[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Stability impossible without respon



Subject: Re: Stability impossible without responsibility' (Reposting)


Dear Mr. James Chu:

What an ample light in presentation of your farm ideology to us subscribers
and the people of Burma? I have never heard of the combinative word like
"stability & responsibility," but "rights & responsibility".Yes we do know
very well that what our rights and responsibilities are, and so, we also
know what should we deserve and preserve for we people.

I hope that you know, Mr.Chu, what a government or state is and what its
end is?
We all need fundamental rights and freedom of speech, freedom of
expression,  those are essentially needed, so that sharing of ideologies,
doctrines and creeds will be appeared between each and every individual.
What I mean in this sense is an individual is part of the society in which
he belongs and both of them are unseparated, interacting to each other. The
society itself also acquires speed for further progress of people in the
forms of conflicts, struggles, fighting ideologically as well as
physically, that human history has shown us, is called "revolution". Don't
think that we are anarchist, we do respect the laws which are enforced by
people's government for the sake of common interest of all.

You talked too much of "stability" and oppose conflict. Yes, conflicts of
human being is as old as our planet and universal phenomena, please do not
avoid and pretend  it. Everything is unpermanent, changing in every second,
minute, decade and century and known as "truth".

A government that exerts in implementing of its decisions into practice
without people's wills is despotic, dictator, and all civilized communities
will never allow such a system, power of the state is in the hand of
possessive class like the SLORC/SPDC.

Yes, Mr. Chu, neither rights nor responsibility go alone, "The rights
without responsibility is chaos as you said, and "the responsibility
without rights is slavery". These two are like the two sides of a same
coin, and unbreakable that we all who firmly believe in democratic
principle know very well.


Sincerely,
Mya Theik



=========================================================
At I:I I/I/I EST, OKKAR66129@xxxxxxx wrote:
>From: myanmar@xxxxxxxxx (Myanmar)
>
>
>Stability impossible without 'responsibility' (Reposting)
>
>=====================================================
>(Note: a system built on the foundation stone of responsibility is
>harmonious, stable, highly efficient, flexible, dynamic and
>liberating. By contrast, a system built on the foundation stone of
>"rights" is confrontational, unstable, inefficient, rigid, static,
>binding and restrictive. )
>
>=====================================================
>
>The human rights movement, like the democratic movement, has been
>sweeping across the globe.
>
>Politicians from the East and the West are seizing the opportunity,
>and mobilising large numbers of people to pressure their governments
>to implement laws protecting human rights.
>
>The term human rights sounds like a wonderful concept. Hong Kong,
>being at the world's crossroads, has also been affected by this call
>for human rights. Yet, few of us have really sat down to examine what
>we mean by human rights.
>
>Presumably when we talk of this concept, we are referring to something
>that "the government cannot take away" from a person. It is a concept
>that implies ownership of something. The most famous human right is
>that of free speech, enshrined in the United States Constitution.
>
>However, what does it actually mean in practice? If you walked in
>front of the White House with a placard declaring your intention to
>kill the US president, you would quickly be arrested. Take another
>example. The rights of the non-smoker in a theatre are protected by
>prohibiting smokers from lighting up their cigarettes.
>
>In other words, one person's right is another person's limitation.
>That's why we always hear phrases like "fighting for our rights". It
>is a fight because if one person is given a right, another person may,
>as a consequence, be deprived of a right.
>
>Any system that is based on a series of conflicts, is unstable and a
>balance can only be found through what I would call external force. By
>that I mean the legal and judicial systems and the police, who enforce
>the decisions of the legislature and the Judiciary. That is why the
>country that has the largest number of rights for its people, also has
>the highest number of laws and the largest police force. The system in
>the US proves my point.
>
>Because stability is only maintained by the presence of the police
>force, whenever officers turn their backs, chaos erupt. In January of
>this year, an armoured truck overturned in Florida, and spilled half a
>million dollars on to the road. Less than $30 was recovered.
>
>By contrast, look at the major earthquake in 1995, which hit the city
>of Kobe, in Japan.
>
>The world watched in awe as the people of Kobe tried to recover from
>their misfortune. Television cameras showed collapsed homes with money
>and jewellery lying everywhere, yet people just walked on by and left
>the valuables untouched. Police and soldiers were not called out to
>deal with looting, because there was no looting.
>
>The reason for this is simple. The Japanese culture is probably the
>only one left in the world that is built entirely on the concept of
>"responsibility" rather than of  "rights".
>
>A system based on "responsibility" is inherently a stable system.
>
>In fact, a system built on the foundation stone of responsibility is
>harmonious, stable, highly efficient, flexible, dynamic and
>liberating. This idea of responsibility is  mostly found in the
>ancient Eastern thinking of, for example, China, Korea and Japan.
>
>By contrast, a system built on the foundation stone of "rights" is
>confrontational, unstable, inefficient, rigid, static, binding and
>restrictive. This idea of rights is prevalent in modern Western
>thinking, in Europe and the US.
>
>It is easy to see why the ancient sages of China talked about
>responsibility rather than rights.
>
>Kobe is a shining example of what can achieved anywhere in the world.
>But to achieve that sort of society, we must abandon the whole idea of
>"human rights" and,  instead, embrace the idea of "human
>responsibility".
>
>The question now is: are we going to blindly follow the idea of
>"rights" and risk destroying everything, or are we going to champion
>the idea of "responsibility" and start building a society of which we
>can all be proud?
>
>JAMES CHU 
>Central 
>
>
>Excerpt from South China Morning Post's Comment & Analysis
>(20.3.97)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>--
>  
> 
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
>
>
>Want to be able to search your own site? Click here.
>Copyright c 1994-98 Infoseek Corporation. All rights reserved. 
>Disclaimer 
>
>Certain portions Copyright c 1995-98 Deja News, Inc. All rights
>reserved.  
> 
>
>     
>Automotive
>Business
>Careers
>Communications
>Computer
>Education
>Entertainment
>The Good Life
>Health
>Internet
>Kids & Family
>News
>Personal Finance
>Real Estate
>Shopping
>Sports
>Travel
>Women's
>       
> 
>
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
>
>
>
> 
>Article 222 of exactly 554 help 
>  <<
>Previous
>Article   >>
>Next
>Article   /\
>Current
>Results    Author Profile 
>View Thread  Email Reply 
>Bookmark 
>Text Only  
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>--
>
>Subject:      Stability impossible without 'responsibility'
>(Reposting)
>From:         myanmar@xxxxxxxxx (Myanmar.)
>Date:         1997/04/21
>Message-ID:   <5jfuv1$1k5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Newsgroups:   soc.culture.burma,soc.culture.asean 
>[More Headers]
>Stability impossible without 'responsibility' (Reposting)
>
>The human rights movement, like the democratic movement, has been
>sweeping across the globe.
>
>Politicians from the East and the West are seizing the opportunity,
>and mobilising large numbers of people to pressure their governments
>to implement laws protecting human rights.
>
>The term human rights sounds like a wonderful concept. Hong Kong,
>being at the world's crossroads, has also been affected by this call
>for human rights. Yet, few of us have really sat down to examine what
>we mean by human rights.
>
>Presumably when we talk of this concept, we are referring to something
>that "the government cannot take away" from a person. It is a concept
>that implies ownership of something. The most famous human right is
>that of free speech, enshrined in the United States Constitution.
>
>However, what does it actually mean in practice? If you walked in
>front of the White House with a placard declaring your intention to
>kill the US president, you would quickly be arrested. Take another
>example. The rights of the non-smoker in a theatre are protected by
>prohibiting smokers from lighting up their cigarettes.
>
>In other words, one person's right is another person's limitation.
>That's why we always hear phrases like "fighting for our rights". It
>is a fight because if one person is given a right, another person may,
>as a consequence, be deprived of a right.
>
>Any system that is based on a series of conflicts, is unstable and a
>balance can only be found through what I would call external force. By
>that I mean the legal and judicial systems and the police, who enforce
>the decisions of the legislature and the Judiciary. That is why the
>country that has the largest number of rights for its people, also has
>the highest number of laws and the largest police force. The system in
>the US proves my point.
>
>Because stability is only maintained by the presence of the police
>force, whenever officers turn their backs, chaos erupt. In January of
>this year, an armoured truck overturned in Florida, and spilled half a
>million dollars on to the road. Less than $30 was recovered.
>
>By contrast, look at the major earthquake in 1995, which hit the city
>of Kobe, in Japan.
>
>The world watched in awe as the people of Kobe tried to recover from
>their misfortune. Television cameras showed collapsed homes with money
>and jewellery lying everywhere, yet people just walked on by and left
>the valuables untouched. Police and soldiers were not called out to
>deal with looting, because there was no looting.
>
>The reason for this is simple. The Japanese culture is probably the
>only one left in the world that is built entirely on the concept of
>"responsibility" rather than of  "rights".
>
>A system based on "responsibility" is inherently a stable system.
>
>In fact, a system built on the foundation stone of responsibility is
>harmonious, stable, highly efficient, flexible, dynamic and
>liberating. This idea of responsibility is  mostly found in the
>ancient Eastern thinking of, for example, China, Korea and Japan.
>
>By contrast, a system built on the foundation stone of "rights" is
>confrontational, unstable, inefficient, rigid, static, binding and
>restrictive. This idea of rights is prevalent in modern Western
>thinking, in Europe and the US.
>
>It is easy to see why the ancient sages of China talked about
>responsibility rather than rights.
>
>Kobe is a shining example of what can achieved anywhere in the world.
>But to achieve that sort of society, we must abandon the whole idea of
>"human rights" and,  instead, embrace the idea of "human
>responsibility".
>
>The question now is: are we going to blindly follow the idea of
>"rights" and risk destroying everything, or are we going to champion
>the idea of "responsibility" and start building a society of which we
>can all be proud?
>
>JAMES CHU 
>Central 
>
>
>Excerpt from South China Morning Post's Comment & Analysis
>(20.3.97)