The following report was produced by CNN. And though the video appears to be distorted somewhat, the pictures seen still speak a million words:

CNN: Living in a Cage in Hong Kong

Hong Kong, a place where its GDP ranks twenty-eighth in the world, where its federal reserve ranks seventh in the world (in terms of amount; had this been measured in terms of per capita wealth, I have a feeling that it would be even higher), also has a Gini Coefficient that ranks FIRST in the world (for those of you who don’t know, the Gini Coefficient measures the discrepancy between the rich and the poor). In a place where the rich gets a lot richer, and the poor gets a lot poorer, the government is doing next to nothing in helping them. On the contrary, the government’s policies are slanted towards the rich and the big corporations (sounds familiar, right, British Columbians?).

If this report was seen in another democratic society, can you imagine the backlash the government will receive? Can you imagine the shame that the government will be put into? And, as a result of the public humiliation the government suffers, it will most likely be doing something immediately to address the problem; otherwise, that government will be going down in flames in the next election. However, because Hong Kong is not a democratic region, with a crippled, non-elected government, government officials do not seem to have the need to address these problems. If you re-watch the clip again and see the way the government responses to CNN’s questions about the “cage houses,” how can you not be angry or even infuriated?

Some pro-government personnel would blast the critics, saying that we are complaining and criticizing all day just to disturb the society’s harmony, and to negatively affect the rule of the government. Only people who support a dictatorship mandate would say such words. The truth is: the culprit in destroying the society’s harmony is the government, who allows the discrepancy between the rich and the poor to go completely out-of-hand with no policies to help those who cannot help themselves. The truth is: the one responsible for crippling the effectiveness of the government is the government itself, who uses policy makers and officials who have no regard to the poor and the needy.

Hong Kong, a place I used to call my home. How did we EVER get to this stage?

An Open Letter Against the Proposed HST

The following is a letter I have e-mailed to BC Premier Gordon Campbell, BC Finance Minister Colin Hansen, my riding's MLA Kash Heed, and Opposition Leader Carole James. I'd encourage those who are reading this to do the same in opposition to the proposed HST.

The letter is very similar to my earlier post, but with a slight twist. My brother has written to the government, and has gotten an "official response" defending the HST. I have modified some of my points to demonstrate the fallacies of the Liberals' argument.

Please note that I have said at the end that I have been "a supporter of the BC Liberals." This statement is a tactic I encourage you to use, whether you are a supporter of the Liberals or not. If there is something that these politicians are still slightly afraid of, it is that vote in your hands... Use it to threaten them - it is our only weapon.

To: Hon. Gordon Campbell, Hon. Colin Hansen, Hon. Kash Heed
cc: Ms. Carole James, Leader of the Official Opposition

Date: August 10, 2009

Dear Premier Campbell, Honourable Mr. Hansen, Honourable Mr. Heed, and Ms. James,

I am writing to you in protest of the proposed 12% harmonized sales tax (HST) in British Columbia. I am extremely disturbed over the trend the B.C. Liberal government has shown in taking hard-earned money from middle- and low-income families in the name of “economic stimulation” and “savings for businesses.”

In the multiple rounds of rhetoric that various representatives from the Liberal government have spoken, the proposed HST is vigorously defended, and many reasons were cited to support their views. However, these reasons are either irrelevant, invalid, or not substantial enough to warrant the proposed change. Based on what I have heard and read from people of your party and in the press, I would like to point out the following flaws of your argument:

1) HST rebates will be given to citizens of lower income four times a year, in the same way as the GST rebates are currently given.
There is a serious flaw in the concept of a HST rebate: people must still pay the tax upfront. For people who are barely earning enough for their everyday needs, receiving a cheque every three months does not allow them to purchase their daily necessities. This would drastically reduce the quality of life for senior citizens, citizens with a physical and mental disabilities, and children who are in under-privileged families.

2) Businesses will be saving administrative costs in the billions.
The Liberal government continues to advertise that the harmonization process will save businesses 2 billion dollars in administrative and accounting costs. What it does not tell the citizens of B.C. is that these savings would only apply to big corporations who are paying multiple staff to handle such duties. For local and small businesses, where the accounting work is done mostly by the business owners, and maybe once a year by an accountant, they cannot share any benefit what-so-ever. On the contrary, because accounting services would be subject to an increase in tax charges, small businesses are even less likely to seek the use of accountants. This would translate into more work for small business owners, and accountants who earn their living by helping these small businesses.

3) B.C. would have the lowest HST rate in Canada.
This claim is a play of words, and is actually invalid when we look at the issue of sales taxes rather than HST. Alberta currently has no provincial sales taxes, and Saskatchewan has a 5% PST rate. When you combine the different types of sale taxes (GST, PST, HST, etc.), B.C.’s 12% sales tax is still 7% higher than that of Alberta, and 2% higher than Saskatchewan. By harmonizing the B.C. PST and the GST does not change that fact.

4) There are exemptions to the HST in certain goods and services.
While there are exemptions to the HST in some of the essential products, the range to which the new exemptions would cover is still less than what the former PST exemption covers. When senior citizens do not dare eating lunch at family restaurant at the corner of a block, or when a small child can no longer afford to have his/her haircut done at a local barber shop, the quality of life for lower-income families, as well as the welfare of small family businesses would suffer tremendously.

5) Businesses currently paying a hidden 7% PST would transfer that tax back to the consumers.
This is only a wishful thinking on the part of the Liberal government who is desperate to find a reason to justify the proposed change. When the BC Government itself has said that the money it has received from the federal government to implement the HST will NOT be given directly to BC residents, what makes anyone believe that big businesses would pass along their savings directly to the consumers? Big businesses are not legally obliged to do so, and because of that, many of them won’t.

6) The full cost of administration would be taken care of by the federal government, and with the adoption of the HST, BC would receive $1.6 billion from Ottawa to use as it sees fit.
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hansen have made it very clear that this money received from Ottawa will not be given to the citizens of BC. This is irresponsible and despicable. It is the BC Liberals who want to implement the HST; BC’s citizens did not ask for this, nor did we vote for it. If the government does not try to harmonize the two taxes, there would be no administrative costs incurred in the first place. Even if the harmonization process is a necessity and is beneficial to the mass majority of BC’s residents (it is not), the money from the federal government should be given fully to the citizens of BC, especially those whose quality of life would be most affected by this process.

I have long been voting for the B.C. Liberals in the provincial election because I believe your party is more capable of promoting a healthy economic atmosphere. However, I have never wanted to vote for a government that takes advantage of the most vulnerable citizens of the province to help make big businesses more viable. If the HST proposal is not retracted or if substantial modifications are not made to address the issues of lower-income families and citizens, I would not vote for the Liberal party again, and would ensure that all my family and friends do the same. I would also participate in any recall movements to recall my local MLA, who is unwilling to listen to the voices of his constituency.

I look forward to hearing your response to these points that I have raised, and to hear what solution you have in place to address my concerns. Thank you very much for your attention.

Yours truly,
XXX

More on the HST

Since my last post on the HST, more information has emerged as to how this new tax would be implemented. The details, however, did not change my stance against this tax one bit.

Against the oppositional voices, the government has outlined several points in defence of the HST. I will first list these points, and then offer my argument against them:

#1 HST rebates will be given to citizens of lower income, much like the GST rebates currently given. There are two serious flaws in the concept of a HST rebate: firstly, people must still pay the tax upfront. For people who are barely earning enough for their everyday needs, receiving a cheque in three months’ time does not assist them in acquiring their daily essentials today. Secondly, as a person who used to collect GST rebate cheques way back in the day, I know the amount does not reflect how much I have spent. For people who are living on a very tight budget, the fact that they know they will receive a set amount of rebate regardless of how much they have spent would decrease their desire to spend. This would harm businesses overall.

#2 Businesses will be saving administrative costs in the billions. I know very little about big businesses and how they operate, so let’s just assume that this claim is true. However, for a corner store owner who handles the bookkeeping and taxes by himself, how does harmonizing the GST and PST save him any administrative money? Increasing that number on the price tag would hurt his business, that’s for sure. What would small businesses gain through this re-structuring of taxes?

#3 B.C. would have the lowest HST rate in Canada. So? Right now, we have 5% GST, and 7% GST. Keep things the way it is, we have to pay a combined 12% for sales taxes. If that is the lowest in Canada (it actually is not – Alberta has no PST, and Saskatchewan has a 5% PST rate, for a combined rate of 5% and 10%, respectively), does the process of harmonization change anything? It doesn’t.

#4 There are exemptions to the HST in areas such as food, books, etc. But the exemptions cover fewer areas than the current PST exemptions. Not all food items we purchase from a supermarket would be PST exempt, so food cost will go up (unless you just buy broccoli and boil it everyday as your food, with no sauces, no spices, and no processed food items to add). You work late one night and need to dine out? Pay 14% HST. Can you imagine the hit restaurants, particularly those low-end, bargain restaurants, would take?

#5 Businesses currently paying a hidden 7% PST would transfer that tax back to the consumers when that hidden tax is removed and replaced by the surface 12% HST. The BC Government has said the money it has received from the federal government to implement the HST will NOT be given to BC residents, so what make anyone believe that big businesses would pass along their savings? Are we that naïve, Mr. Campbell?

The Liberal Government has claimed that, over the years, it has taken steps over the years to make business more competitive, and to reduce taxes. All I know is that, over the last few years, the federal government has lowered the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%. Love or hate the Conservatives, they did deliver their election promises. I have not seen the PST reduced at all. I have seen money from lower income families being taken to be given to big businesses and corporations, friends of Mr. Campbell and his friends.

Truth is, the HST is a discriminatory tax that targets people of lower income. At the provincial level, I have not really been supportive of either the Liberals or the NDP, but this latest move by the Liberals have turned me into a definite Liberal-basher. I would sincerely urge you to join the following Facebook group to voice your displeasure against the BC HST:

No BC HST Facebook Group

HST is a Money-grab against the Poor

I haven’t written about news happening at the local front for a while, but this following piece of news REALLY disturbs me:

Vancouver Sun: BC to Harmonize Sales Tax at 12% Next July

Finance Minister Colin Hansen (left) announced today (Thursday, July 23, 2009) that the B.C. Government will combine the federal GST and the provincial PST into one combined sales tax, the harmonized sales tax (HST) starting in July of 2010. Hansen cites that the existing two-sales-tax system is causing businesses a lot of extra accounting work that is bad for business. He estimates that the harmonization process would save businesses 1.9 billion dollars.

What Hansen did not say is the harmonization’s effects on the poor, which prompted me to write the following to all the local newspaper immediately upon hearing this news:

“The BC Government’s proposed plan to “harmonize” the GST and PST into the HST appears on the surface to be a move to promote business. In essence, it is a despicable scheme to take the money away from the poor to pour it into the pockets of the rich. Currently, the poorest of BC’s residents rarely have to pay a sales tax for the province – they do not buy electronics, cars, luxurious vacations, and the like. Groceries, school supplies are among the items that are PST-exempt. By harmonizing the federal and the provincial sale taxes, they would now have to pay an additional 7% when they buy their food, or a set of pencils for their children. Big corporations are ALREADY paying their accountants to handle both the GST and PST; grass-root citizens cannot afford to pay a NEW extra 7% for their life’s essentials, and that is the bottom-line that Mr. Campbell’s government is once again ignoring.”

If enough people are crying foul, I have a feeling the BC Liberals will propose a rebate system where the poor can get some money back for the extra taxes they have to pay on their everyday essentials. However, even if that rebate is a full-scale rebate that covers all of their expenses, it does not take into the account that grass-root citizens are living from pay-cheque to pay-cheque, and cannot really afford to pay that tax up front. Without a choice, people with the lowest income may have to buy less food, live in poorer conditions, and have fewer essential items such as stationary products for school-aged children.

Even with best intentions, it is not difficult to see that the BC Liberal government has its policies catered towards the rich at the expense of the poor. I do not classify myself as a political socialist (far from it, actually), but this repeated oppression of the poor is just despicable.

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?

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 Root of the Problem

When you have, on average, a gun crime every other day for an entire month (there has been 15 gun incidents the last 30 days), you have a problem. When shots were being fired in the middle of the day, on major streets, in large parking lots of shopping mall, you have a big problem. When people shot a mother right in front of the eyes of her four-year-old child, you have a problem that is almost incomprehensible.

When federal public safety minister Peter Van Loan called Metro Vancouver the “gang capital” (see article) in Canada, he did not say that for effect. Truth is, gang crime has gotten out of hand, and it has become increasingly unsafe to live in the Lower Mainland.

While I appreciate the various levels of government vowing for more police force and stiffer sentences for these criminals, few seem to be talking about the root of the problem: the Lower Mainland is a major hotbed for drug trade, and our justice system has been systematically letting the bad guys get away with either no punishment or a mere slap-in-the-hand penalty. As long as the lucrative profits of drug trades are staying, so would the criminals. We can put out 1000 more law enforcers on the street; they can be working 24-7 to bust crimes; they can even be arresting hundreds of criminals, and the courts can even put these criminals into long sentences… but it still would NOT solve the problem.

The problem is the drug culture here in Western Canada. If we continue to have this cavalier attitude about drugs (in particular, towards marijuana), if the justice system continues to turn a blind eye to the marijuana culture and people in general condone or even endorse it, the problem will persist, because the profit would stay.

Stop suggesting that if marijuana is legalized or de-criminalized, the profit would stop flowing in for the criminals. It won’t. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but black-market cigarettes and alcohol are still rampant because criminals can still make a profit through selling “better” cigarettes and alcohol in the black market. What makes marijuana any different?

Look at the recent gang busts and you will see footages of cops carrying bags and bags of marijuana into their police trucks. I know some of you feel that pot-smoking is okay. Look at the killings, look at the violence, think again.

Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe

Before anything else, check out the following piece of news:

NDP ads blast Ignatieff

So after the latest power-grab attempt by NDP leader Jack Layton has failed, the party is quick to blast their recently-divorced partner in the Liberal Party. Just because Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has decided that toppling the minority conservative government is not a good idea, his entire party is now the enemy of the NDP.

Astounding? Yes. Surprising? Not at all. Over the years, we have learned what Mr. Layton is all about – he is a passionate speaker who can woo you with his words, but throughout the years, he has demonstrated he is all about grabbing power in any way, shape, or form. Stephane Dion was equally desperate for power, and hence the two joined forces. I am not saying Ignatieff does not want power, but at least he is astute enough to understand that, in the face of an enormous economic crisis, the political warfare needs to halt. And for that, I applaud him.

Ignatieff’s demand of periodic financial update to the Conservatives’ stimulus package is a reasonable demand, and I am pleased to see that the Conservatives government is willing to accept that demand, as stated by Minister of Industry Tony Clement (right) on TV today (not that they had a choice, honestly). It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I hope Prime Minister Stephen Harper can find ways to work with Ignatieff and the Liberals to resuscitate our economy. If both parties are willing, we can certainly ignore the NDP and the Bloc…

Speaking of the Bloc, I must say the same criticism needs to be directed to its leader Gilles Duceppe. Both Duceppe and Layton went on record to say that they would not support the budget BEFORE the budget was released. Layton made fun of the budget when it first came out and said that Harper is turning into a NDP when the government promised funding to social housing. So the government is meeting some of your demands, and you still need to resort to childish bashing? And Duceppe would not even look at the budget before deciding that he and his party would not support it. Both leaders showed recklessness and a complete disregard to the welfare of Canadians in general. I’m utterly surprised that not more criticism has been directed to them.

So it looks like the minority conservative government will rule on for quite some time. Let’s hope politicians would truly put their selfish agenda aside, and work for those who put them in office… we can only hope.

From Bush to Obama

Yesterday’s inauguration of the 44th president of the United States Barack Obama created a frenzy even in Canada. Across the hallways I could feel “Obamamania” happening – people quoting Obama’s inauguration speech, imitating his gestures and tone, comparing him to the political leaders of this country… I must say, it was quite a sight, especially considering the fact that many Canadians have long been despising our neighbours down south. The whole scene was just surreal, if you ask me.

Here's the first part of Obama's speech. You can follow the "related videos" to watch the rest of them:

Drama, and emotions aside, one cannot deny that Obama’s inauguration speech was well-written, and it did deliver a message of passive, but strong determination and hope. On a personal level, I am the most impressed with the framework he has laid out on his foreign policies:

“Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.”

While stating the obvious fact that US has the military power to dominate any other nation, Obama is also extending an olive branch of sort in wanting to cooperate and wishing for better understanding, two things that the Bush administration was not able to do well.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Here I see a little pride and a little threat even uttered to those who defy the “American way,” but it was nonetheless spoken eloquently in arguing that the liberal way is the better way. It also maintains the notion of not wanting to exclude anyone to get on board, as long as they are willing.

When the speech is done, it was obviously well received. But now, the true work begins. The whole world has known for quite some time that Obama can talk the talk. Now, it’s time to walk the walk. His vision seems noble, and he has mentioned over and over again that he will collaborate. Let’s hope he is truly a president of collaboration and understanding.

While talking Obama, I think it’s worthy to talk about his predecessor, George W. Bush. Unlike many people that I know, I am not an anti-Bush person per se. True, I think the war on Iraq was an unjust one, and I think his foreign policies are generally bully tactics that do not belong to this age, but that does not take away my respect for Mr. Bush for his steadfast support for the firefighters, the policemen, and the victims of the tragedy of 9-11; it does not stop me from admiring his strong stance on certain social issues that he has convictions in. One may not agree with the stances he has chosen to take, but at least, “W” has always been upfront about where he stands on those issues. Check out his national address following the tragedy of 9-11:



I have always been someone who believes that there is a time for everything (politically, in a democratic world anyway…). Bush was meant to be the leader that takes America through the horrors of 9-11; his time is up, so he is moving off the stage for someone else. May Obama be the right person for this age, and though I am not an American, like Mr. George W. Bush always says at the end of most public address to his nation, “God bless America.”

(P.S. for something lighter, here's a clip showing "W" and his impersonator, Steve Bridges, delivered a duet of a speech in 2006. It takes something special to be able to laugh at yourself, particularly if you are a person in power. Bush did that well, and I respect him for it).

Liberals now getting a taste of their own medicine?

News now emerge that Stephane Dion (left) of the Liberals Party has agreed to step aside immediately once an interim leader is found. His decision seems to have much to do with the fact that the coalition idea is not well supported by Canadians, and Liberal insiders think that the problem has much to do with Dion, who was dismissed by the voters on October 14, and had subsequently announced his resignation, initially effective in May when the Liberals meet for a leadership convention.

Liberal insiders are pushing hard to have Michael Ignatieff (right) replace Dion as the interim leader, and continue their push to topple the Conservatives minority government. All seems well inside the Liberal party, except another favoured candidate for the party’s top job, Bob Rae.

Personally, I’m not interested in the in-fighting within a political party that I am not a member of. However, since the Liberal-led coalition still has a chance of governing Canada, and Ignatieff and Rae could potentially become our prime minister, it is interesting to see what Bob Rae (below left) has to say about the idea of appointing Ignatieff to take the leadership helm from Dion:

“It's better to have the party as a whole involved in finding a solution than it is to having a solution imposed from above.”

“I don't think that coronations are generally very successful in political parties. I think most people believe that it's better to have a contest, it's better to have a choice.”

“No other democratic party would do it this way, and I think we have to think very carefully about finding the right process.”

The rest of this piece of news can be found at the following link:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9009740.html

Let me get this straight – when the coalition formed and tried to topple the current government, are opponents of the coalition using the same logic as Rae? We said the country as a whole should decide, not several people sitting behind a backroom. We said the country’s voters need to have a choice, rather than being jammed down the throat with a new prime minister. We said democratically, choosing a government should be left for an election is the fairest process…

And now, Rae is using the same logic, when the table is turned against him, when he is robbed of a chance to take over Canada? How soon you forget, Mr. Rae?

Mind you, I agree with almost all the points Bob Rae has raised here, but this agreement only goes further to show how anti-democratic is this idea of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is: it is not an idea that Canadians can vote on, it is not a fair contest where all stake-holders can argue for the voters’ support, and it is not a democratic process. The ironic thing is, among the two potential liberal leader, Bob Rae is the one who says the coalition will topple the government no matter what…

What a sad state our country is in, if the bulk of its leaders can be so hypocritical and are so lacking in wisdom.

A Public Letter to Governor General, Her Excellency Michaelle Jean

To: Her Excellency Michaelle Jean
cc: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Party leader Mr. Stephane Dion, and NDP leader Mr. Jack Layton

Dec 1, 2008

Your Excellency,

It is with great disgust and much anger that I am writing to Your Excellency to protest against the current political ploy put together by the Liberals and the NDP to topple the current Canadian government.

When Canadians from coast to coast headed to the polls on October 14, 2008, we have spoken as a whole and voted for the Conservative Party with 143 seats in the parliament, the highest number among all the national parties. Following our long-standing tradition of democracy, the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Stephen Harper, is thus asked to form a government, with him as Canada’s prime minister. All party leaders, including Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton, Bloc Quebecois leader Mr. Gilles Duceppe, and Green Party leader Ms. Elizabeth May, had spoken to support the democratic choice of Canadians coast-to-coast. Canadians were well-aware that a minority government can be an unstable government, but Mr. Dion has spoken in his speech that he would “work with” Mr. Harper and the Conservatives to help Canada through the uncertain economic times.

It has not even been two months since the election, but now, because of backroom deals that entail details that Canadians have no ability to obtain, Mr. Dion, who was abandoned by his own party just months ago, is asking to form a government with him as the prime minister. The NDP and the Bloc, meanwhile, are neglecting the choice of the Canadians and are supporting this ludicrous idea. To make matters worse, Mr. Dion would then be succeeded by another person when the Liberals have their leadership convention in May of 2009. Canadians in general have no say in his successor. Canadians have not surrendered their right to choose a government to the hands of the Liberal delegates attending its leadership convention – it is a despicable act that violates the fundamentals of our democratic process.

I personally have no problem seeing a majority, a minority, or a coalition government, as long as that government is one that is elected by the Canadian public at the polls. In my opinion, if the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, want to form a government as a coalition, they need to declare that intention and let Canadians decide if that is how they want the government to form. The current idea of trying to topple the government Canadians collectively chose with one that an undisclosed number of insiders conjure is unacceptable, and is a mockery of the democratic system that many Canadians are very proud of.

The reason why so many people from around the world decide to make Canada their home is because of its democracy, not because of corrupted backroom deals that run rampant in the infra-structure of the government – many Canadians have known that far too well. I ask that you, Your Excellency, to declare a general election to let Canadians decide how they want their government to be should the current government be overthrown as a result of a non-confidence vote. I plead that you do not listen to the unacceptable request made by the Liberals and the NDP to allow them to form a coalition government without the proper consultation of the country, which can only be done accurately through a general election.

Thank you very much for your attention to this urgent matter.

Yours Sincerely,
E. Leung
A very concerned Canadian

Respect the Democratic Process - Let Us CHOOSE!

For those who have been following the news: Canada may have a new government very, very soon. Unlike last time, it is not a result of a called election, but rather a scheme plotted by the Liberals and the NDP to topple the current Conservative government. Their plan is, with the support of the Bloc, to ask Governor General Michaelle Jean to ask current Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton to form a coalition government once they have overthrown the Stephen Harper-led Conservative minority government through a non-confidence vote. The Bloc Quebecois will promise to not overthrow this government for at least a year, giving the coalition government two chances to release a budget.

Let me get this straight: Canadians have just voted for a Conservatives-led minority government, with Stephen Harper as its leader and thus, our prime minister. Now, because of backroom deals that entails who-knows-what, Stephane Dion, who was abandoned by his own party, could potentially become our prime minister, then followed by someone else who Canadians have not even considered as our prime minister when the Liberals have their leadership convention in May? When did Canadians give their right to choose a government to the hands of the Liberal delegates attending the leadership convention?

I am not necessarily for or against a coalition government of any sort – if the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, want to run in an election as a coalition and wins, that’s fine. Let Canada have its first coalition government since the 1920s. But LET US CHOOSE! Heck, if the Marxist-Leninist Party and the Communist Party decide to run as a coalition, and actually win the federal election, so be it. But this coalition is something that has just been cooked up by the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc. I didn't see in my ballot a couple months ago any candidates that says "Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition." I chose to vote either the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, or the Green Party. The decision to topple a government right now and replace it without an election is a total disrespect to democracy, and thus is despicable at best (I can use harsher words, but I don't want to resort to profanity here). While one can say the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc collectively have more popular support in the country than the Conservatives, is it certain that all these supporters of the parties support the idea of such a coalition? I know for a fact that many Liberals hate the Bloc and feel that they represent a force that tries to destroy confederation... would they vote for the Liberals should they know that they are going to sleep with the enemy?

The reason why so many people from around the world decide to make Canada their home is because of its democracy, not because of corrupted backroom deals that run rampant in the infra-structure of the government – many Canadians have known that far too well.

Please, do something - write to the media, write to your MP, call talk shows. Let them know that this is despicable, and cannot be tolerated. Don't let Canada turn back its clock to become a corrupted nation where politicians run backroom deals and bypass the eyes of the voters.

Canadian General Election & US Presidential Election

This is not a blog that talks about politics specifically, but I am a person who is interested in politics, so the news about the elections in the U.S. and Canada intrigue me a great deal.

In Canada, many felt furious that the Conservatives spent so much money to hold an election, but could not get over the hump by winning a majority government. I look at the situation a little differently – yes, the government has spent millions calling for an early election, but ultimately, the people chose how they wanted their government to be: they still wanted the Conservatives to rule the country, but not with a majority. That is the voice of the people, and, like it or not, it is something that all the party leaders need to live with.

Of all the party leaders, I really think Jack Layton of the NDP has screwed up the most in his strategy. When Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe teased certain political leaders that they were dreaming of becoming a prime minister when they had no chance, I believe Layton was the guy he was poking fun at. Mr. Layton, the NDP will never be the ruling party in Canada, and you will never be elected the prime minister! When you chose to attack only the Conservatives, you have ruined your chance (however little) of becoming the official opposition! The votes you could knock off from the Conservatives would never go to you, and you have to know that. Your chance was to attack Stephane Dion and his inability to stand firm on issues that the Liberals disagreed with the Conservatives, but you did not. For a strong debater like you, you have wasted the best opportunity you had to do something never done before…

In the US, I cannot but marvel at how gracious the speeches Senator McCain and Obama made when the results were out. When McCain took the loss completely on his own shoulders, and praised everyone who worked on his campaign, he showed class and dignity like the war veteran that I know he is. When president-elect Obama said to the people who did not vote for him that he is their president as well, and then he would listen especially carefully to those who disagree with him, that is democracy at work. People can hate on the US for all they want, and people can attack either the Republicans or the Democrats for the rest of time, but election after election, I see political leaders who accept victory and defeat graciously… that’s something that many politicians else where have yet to learn, and may never learn, to do.