People often say when bad things happen in our life, it is entirely our choice on how to act on it. We can keep mourning on it or try to see it from different perspective. We can aggravate on the bad consequences or try to pick up shattered pieces of positive thing out of it. I can argue this even better with an analogy, take one coin, on your side you can argue that that coin is 1 dollar, on the other side, your friend can argue that it is the picture of a bird. Both you and your friend are looking at the same object and both of your arguments are valid, nevertheless you still argue about it intensely and none is willing to give up. The moral of this story is that life always has at least two sides of the story. Similar to that, when bad things happen, there are at least two ways of seeing it, you can take the positive side and move on OR stay there and mourn why this should happen, why me, why now...
I argue that the above proposition is amazingly ridiculous in many walks of our lives. Here is how the picture painted. For the past 3 months, I have gone through numerous astounding experiences. Money or friend, competition or cooperation, kill or be killed, ignorant is a foolish bliss or knowledge is painful satisfaction.
For years in my life, noting that i am still young, i ve been trying hard to kill my emotions, compassion, pity on poor and people in needs. My cruel world taught me to be strong and cunning.
I help my best friend and at the bottom rock of my life, he/she stabs me in the back. Sometimes it is for personal gain, sometimes because he/she has no more viable option. For instance, if my friend does not cheat my money, his/her sister will not eat that day. He/she prioritizes his/her family more than me, which i would have most likely done if i were put in his/her position. If you were me, how would you react? (Noting that you are not rich either and that money is meant to put your sister/brother into school). Will you let it go because you understand he is in a dire need of money or will you pursue that money by any means (cruel one)?
Today, i am sitting alone in the airport for more than 4 hours, partially worried because I do not have much money with me. My friend is supposed to pay her debt to me, but she is late. So i decided to wait and we converse through phone. Later i found out that her mother is suffering from cancer and she is in need of money. Worse, she probably is cheated by her investment manager. I feel a spark of pity and compassion, which i have suppressed so aggressively in my life.
In my life, i have gone through extreme transformation from a devoted christian into an atheist and subsequently a spiritual agnostic. I grow much faster than people in my age. On the age of 17 I acquaint with 50+ years friends, hanging out in socrates cafe, reading nietzsche, socrates, plato, hegel, kant, thoreau, discussing philosophy and works life. Life teaches me one thing about choice, at some point there is no way back... During my childhood as a christian i was astounded and mesmerized by the concept of heaven reward... I worked my ass off to satisfy the FAKE GOD because I am so horrified by the idea of living in hell forever and ever. I am caged and prisoned with no room for questioning ( that s how religion operates isnt it?). My religious counsel at school often told me that God provides us a choice in life. That is the reason why he put that apple tree in eden garden and allow lucifer to tempt human. My religious counsel told me otherwise human is just as good as robots with no freedom to reason and think. THEREFORE, god also provides human with a chance to choose either to believe in him (by accepting jesus as out savior) and rewarded heavenly crown or disobey him and punished hellish condemnation. They said questioning to the core (like why should we believe in god) is an abomination. I started to question myself as I was trapped in this christian hellhole. What s the point of me doing all these charities and good deeds, obeying god’s rules (the ten commandment) ? Is it because I was too afraid to go to hell?
Christians told me that life is a choice. God sets a path for us to heaven, but the choice is ours... I said BULLSHIT! WE can choose what to believe but not the consequences? It is pre-existing values. Why can I not do what god doesnt want me to, yet rewarded heaven? Christians even told me that the path to salvation is like a small path in mountainous areas (lord of the ring, where frodo walked through this small path to destroy the ring). It s small, dangerous and difficult to got through. On the contrary, the path to hell is much smoother, easier to walk on, and comfortable. THEREFORE, logically speaking, there are more people going to hell than heaven. I am so outraged now whenever a christian told me this analogy. I SAID FUCK OFF. The concept of choice is “there are thousands way to rome”, so if god is a reasonable creature, a choice should mean that there are other ways to heaven, not his way. By setting a standard of getting to heaven ONLY by obeying him leaves us no choice and no room for argument BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL PUNISHED WITH ETERNAL HELLISH SUFFERING.
In the context of life, practical things, daily walks, we are preached that we can make any choice we want, to become a lawyer, a criminal, a monk, an honest or dishonest businessman. However, people often forget to tell you “oh by the way, you ll get into a shithole if you take that path”. I ve just watched several early editions of the practice. It is the serious version of Boston legal and it makes sense, very realistic. Your job compels you to choose your integrity or a young female future. He has to lie to his client, misrepresentation, violating his ethical codes, values he has been living with, values he has been preaching everyone with OR that little girl loses her life. IT s not a choice, it s like what Christianity does. Jesus says in one of the New Testaments “I am the only path of salvation, no one else go to Father if not from me”.
As Obama said in relation to Iran case, “I am outraged and appalled”. What THE FUCK ARE WE DOING? HUMANITY? FUCK IT... I am blaming all the hypocrisies and evil deeds many humans have done... LOOK at WHAT HUMAN does to people like hitler and stalin. YOU FORCE THEM to become a monster. YOU FUCKER. LIFE is a choice? YOU ARE FUCKIN CUNNING AND SLICK, hiding behind the mask of truthfulness and morality, while you are so corrupt. People like me are viewed and judged as corrupt individuals because I QUESTION THE TRUTH AND YOUR FUCKED MORAL STANDARD. LIFE leaves us a choice? You are kidding me. They always forget to tell you the consequences, dothey not? My parents say please do pursue your dream, go to law school, but we will not support you. A government says please do practice your freedom of expression, it s healthy for a well functioning democracy, but we are going to sue your sorry ass (JB J in singapore). ALL religious congregations say we appreciate differences, and other religions, BUT IT YOU ARE NOT PART OF OUR RELIGION THAN YOU ARE A SINNER, and you belong to hell. Quran says “to some people, the path of islam, will be closed forever”. Holy bible says “those who do not accept jesus christ as his saviour belongs to hell” IF I DON T FUCKIN ACCEPT YOUR VALUE THEN I AM A KAFIR/ A SINNER? You all put this fucking thick mask and pretend that you accept differences, but deep down there in your heart you are telling yourself “these people are going to hell” FUCK YOU!!
You push people like me to the corner where it is so close to falling down into a chasm and then threaten me that if I dont believe in you (mainstream values, conservative asian/javanese FUCKED UP values, religions), you will push me down. You leave me no choice but to transform into a leviathan beast to push you back and rip your heart apart for all oppressions you GAVE ME. WORSE YOU ARE SO SLICK ABOUT IT, NOT BEING UPFRONT!! This is at the point there is no way back, if i move back (if i go lenient by being compassionate) i ll die, falling down to the chasm so i have to strike to the front and kill those in my ways. KILL OR BE KILLED! Let s play your game asshole, I want to taste the sweet revenge to THE FUCKED UP MISERIES LIFE BRING UPON ME because I QUESTION. Is it not what you all have been teaching me through the history of mankind?
“Nothing else in the world satisfies human innate animal’s nature than revenge. It is the strongest motivation ever found on earth. The drive to destroy supersedes every other motivation and that include peace, social tolerance, betterment of human kind, improvement of health. That is the reason why an evil always outsmart the naive angel.”
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
World Trade Law: not the trade law of the world?
WTO was born on two premises. First, it is a wealth creation concept due to efficiency and comparative advantage (for comparative advantage concept, refer to my paper on AEC). Free traders promise you to be richer not rich when you join free trade. Second, free trade promises that everyone/every country benefits absolutely from the world trade by the grand postulate ‘comparative advantage’. This postulate says develop the best industries you have, even if those industries are less efficient than similar industries in the rest of the countries in the world. The two premises, HOWEVER, presuppose the existence of an equal playing field. Joseph stiglitz already knew this much better than us. During his study and career in IMF and World Bank before 1998, he concluded that Free Trade is disadvantageous for many developing and underdeveloped countries because of unequal playing field. He was particularly concerned with the issue of information asymmetry. This work won him Economic Noble Laureate in 2001.
Now, my main contention is that World Trade Law concept fails to address unequal playing field issue. My first premise is that unequal playing field is an axiomatic situation, a reality, some realist would say. It is a situation we are born with, just like being born black, chinese, disabled, and women. I am trying to borrow the concept from human rights regime. Human rights discipline dissects protections of inalienable and alienable rights based on which situations human are innately born with. If human are born as a women, certain traits of women rights, which are conditions women are born with, become inalienable and vice versa. Since the unequal playing field is an innate circumstance, conceptually, the question is whether it is fair for such that we impose equal burden to everyone/every country or we should equalize the unequal playing field? This is conceptually very troublesome! The World has not decided on this matter, and as a matter of fact would not want to decide on this matter. On the one hand, developed countries say that unequal playing field is a situation everyone is born with, not a result of their bad deeds, including economic resources; therefore, it is not fair to ask U.S or E.C. to sacrifice this advantage for developing states to one point where developing states can compete on the same level as the developed states. This situation is similar to discrimination for stewardess jobs based on height. Caucasians are generally higher than Asians; therefore it is acceptable that airline companies do not hire Asians stewardess simply because they are Asians (not tall enough). On the other hand, developing and under developed countries say those innate circumstances should be remedy before the free trade is implemented, since the TWO PREMISES of free traders presuppose equal playing field. It is unfair to ask the Asians to compete with the US or EU for steward/ess jobs by measurement of height. The same principle applies to all industries with less cutting edge advantages not because developing countries are less efficient in production, but rather because of unequal playing field. In reality, developing countries such as China, wins the market competition by imposing awfully bad labor rights and environmental protection so COSTS can be squeezed. This means all products from China can be cheaper to compete with US’ products. China claims she did not exploit the environment in such severe manner as US did for 300 more years (subsequent to industrial revolution), therefore china retains the right to exploit the environment, while US has to start remedying the damaged environment. The US claims that this equal playing field should exist in market so China has to take EQUAL responsibility for preservation and protection of the environment. China says when she actually needs the environmental resources so dearly, she was required not to exploit the environment in 1980s (the booming of China economy). If the US wishes China to conserve the environment, preferential treatment and advantages have to be granted to China PROPORTIONALLY. This is similar to the following analogy. There are 10 breads to be divided for 2 persons. One is poor, while one is rich. Equality is to give the poor and rich 5 breads each, while proportionality means giving the poor 7 and the rich 3.
Above-like issues cannot be settled because there is no understanding as to what concept of equal playing field is required: innate circumstances are advantages, therefore no effort should be required to equalize such playing field OR innate circumstances are injustice, therefore efforts must be put to equalize such unequal playing field? Nonetheless, my first premise stands on the vagueness of the equality concept: is it congruent or proportional?
Second premise, assuming we come to an agreement to unequal playing field is unjust since it is innate circumstances, how can WTO principles draw a line between when positive discrimination for disadvantaged countries are enough? When enough is enough? If WTO is to create an equal playing field than current policies must discriminate advantaged countries (such as US and EU) in unequal manners to equalize the unequal playing fields. Now the biggest “catch” is how to determine to what point WTO will stop granting such positive discrimination. How to assess? Who to assess? In a simpler analogy of bread above, do we divide the breads into 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, or 9-1? This is a very delicate and complicated question no one can come out with a clear cut answer. The difficulty lies in states’ compromise to what industries (assuming US and EU are happy to do so) they should give up for other countries’ positive discrimination, foreseeability of such industries’ business potential, occurrence of urgent needs of the industrial products, and when do they stop granting such positive discrimination. Is it even possible to stop at that point of time?
All in all, the two premises I offered above paint you an ugly picture of the WTO reality. The accomplishments of the two dilemmas above are really strenuous since there are numerous political, business, and vested interest in local industry. Global Financial crisis adds up more salt to the open wound. WTO principle are currently dominated by superpower, striving very hard to maintain status quo as to information asymmetry and unequal playing field to be able to expose natural resources and economic disability of many third world countries and developing countries. As long as they maintain information and technological gaps, WTO is not a trade law of the world; it is a product of economics tyranny which is designed to pierce the economic wound of many countries in the world softly and sophisticatedly. The needle is too soft that when it gets under our skin, we do not realize it until it nearly kills us all by rupturing our vein.
Now, my main contention is that World Trade Law concept fails to address unequal playing field issue. My first premise is that unequal playing field is an axiomatic situation, a reality, some realist would say. It is a situation we are born with, just like being born black, chinese, disabled, and women. I am trying to borrow the concept from human rights regime. Human rights discipline dissects protections of inalienable and alienable rights based on which situations human are innately born with. If human are born as a women, certain traits of women rights, which are conditions women are born with, become inalienable and vice versa. Since the unequal playing field is an innate circumstance, conceptually, the question is whether it is fair for such that we impose equal burden to everyone/every country or we should equalize the unequal playing field? This is conceptually very troublesome! The World has not decided on this matter, and as a matter of fact would not want to decide on this matter. On the one hand, developed countries say that unequal playing field is a situation everyone is born with, not a result of their bad deeds, including economic resources; therefore, it is not fair to ask U.S or E.C. to sacrifice this advantage for developing states to one point where developing states can compete on the same level as the developed states. This situation is similar to discrimination for stewardess jobs based on height. Caucasians are generally higher than Asians; therefore it is acceptable that airline companies do not hire Asians stewardess simply because they are Asians (not tall enough). On the other hand, developing and under developed countries say those innate circumstances should be remedy before the free trade is implemented, since the TWO PREMISES of free traders presuppose equal playing field. It is unfair to ask the Asians to compete with the US or EU for steward/ess jobs by measurement of height. The same principle applies to all industries with less cutting edge advantages not because developing countries are less efficient in production, but rather because of unequal playing field. In reality, developing countries such as China, wins the market competition by imposing awfully bad labor rights and environmental protection so COSTS can be squeezed. This means all products from China can be cheaper to compete with US’ products. China claims she did not exploit the environment in such severe manner as US did for 300 more years (subsequent to industrial revolution), therefore china retains the right to exploit the environment, while US has to start remedying the damaged environment. The US claims that this equal playing field should exist in market so China has to take EQUAL responsibility for preservation and protection of the environment. China says when she actually needs the environmental resources so dearly, she was required not to exploit the environment in 1980s (the booming of China economy). If the US wishes China to conserve the environment, preferential treatment and advantages have to be granted to China PROPORTIONALLY. This is similar to the following analogy. There are 10 breads to be divided for 2 persons. One is poor, while one is rich. Equality is to give the poor and rich 5 breads each, while proportionality means giving the poor 7 and the rich 3.
Above-like issues cannot be settled because there is no understanding as to what concept of equal playing field is required: innate circumstances are advantages, therefore no effort should be required to equalize such playing field OR innate circumstances are injustice, therefore efforts must be put to equalize such unequal playing field? Nonetheless, my first premise stands on the vagueness of the equality concept: is it congruent or proportional?
Second premise, assuming we come to an agreement to unequal playing field is unjust since it is innate circumstances, how can WTO principles draw a line between when positive discrimination for disadvantaged countries are enough? When enough is enough? If WTO is to create an equal playing field than current policies must discriminate advantaged countries (such as US and EU) in unequal manners to equalize the unequal playing fields. Now the biggest “catch” is how to determine to what point WTO will stop granting such positive discrimination. How to assess? Who to assess? In a simpler analogy of bread above, do we divide the breads into 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, or 9-1? This is a very delicate and complicated question no one can come out with a clear cut answer. The difficulty lies in states’ compromise to what industries (assuming US and EU are happy to do so) they should give up for other countries’ positive discrimination, foreseeability of such industries’ business potential, occurrence of urgent needs of the industrial products, and when do they stop granting such positive discrimination. Is it even possible to stop at that point of time?
All in all, the two premises I offered above paint you an ugly picture of the WTO reality. The accomplishments of the two dilemmas above are really strenuous since there are numerous political, business, and vested interest in local industry. Global Financial crisis adds up more salt to the open wound. WTO principle are currently dominated by superpower, striving very hard to maintain status quo as to information asymmetry and unequal playing field to be able to expose natural resources and economic disability of many third world countries and developing countries. As long as they maintain information and technological gaps, WTO is not a trade law of the world; it is a product of economics tyranny which is designed to pierce the economic wound of many countries in the world softly and sophisticatedly. The needle is too soft that when it gets under our skin, we do not realize it until it nearly kills us all by rupturing our vein.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Discrimination: Treating things equally? Think Again!
One of professors I most respected in my life, Joseph Weiler, once asked: “What is discrimination?” Students in WTO class answered “Different Treatment by law”. Weiler said no. There is nothing wrong with treating people differently. Discrimination is treating similar things differently and different things similarly. Analogy... imagine now you are a policy maker, required to design policy concerning quantity of toilets in public places. Since male and female “peeability” is different, you have to discriminate male by creating more female toilets than male. If you realize in your daily lives in public places, be it in a restaurant, club, or malls, the line for female toilets are much longer and shifting of one female to another female using one toilet is much slower.
Now, we come to understand male and female are different in terms of “peeability”, therefore it is justifiable to differentiate treatment. Another VERY STRENOUS CONCEPT in discrimination issue. Male and female are different in “peeability” but not in terms of humanity, i.e. rights to breathe the air. Imagine if you are from outer space, as you get closer, you will see that human and animals are different, but you cant distinguish male and female. As you get even closer now you know human consists of male and female different skin colors, height, physiological characteristics. IF you get even closer, you will understand that even man is different in terms of sexual orientation (same thing as female). In philosophical diction, i call it comparator. What discriminates things depend on the comparator. You said male is different from female in terms of peeability not the right to breathe.
Issue of discrimination has been living side by side with human’s existence, yet little understanding and consensus is reached on this area. This is the root of many evils hitherto including Environmental protection under Kyoto Protocol, rights to legal aids, particularism versus universalism, torture, terrorism, child’s trafficking, gender discrimination, extreme poverty, illiteracy and freedom of expression. The biggest catch of environmental protection is States’ ego. U.S said China should have taken at least as much commitment as US does in reducing carbon emission. China said NO, US has been polluting our earth since industrial revolution in 17-18th century. It is not fair to ask China now (since china has just been emitting carbon few decades ago) to clean up the mess US caused by taking similar commitment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
In gender issue, we are also confronted with many arguments, principally surrounding whether male and female are the same. If they are different, in what aspects they are different, i.e. physical abilities, leadership, rights to title of property or land? How to identify whether certain different treatments are due to different nature of male and female? Since physical abilities of male and female are different, we dissect Olympic competition into male and female category, especially for running and football.. But can physical abilities different justify difference in terms of rights to title of property or rights to freedom of speech? NO. This is an easy issue. What about different treatment in salary and career wise because women get pregnant and are physically weaker? So, even if a man and a woman are equally qualified for certain jobs, a boss differentiates their salaries and career development. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Protection of aliens and citizens. States argue that citizens pay tax and are born with legal rights and obligations to the State, so it is fair to differentiate standard of treatment for aliens and citizens. Aliens/foreigners dont have to pay tax (VAT). If you travel to Europe and shop, you can claim for tax reimbursement in airport. The reason is because you are not enjoying the facilities the State provides for its citizen, such as free education, infrastructure, and housing subsidy. On the contrary, foreigners are discriminated in terms of quota of education in prestigious university in that country. Germany allows only 20% foreigners sitting in heidelberg (hypothetically), singapore puts quota on foreign students, irrespective of how smart the foreign student is! IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Rights of disabled children. Government in many countries spent 20-30% of educational budget for infrastructure that is intended to accommodate students with disabilities. In that particular country as well, as many as 20 million children do not go to school because of poverty. Suppose building special elevators costs 1000 and providing free education for 1 child is 20. The result of special elevators project helps 50 children with disabilities, while if this money is spent for free education it results in 500 normal children at school. Now if government decides to allocate this money for 500 normal children, it is different treatment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Last point, WAR. I have much passion in this issue. Suppose State A attacks State B because of abundant oil reserves in State B. State A also attacks State C with more oil reserves. When State A attacks State B, its soldiers cruelly killed the citizen and soldiers of State B because they are of different religion, ALTHOUGH STATE B doesnt fight back! Historically State C has been in tension with State B because of different political beliefs. When State A attacks State C, State C resists and it results in a huge war, a lot of lives are lost (torture, extreme gross violation of human rights), buildings are destroyed, and economy is down. Ramifications are tremendous! State A is sued B and C before an international court. State A was punished with full reparation made to B and long life embarrassment, while in the case of State C, State A only has to make partial reparation and that s all. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Now the most sensitive issue in Indonesia. Chinese Discrimination. Few days ago, i argued tensely with my friend that Chinese has been discriminated until now. He said no. Bataknese is also discriminated when they come to Jakarta and deal with Javanese officials. It is normal because every race feels this sense of chauvinism. This sense of chauvinism grows into the practice of collusion. So he said, since not only chinese who was treated differently in Java, but also bataknese, there is no discrimination. WRONG! Discrimination happens because of different treatment that is measured by damage and quality of hatred. If Chinese is no treated similar to bataknese in Java, there is no discrimination amonng bataknese and chinese, but there is discrimination against chinese in Java. Discrimination doesn t happen ONLY IF the JAVANESE is treated similarly in Java as well. Now my friend gets smarter. He said Chinese in 1960 enjoys all the economic facilities while indonesian (pribumi) enjoys political careers. This political and economics trade off is meant to maintain US' support to Indonesia by means of international recognition. If Indonesia places the Chinese in political structure, it will be viewed by US as communist country. SO indonesia decided not to. Therefore, Chinese should be treated differently in terms of economy right now, such as pay more for driving license, permit, identity card and passport (not entirely true, but it still happens!). Sigh, i said this is what is wrong. Differentiating Chinese and non Chinese for its political rights based on economy differences is not correct.You can differentiate treatment ONLY IF the difference you are using is relevant to the different treatment. FOr example peeability between male and female for different treatment if number of toilets, not the right to breathe!
The concept of discrimination is strenuous subject. As long as international community and human in general cannot strike a right balance, our world will be filled with homo homini lupus. The strong one eats the weak one. The strong one dictates human rights. The strong one tells the rest what is right and what is wrong. The weak one feels dissatisfied, outraged, rebel and WAR!
My quote “War is the child of every regime, be it classical democracy in Athens or John Locke/Montesquieu’ trias politica. It is meant to create confusion and blur the line of the perfect balance of rights. When confusion is in place, human is nothing else but animals!”
Now, we come to understand male and female are different in terms of “peeability”, therefore it is justifiable to differentiate treatment. Another VERY STRENOUS CONCEPT in discrimination issue. Male and female are different in “peeability” but not in terms of humanity, i.e. rights to breathe the air. Imagine if you are from outer space, as you get closer, you will see that human and animals are different, but you cant distinguish male and female. As you get even closer now you know human consists of male and female different skin colors, height, physiological characteristics. IF you get even closer, you will understand that even man is different in terms of sexual orientation (same thing as female). In philosophical diction, i call it comparator. What discriminates things depend on the comparator. You said male is different from female in terms of peeability not the right to breathe.
Issue of discrimination has been living side by side with human’s existence, yet little understanding and consensus is reached on this area. This is the root of many evils hitherto including Environmental protection under Kyoto Protocol, rights to legal aids, particularism versus universalism, torture, terrorism, child’s trafficking, gender discrimination, extreme poverty, illiteracy and freedom of expression. The biggest catch of environmental protection is States’ ego. U.S said China should have taken at least as much commitment as US does in reducing carbon emission. China said NO, US has been polluting our earth since industrial revolution in 17-18th century. It is not fair to ask China now (since china has just been emitting carbon few decades ago) to clean up the mess US caused by taking similar commitment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
In gender issue, we are also confronted with many arguments, principally surrounding whether male and female are the same. If they are different, in what aspects they are different, i.e. physical abilities, leadership, rights to title of property or land? How to identify whether certain different treatments are due to different nature of male and female? Since physical abilities of male and female are different, we dissect Olympic competition into male and female category, especially for running and football.. But can physical abilities different justify difference in terms of rights to title of property or rights to freedom of speech? NO. This is an easy issue. What about different treatment in salary and career wise because women get pregnant and are physically weaker? So, even if a man and a woman are equally qualified for certain jobs, a boss differentiates their salaries and career development. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Protection of aliens and citizens. States argue that citizens pay tax and are born with legal rights and obligations to the State, so it is fair to differentiate standard of treatment for aliens and citizens. Aliens/foreigners dont have to pay tax (VAT). If you travel to Europe and shop, you can claim for tax reimbursement in airport. The reason is because you are not enjoying the facilities the State provides for its citizen, such as free education, infrastructure, and housing subsidy. On the contrary, foreigners are discriminated in terms of quota of education in prestigious university in that country. Germany allows only 20% foreigners sitting in heidelberg (hypothetically), singapore puts quota on foreign students, irrespective of how smart the foreign student is! IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Rights of disabled children. Government in many countries spent 20-30% of educational budget for infrastructure that is intended to accommodate students with disabilities. In that particular country as well, as many as 20 million children do not go to school because of poverty. Suppose building special elevators costs 1000 and providing free education for 1 child is 20. The result of special elevators project helps 50 children with disabilities, while if this money is spent for free education it results in 500 normal children at school. Now if government decides to allocate this money for 500 normal children, it is different treatment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Last point, WAR. I have much passion in this issue. Suppose State A attacks State B because of abundant oil reserves in State B. State A also attacks State C with more oil reserves. When State A attacks State B, its soldiers cruelly killed the citizen and soldiers of State B because they are of different religion, ALTHOUGH STATE B doesnt fight back! Historically State C has been in tension with State B because of different political beliefs. When State A attacks State C, State C resists and it results in a huge war, a lot of lives are lost (torture, extreme gross violation of human rights), buildings are destroyed, and economy is down. Ramifications are tremendous! State A is sued B and C before an international court. State A was punished with full reparation made to B and long life embarrassment, while in the case of State C, State A only has to make partial reparation and that s all. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?
Now the most sensitive issue in Indonesia. Chinese Discrimination. Few days ago, i argued tensely with my friend that Chinese has been discriminated until now. He said no. Bataknese is also discriminated when they come to Jakarta and deal with Javanese officials. It is normal because every race feels this sense of chauvinism. This sense of chauvinism grows into the practice of collusion. So he said, since not only chinese who was treated differently in Java, but also bataknese, there is no discrimination. WRONG! Discrimination happens because of different treatment that is measured by damage and quality of hatred. If Chinese is no treated similar to bataknese in Java, there is no discrimination amonng bataknese and chinese, but there is discrimination against chinese in Java. Discrimination doesn t happen ONLY IF the JAVANESE is treated similarly in Java as well. Now my friend gets smarter. He said Chinese in 1960 enjoys all the economic facilities while indonesian (pribumi) enjoys political careers. This political and economics trade off is meant to maintain US' support to Indonesia by means of international recognition. If Indonesia places the Chinese in political structure, it will be viewed by US as communist country. SO indonesia decided not to. Therefore, Chinese should be treated differently in terms of economy right now, such as pay more for driving license, permit, identity card and passport (not entirely true, but it still happens!). Sigh, i said this is what is wrong. Differentiating Chinese and non Chinese for its political rights based on economy differences is not correct.You can differentiate treatment ONLY IF the difference you are using is relevant to the different treatment. FOr example peeability between male and female for different treatment if number of toilets, not the right to breathe!
The concept of discrimination is strenuous subject. As long as international community and human in general cannot strike a right balance, our world will be filled with homo homini lupus. The strong one eats the weak one. The strong one dictates human rights. The strong one tells the rest what is right and what is wrong. The weak one feels dissatisfied, outraged, rebel and WAR!
My quote “War is the child of every regime, be it classical democracy in Athens or John Locke/Montesquieu’ trias politica. It is meant to create confusion and blur the line of the perfect balance of rights. When confusion is in place, human is nothing else but animals!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)