Reading To Kit's (陶傑) Sunday commentary about the United States' policy on Burma. Despite of To's explanation, it is obvious that you can never expect the Police of the World to reach out her hands to a place with no petroleum or nuclear weapon.
I am of course all against dictators. Nonetheless Burma stands as a classical scenario against those obsessive proponents of democracy and general election. You know what: 70% of the population in this country are Bamar (緬族), while the other 30% are make up of over 150 "minor" ethnic groups. What do you expect would happen when national policies are decided by election ? Shan (撣族), Kayin (克倫族), Chinese, and many others would have very little say on the country - and their situation would be no better in a democratic system.
You may say all these grumbles of mine are far away and irrelevant. In that case let's propose some ordinances once there is general election here: (1) All people with asset over HK$10 billion should share half of their money with all of us (I can see your smile); and (2) the only crab that could escape from the wok should be pulled back and stay with all other dying ones.
Now you see: democracy - in skilled hands - would become the root of social division and means to discriminate minority groups.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1 comment:
maybe those privileged few should indeed share half their money - unless they didnt accumulate their wealth by paying employees peanuts to live in sub-rented rooms
maybe its more right to give the janitors (who probably has nothing) a 6.3% payrise, while prof (who probably has everything by now) and yours truly (in the process of getting something) get 3.9%
maybe zimbabwean should have been better off with a british governor.
maybe apartheid shouldnt be abolished
a civilised society may choose its own destiny. Just like the movie "Idiocracy".
btw he goes by the name of Chip Tsao in english.
Post a Comment