davidsmeaton.com

The Korea Association for Policy Analysis and Evaluation (한국정책학회) , acting in support of the elections commission, asked the seven major presidential candidates their views on proper policy for foreigners who wish to emigrate to Korea. They were asked first if and why they they look positively on foreigners immigrating to and settling in Korea, and then how broadly their rights should be secured.All seven of the candidates looked favorably on the immigration and naturalization of foreigners. They were divided only on the relative importance of certain rights.

The GNP’s Lee Myung-bak and 창조한국당’s Mun Kuk-hyeon both answered as the former CEOs they are by saying, “from the perspective of small and medium businesses that want to import the high-quality labor and specialists they need, I support it.” The two candidates both see a need for the country to bring in foreigners to boost the economy and “improve the birth rate problem.”

Chung Dong-young of 대통합민주신당 and Lee In-jae of 민주당 said they will provide a policy to boost the birth rate. Chung said, “that is already our country’s policy, so we must continue to carry it forward.” Lee said, “we should look positively on bringing in skilled foreigners as a way of dealing with the birth rate problem.”

The three remaining candidates believed a policy is needed to deal with the progress of foreigners. Lee Hoi-chang said that to “prepare a foundational policy for the 1 million foreigners” an government office for them should be established. Kwon Yeong-gil of 민노당 called for “a society free of discrimination against foreigners,” and Shim Dae-pyeong of 국민중심당 for “a policy on foreigners that prepares us for the age of globalization.”

The generally tended to be cautious, on the rights, particularly the political rights, of foreigners, but there were nuanced differences. Two of them took a negative view, as Chung Dong-young said, “there’s no way for foreigners to have political rights” while Mu Kuk-hyeon said, “it’s possible only after a national consensus has formed.” Lee Hoi-chang said, “they should have all constitutional rights other than to vote.”

Lee Myung-bak said, “local organizations should go first,” while Shim Dae-pyeong said, “first comes political party activity, then voting in local elections, then voting in national elections,” as both candidates spoke of rights being phased in.

Lee In-jae said, “naturalized citizens must have the right not to be discriminated against.” Gwon Yeong-gil said that he believes that, for foreigners, even more important than the right to vote is the right to be treated as a native and not discriminated against.

*emphasis is mine.

this is a hell of a thing to say … not only do politicians speak positively about foreign influence and rights, but also discrimination. i’m not exactly sure how much this will influence future policies, or whether they’re talking it up to improve their election chances … or even if they’re just trying to get foreigners on side. however, it’s definitely a positive mental step forward.

the article is quite funny though … especially when it comes to talking about  how foreigners are a way of improving birth rates, by increasing the number of interracial marriages. it’s just funny how it’s worded … as if to say that foreigners will be introduced to inseminate women and make babies, like it’s a job.

if it does become a job, i’m first in line!!

sometimes history does repeat … at the nuremberg trials in 1946, hermann goering, one of hitler’s top men, ushered in this ceasar-esque statement. although some people are trying to refute this statement by saying it’s an urban myth, research has proven (from the records of the nuremberg trial) that goering did make this exact statement.

hermann goering was captured at the end of the second world war. most of hitler’s other top men had been killed or committed suicide. goering was initially confident that the nuremberg trials would go his way, but he became increasingly despondent when he realised his views of the world were not reflected by others. he was found guilty, unanimously, and sentenced to death by hanging. a few days before he was due to be hanged, someone smuggled goering a cyanide pill and he committed suicide.

it’s ironic, because everything he said can be seen in the actions of the current american bush administration.

a small online movement called free-burma.org got my attention this week. and they’re proclaiming october 4th as ‘international bloggers’ day for burma’. so, why am i posting a photograph of an amnesty international ad against china? well, i see this as an issue with many points. all of the atrocities in burma are being ignored by the global community just as much as they were 19 years ago when students rose up against the burmese government. the junta has been in control of burma for too long and nobody’s doing anything about it.

america has claimed more sanctions, but american companies like chevron are still making millions. france deplores the violence, but refuse to move their own petrolium companies from burma. the uk has also been vocal and are the second largest investor in burma. japan? asked for a mere apology, which they got, after a japanese citizen was killed. thailand? singapore? nothing …

burma still holds seats in asean and the un. neither of these seats have been taken away or threatened.

what about india? the home of ghandi and the refuge of the dalai lama … well, india is an embarrassing representation of a ‘democratic’ nation. and they’ve even been supplying burma’s military with weapons and training.

so, that leaves china. a country which i’m growing increasingly hateful towards. the chinese are brazen about their attitudes in international politics. their annexation of tibet barely registered in the global community. china also harbours north korea and burma’s military governments, defending them against criticism or retribution by america or the united nations.

china is a horribly hypocritical nation. they’re claiming to do so many wonderful things … and they’re claiming to clean up their country ahead of the olympics. while on the other hand, china continues to oppress freedoms and support the bullshit in nations like burma.

if the icc stepped in tomorrow and threatened to cancel the beijing olympics … or if a dozen powerful nations (america, england, france, germany, australia, canada and a few others) threatened to boycott the olympics, china would toss north korea and burma out into the cold. china only has china’s own interests at heart … and they continue to support despotic regimes while it suits them to do so.

if china was as civilised as they’re pretending to be, burma would be a free and democratic nation today.

support a free burma by visiting free-burma.org …

i’m not anti-american … not by a long shot. even though i’m quite vocal about my opinions of the war in iraq. americans, however, slap the anti-american tag on any form of criticism … it’s a self defense mechanism. i think bush is a shockingly bad president and the only negative thing i would say about american people is that too many people support him unconditionally … you don’t have an obligation to follow your president, you have an obligation to hold him accountable for every piece of paper he rubber stamps.

a recent survey of 1200 australians confirmed what i think is obvious and what john howard should have known is obvious: australians have no confidence in the usa and our relationship with america is suffering as a result.

howard’s response:

“This inevitably happens if a military commitment goes on for a long period of time - even if, thankfully, to date our casualties have been minimal - people after a time grow weary of it and think because it’s not quickly concluded it must be wrong,” the Prime Minister told Southern Cross Broadcasting

“I understand why people feel that way but it really does present our society with a huge challenge because that is exactly what the terrorists calculate.

“(They see) that we are used as a society to instant success and when that doesn’t come we begin to think the commitment is wrong.”

no … no … no! this is wrong. australians are unhappy because our incompetent prime minister is lumping us with a war that should never have started. the ‘coalition of the willing’ was countries willing to defy the united nations and invade iraq under america’s banner. australians are unhappy that we’ve been lied to by our own prime minister in support of this war. australians are unhappy that our citizens are over there fighting and we’re spending our tax dollars to do it.

australia is a very big country and we’ve always had problems with defense. our military, though good, is small. we can’t afford to send the military overseas to defend oil wells.

john howard is the worst prime minister australia has ever had.

i’m going to say that again because it’s important: john howard is the worst prime minister australia has ever had.

after he was elected the first time, i vowed that i’d leave australia if he got re-elected. he got re-elected … i left australia and i haven’t been back. it’s just embarrassing what that man is doing in our name. not only is he incompetent, he introduced the gst, he’s selling off australia’s government controlled assets, he supports illegal wars, and he lies about his position (even to his own party members) … he’s a terrible leader.

australians need a swift kick up the arse. we need to elect a prime minister that is responsible and is going to turn our nation around. we used to have the world’s best health care and welfare system. john howard dismantled it, sold it off, and now it’s a disgrace.

of course australians are losing confidence in america … both of our leaders are idiots who deserve to be shot in the head.