Simply just opening this web page could have you arrested, detained by security personnel and imprisoned for years without trial.
I continue the theme of political inequality from my last post, only this case is somewhat more extreme, the country I talk about is of course; Burma.
The current events in neighbouring Thailand reminded me of the incomprehendable chaos, controversy and inequality that has shadowed Burma for the past 48 years. A chaos which has wrongly been ignored by British government and media. It seems it has been given up as a 'lost cause'.
Over 250,000 Muslims fled to Bangladesh as a result of a major army offensive in 1989. A similar amount followed as a result of further offensives in 1997.
No, this isn't the BNP. This is the Junta; Burma's brutal military government.
The unjust targeting of Muslim communities isn't the only horrific crime the Junta have to boast about...
The Junta have imposed forced labor on 800,000 people, massacred thousands of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, driven more than 1million people into exile and have carried out murder, rape and torture whilst depriving the Burmese of many basic human rights which we take for granted.
In Burma; torture has become an institution.
So, who are the Junta?
The Junta is the name given to the military government in Burma who overthrew the last democratically elected government in 1962. Since seizing power, the Junta have corrupted Burma Stalin-style; ruling through terror and injustice.
Political gatherings are banned.
The opposing political party; the NLD (National League for Democracy) won the last election with an 80% majority; but the Junta refused to move from power.
Up to 20years imprisonment can be given for simply opposing the Junta's policies; whether this be through peaceful demonstration, simply 'having a moan' or violent protest.
Censorship is heavy - even art exhibitions have to be approved of by the military authority.
And all computers, fax machines and modems (anything that could be used to communicate with the outside world) have to be licensed so only those who are deemed 'trustworthy' by the government can possess them; otherwise it's 15 years in jail.
Perhaps it isn't entirely true to say Western countries have given Burma up as 'a lost cause'... Gordon Brown promised to maintain the pressure on the Junta in 2007 whilst the UN and other international organisations such as Amnesty International have made moves towards taking action.
But, the current economic crisis in Europe and America has brought problems closer to home and many people remain blissfully unaware of the situation in Burma.
I am not saying we launch a full-scale intervention into Burma, although it is needed.
But I am asking for people to strip back their ignorance:
Next time you complain about the government's spending cuts, the NHS waiting lists, the MPs expenses, the deficit, immigration e.t.c, e.t.c... and you realise that our government and society is far from perfect - just think to yourself it could be a whole lot worse - because in Burma; that single complaint could completely change your life; and it wouldn't be for the better.
More information about the situation in Burma and how you can support the campaign to stand up to the Junta can be found through this link:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11780
Monday 17 May 2010
Friday 14 May 2010
Have we really reached 'new politics'?
The Conservative and Liberal Coalition has been an incredibly exciting moment in British Political History and has certainly defaced 'ancient politics'.
However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?
Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.
Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?
It is quite frankly embarrassing.
Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.
We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.
Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?
Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.
How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?
However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?
Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.
Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?
It is quite frankly embarrassing.
Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.
We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.
Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?
Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.
How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?
Wednesday 12 May 2010
David Clegg and Nick Cameron: The Happy Couple?
Yesterday marked an important landmark in British political history; the first coalition government since 1945. Hopefully the beginning of a new political scene...
After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.
Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...
The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.
The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...
I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.
However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.
The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?
But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.
I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.
'The Big Three'
1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.
2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.
3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.
I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.
Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.
After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.
Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...
The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.
The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...
I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.
However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.
The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?
But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.
I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.
'The Big Three'
1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.
2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.
3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.
I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.
Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
