice for the deceased. What they did not know was that: for a request that was just, fair, and legal, they would face such oppression. People associated with the government would prevent them from protesting, would try to offer bribes for them to stop protesting, and threaten to use the legal system to punish the families of the victims if they do not stop their struggles.

In the anniversary of the Sichuan Earthquake, Hong Kong’s TVB has shot a short documentary detailing the oppressions these parents and other volunteers have faced. It is a chilling tale, and though this blog is written in English, I trust you would have Chinese-speaking friends who would get a lot from watching it:

The Truth Behind Tofu Constructions: Part 1


The Truth Behind Tofu Constructions: Part 2


The Truth Behind Tofu Constructions: Part 3


To those who are still denying, to this date, of any faults in building these “tofu constructions,” I have but two questions:

First: if the collapsed buildings have fallen strictly due to the earthquake, why in the world were the parents not allowed to openly visit their children’s grave? Why are the parents watched and sometimes taken away by authorities for just talking to the media about their children who died during a “natural disaster?”

Second: for you to be so shameless, so heartless in your treatment to the victims’ families, are you still worthy to be called a human being? Where is your soul, or are you just a ghoul?

I sincerely hope that: after watching these videos, you will share them with those around you, particularly those living in China who may be blocked from seeing these.
Justice for the victims of the Sichuan Earthquake!

STV: Yes or No

The provincial election is happening in a few days. For someone who follows politics as closely as I do, I am actually very lukewarm about this election. To me, this is the ultimate testament of an election where you are trying to pick the least rotten apple among a bucket of smelly, decaying fruits. The Liberals’ track record on education and health care has been hideous, almost criminal in my opinion. The NDP is led by an incompetent leader who probably will drive B.C. deep into an economic recession. The Green Party meanwhile, is proposing a plan that is idealistic at best… To this point, I do not even know who I am going to vote for.

The more interesting part of the election, to me, is the referendum on the voting system. A referendum will ask the citizens of B.C. as to whether or not the provincial election should be decided through a process called “Single Transferrable Vote” (or STV for short). For those who do not know what STV is, and how it works, here’s an information page:

Understanding STV

Proponents of the STV frequently use the 2001 election results (above), where the Liberals won 58% of the popular vote, but earned 97% of the seats in the legislature to illustrate the ills of the current “first to the gate” electoral system (properly known as the single member plurality system). While the example is somewhat of an extreme case, it is true that, time after time, a party that is earning fewer than 50% of the province’s votes has practically complete say on all matters in the legislature. So, in that sense, I am a supporter of electoral reform.

Having said that, the STV currently proposed is not one that I will throw my support behind. There are several reasons:

1) It will create constituencies that are so big, that the elected representatives would not be able to represent the local needs of a community. British Columbia is a big province, even by saying “local representation” we are talking about a fairly big geographic region, especially in the interior and in the north. Eliminating the current constituencies, and replacing them with “super constituencies” would just foster elected representatives who would not listen to the voice of the citizens.

2) Unlike what the proponents of STV says, this system would NOT favour smaller parties to elect people into the legislature. Again, this has to do with the size of the constituencies. In order to campaign for a very large region, a lot of resources would be required. Smaller political parties would not have the resources to compete with the giant political parties. As a result, a local person well known in a community and well qualified for a position would have no chance of being elected.

3) Finally, the concept of transferring votes is just convoluted and confusing for the regular voter. Think about this: if I am Party A’s supporter, but don’t mind Party B too much, and absolutely despise Party C, but Party D is the party poised to win the election, with Party B running a somewhat close second… Strategic voting under the current system is simple: I vote for the candidate who will allow the “lesser of the two evils” to prevail. Not so under the STV, where my vote and how it gets split is dependent on factors such as margin of victory, total number of votes, etc… To an average citizen, this system may decrease their motivation to vote.

My conclusion: vote No to the STV. I’ll talk next time of a model that I feel would work.

The Great Debate on Markus Naslund

Report out of New York suggests that long-time Vancouver Canuck captain Markus Naslund is set to retire after another disappointing campaign with the New York Rangers. Naslund is 35 years old.

And immediately, be great debate begins again here in Vancouver: should Naslund’s number be retired? If #19 will be retired, Naslund will join Stan Smyl and Trevor Linden as the third Canuck player to have his jersey hung in the rafters.

If we are to look at the stats, Naslund seems to be a prime candidate to have his jersey retired. After all, he is the all-time leader in career points (756) and goals (346), and is third in career assists (410, 5 behind all-time leader Linden). Naslund’s offensive prowess speaks volume, and is, without a doubt, one of the greatest offensive players the Canucks have ever had.

However, to have a player’s number retired goes beyond the stats. Naslund has often been criticized for the fact that he has never taken the Canucks deep into the playoffs. His later years in a Canucks uniform lead some people to question his commitment to the game. Most importantly, people suggest that Naslund was never the “leader” that captivates and inspires a team’s motivation to go above and beyond what it has talent-wise.

While I do not necessarily agree with the above criticisms on Naslund, especially when it comes to the question of leadership, I must say that I am one of those who don’t think Naslund’s number should be retired. And here’s why:

To retire a player’s number means that, that particular number will never be worn by another player playing for the team. To me, the simplest qualifier for this very special treatment is that the player has done something that would not be repeated by another player. Looking back at Stan Smyl’s career and Trevor Linden’s career, I think I am fairly confident in saying that it would be extremely unlikely to have another player repeat what they have contributed to the team on and off the ice. Naslund’s greatest “mark” with the Canucks is his very strong offensive stats; they would not be repeated or surpassed easily by another player, but I will not say that I don’t expect those records to be broken.

Don’t get me wrong – Naslund has been an exceptional player for the Canucks. He has conducted himself humbly and admirably through his 12 seasons in Vancouver. I don’t, for a second, feel that his humility and quiet demeanor should prevent him from receiving the proper recognition to the contributions he has made for the team. However, having a number retired, to me, is very much like being inducted into the hall-of-fame (only at a local level instead of a league or sport level) – if you have to argue and present your points to convince others of a candidate’s legitimacy, then that player, however wonderful a player or person he is, is not quite hall-of-famer (or, in this case, a jersey-retiring player). I would not have a problem seeing Naslund’s number retired, but if it were up to me to decide, I would not retire #19… that’s all.

I personally felt a little saddened that, when Markus Naslund played his last game as a Canuck on the same night that Trevor Linden played his last, there was no recognition for what Naslund has done. But, true to his humble form, Naslund just stood there quietly, and gave Linden the recognition he rightfully deserved. Give Naslund the recognition and honour that he deserves – I just don’t think retiring his jersey is the more suitable recognition.