LDP-Khem Veasna-League for democracy party_Dignitary of life by Khem Veasna
You Can Subscribe, Comment and Share Khem Veasna Videos or League For Democracy Party Voice.For More Information: htpp://www.camldp.org, LDP has been trying to share knowledge and ...
By: LDP CBR
Read this article:
LDP-Khem Veasna-League for democracy party_Dignitary of life by Khem Veasna - Video
LDP-Khem Veasna-League for democracy party-Life lesson_Oversee yourself by Khem Veasna
You Can Subscribe, Comment and Share Khem Veasna Videos or League For Democracy Party Voice.For More Information: htpp://www.camldp.org, LDP has been trying to share knowledge and ...
By: LDP CBR
Here is the original post:
LDP-Khem Veasna-League for democracy party-Life lesson_Oversee yourself by Khem Veasna - Video
This year we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the postwar period of Japan. After Japan lost the war, the shape of its postwar regime was prepared and arranged mostly by the victor, the United States, which occupied Japan. The ideal of freedom and democracy served as the core principles during the Occupation.
The Japanese Constitution was also established along the lines of this ideal, which was a noble cause for the Americans. During the war, they answered the question of Why we fight? by playing the role of the worlds police against fascist and totalitarian evils.
The ideal also accorded with postwar Americas general strategy as the hegemonic power leading all liberal countries, or the West.
We Japanese have struggled to find our own way of living under this regime. But it was only with the constraint of imposed freedom and democracy the command to be free, independent and self-governing even if it sounded contradictory as a concept.
In this sense, we were congeners of postwar Europeans under the Marshall Plan, of Latin Americans and Asians under the Point Four Program, and even of the Afghan or Iraqi people in more recent years.
In many of these countries, the ideal was internalized in due course and its original imposition lost its meaning. But we Japanese seem to have somehow failed to digest this history of imposition until now, even though the governments white paper on the economy stated as early as 1956 that the Japanese no longer lived in the postwar period.
This statement was issued only in connection with the economic growth of Japan, without referring to any political consideration or discussion among people of the ideal of freedom and democracy of American origin.
Although the economic growth of Japan, as well as of Germany and Europe in general, was what America intended, Japan, Germany and Europe in general have outgrown much more than Americas original expectations.
In the political arena, the ideal is not fully upheld. For example, the conclusion and renewal of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the U.S. and Japan the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty was done over relatively strong opposition among the people.
The treaty was signed between two mutually independent nation-states on equal footing as far as the institutional viewpoint is concerned. But in substance, thats not the case. The treaty was signed under circumstances in which the U.S. was overwhelmingly strong politically, economically and militarily vis-a-vis Japan.
Editorial Desk
The Daily Star
Publication Date : 06-01-2015
Bangladesh Nationalist Party's stance of 'Death of Democracy' was, to start with, a rhetorical hyperbole. But by its own action, the government proved BNP correct.
The way the government suppressed the BNP from holding a rally, and the way it kept Khaleda Zia confined to her office for the last 48-plus hours smack, if not death of democracy, but definitely a step towards it.
Now Khaleda Zia has called for open-ended countrywide blockade and we cannot fully blame her for it. So the government has pushed her to it.
We would like to ask what harm there would be to let BNP hold a rally. The question here is if Awami League wants to celebrate the first anniversary of safeguarding democracy, why cannot BNP and its allies hold a programme that demonstrates a dissenting view, which is within its democratic right to do?
We are aghast at the intimidating language coming out of the government. Not only has it been impolitic, rather it is downright hypocritical.
If we go by some of the statements made of late, they put out a blatant threat to the opposition that the BNP would not be allowed to come on to the street.
See more here:
Sad day for democracy
Ho Lok-sang
China Daily
Publication Date : 06-01-2015
The occupiers believe genuine universal suffrage is the necessary condition for democracy. They imagine that once Hong Kong has genuine universal suffrage the way they want it, Hong Kong will then have democracy. They are mistaken. Because of this mistaken notion and because the value of democracy had been taken for granted, they chose to violate the law and the rights of fellow Hong Kong citizens in their pursuit of democracy. Fortunately the Occupy Central movement ended with no loss of life, and Hong Kong has learnt a valuable lesson.
Occupiers had mistaken notions about democracyMany of the protesters, particularly those from the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism, still insist on public nomination as the requirement for genuine universal suffrage. They do so in the full knowledge it is not permitted under the Basic Law. Violating the Basic Law is violating the basic principles of democracy. Violating other peoples rights to the use of roads and other public places is violating the laws of Hong Kong relating to public order. Many commentators have noted that the so-called pro-democracy movement is undemocratic in spirit.
Given that the Basic Law clearly stipulates that candidates for the post of Chief Executive (CE) are to be nominated by the Nominating Committee, Article 45 offers no room for interpretation as to whether candidates might be nominated by any party other than the Nominating Committee. The Basic Law also explicitly states that the final interpretation of the Basic Law rests with the nations top legislature. Respecting One Country, Two Systems must include respect for this right of the top legislature.
Lew Mon-hung, a former member of the countrys top political advisory body, wrote in a recent article that the greatest danger for the One Country, Two Systems policy, which protects Hong Kongs way of life, lies in a disrespect for the differences between the two systems. He is right. However, his article mainly criticised Beijing for showing a lack of respect for the differences between the two systems, while completely ignoring the protesters disrespect for the system on the mainland. He should know that the Communist Party of China (CPC) has evolved by learning from its past mistakes. The CPC undoubtedly has much to learn, but criticising the CPC for having the genes for not respecting the One Country, Two Systems and for a historical inertia for being biased toward the left does nothing to foster trust and understanding between Hong Kong and Beijing.
The fact is that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China and the CPC is Chinas ruling party. Beijing has kept its promise to allow Hong Kong to continue with its common law system inherited from colonial times, and the Court of Final Appeal continues to include judges invited from overseas. Beijing has kept its promise and allows Hong Kong to maintain its fiscal and monetary systems. Beijing also continues to allow freedom of the press in Hong Kong, and to demonstrate lawfully on virtually any issue. Even demonstrations by some cults banned on the mainland have been tolerated in the SAR. Lews charge that Beijing does not respect the differences in the two systems is unfair.
On the other hand, do the protesters respect the One Country, Two Systems framework? Many of the protesters explicitly express their desire to change the mainlands political system. The demands of the protesters directly deny the top legislatures right to interpret the Basic Law and even challenge the Basic Law and the national Constitution itself.