Comments on Joe Kelly “Rudd questions Victorian premier's claims over health reform”, 15/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/rudd-questions-victorian-premiers-claims-over-health-reform/story-e6frgczf-1225853963661
Rudd is not only "not entirely true in his remarks on the Victoria public hospitals, but also completely false in his claim that What Premier Brumby is saying that that is ‘just give us another blank cheque, to the states, and we’ll see you in the morning,’ and that “Well frankly that’s a system that’s operated for a long time. It hasn’t worked. Our approach is quite different, which is the current system is working. We need to fix it.”
How could he be talking nonsense to the public under the day light like that? What the Brumby plan has quite a number of commonalities to Rudd's own plan, such as a clearer funding mechanism and a clearer responsibilities. It is not a perfect plan for sure, nor is Rudd's. But the Brumby plan is superior to Rudd's.
Further, to say that Victoria's public hospitals are not the best in the nation in some areas is hypocritical and misleading. It does not need to be the best in every area, but as long as in totality, it is the best. That is the end of the story, period.
Adam Creswell the health editor of the Australian is clearly confusing the public and mudding the water. His articles are unhelpful and it will be interesting to see what his real motives are.
Let’s, including the media, the PM, and everyone, be honest!
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
2010-03-30
Publicity, dishonesty, misleading information and truth
Comments on David Hamilton’s comments on my comments, 30/03/2010, see http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/28/the-chinese-legal-system-and-the-stern-hu-case/
Your suspicion is noticed.
There is no question that the Chinese legal system is different from that in Australia, and what is available in Australia may not always be available in China involving a legal case.
But, have a look at what has been happening in Australia involving this case. Some of Australian media reports or comments have just been incredible!
For example, even after the admission of receiving bribery by those involved, some media were still talking about they don't know whether it was under duress or forced admission.
Tell me if you can please, how do those people on earth know every detail of every case in the world? Why didn't they contact the Australian consular in Shanghai for that matter or for a bit of clarification?
Of course, there will be no one to sue them for defamation - they are free to say whatever they wish, that is what their freedom is about!
Now in terms of your specific point. If the Chinese legal system handles confidential matters in closed fashion if a party to it asks for that, then regrettably one has to accept that is still the case in China. There is no point to score some points either politically or audience purpose, even by misleading methods or information. In this case, at least the bribery part of the court hearing was open. What does that mean? Does it mean "no way of assessing whether the trial was conducted fairly or impartially"? Is that statement right?
There was clearly something, as opposed to nothing, to use to assess, even though it is incomplete. Why ignore that part and state something that is obviously wrong?
Give me a break!
Your suspicion is noticed.
There is no question that the Chinese legal system is different from that in Australia, and what is available in Australia may not always be available in China involving a legal case.
But, have a look at what has been happening in Australia involving this case. Some of Australian media reports or comments have just been incredible!
For example, even after the admission of receiving bribery by those involved, some media were still talking about they don't know whether it was under duress or forced admission.
Tell me if you can please, how do those people on earth know every detail of every case in the world? Why didn't they contact the Australian consular in Shanghai for that matter or for a bit of clarification?
Of course, there will be no one to sue them for defamation - they are free to say whatever they wish, that is what their freedom is about!
Now in terms of your specific point. If the Chinese legal system handles confidential matters in closed fashion if a party to it asks for that, then regrettably one has to accept that is still the case in China. There is no point to score some points either politically or audience purpose, even by misleading methods or information. In this case, at least the bribery part of the court hearing was open. What does that mean? Does it mean "no way of assessing whether the trial was conducted fairly or impartially"? Is that statement right?
There was clearly something, as opposed to nothing, to use to assess, even though it is incomplete. Why ignore that part and state something that is obviously wrong?
Give me a break!
2009-07-10
What does not ring true, Mr Stewart?
Comments on Cameron Stewart "Stern Hu spy call does not ring true", 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25759160-5013871,00.html
The following is his article in The Australian.
CHINA'S allegations that Australian citizen and Rio Tinto employee Stern Hu is involved in espionage and stealing state secrets are almost certainly baseless.
If they were not - and Mr Hu were a spy for the Australian government - these events would be most unlikely to have unfolded in the public domain.
The biggest clue that Mr Hu is not on the payroll of the Australian government is in the cryptic but deliberate language used by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. He referred repeatedly to being "very surprised" by the allegations of espionage.
Even the game of espionage is played by a rough set of rules.
Most countries have declared spies and undeclared spies. China would know the identities of some of Australia's intelligence officers stationed there, and not the identities of others.
If Mr Hu were an undeclared government agent, there is no way the Foreign Minister would be commenting on it in public.
An example of how real spy games unfold was in 1993 when a Russian turncoat told the CIA there was a large Russian spy ring operating in Canberra under diplomatic cover. The CIA told ASIO, which told the Keating government, which quietly expelled six Russian agents from Australia. Their expulsion was never publicly announced.
How shallow and illogic is this whole article!
Why must a spy to be working for a government or on a government's payroll? Why can't a spy work for some companies and organisations? Why can't espionage be for commercial reasons?
All the arguments in the article are as the article title says - do not ring true. They are baseless, and wrong.
It is interesting to see that this nonsensical and illogical piece can be published in The Australian. The value of the newspaper is thereful also questionable.
The following is his article in The Australian.
CHINA'S allegations that Australian citizen and Rio Tinto employee Stern Hu is involved in espionage and stealing state secrets are almost certainly baseless.
If they were not - and Mr Hu were a spy for the Australian government - these events would be most unlikely to have unfolded in the public domain.
The biggest clue that Mr Hu is not on the payroll of the Australian government is in the cryptic but deliberate language used by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. He referred repeatedly to being "very surprised" by the allegations of espionage.
Even the game of espionage is played by a rough set of rules.
Most countries have declared spies and undeclared spies. China would know the identities of some of Australia's intelligence officers stationed there, and not the identities of others.
If Mr Hu were an undeclared government agent, there is no way the Foreign Minister would be commenting on it in public.
An example of how real spy games unfold was in 1993 when a Russian turncoat told the CIA there was a large Russian spy ring operating in Canberra under diplomatic cover. The CIA told ASIO, which told the Keating government, which quietly expelled six Russian agents from Australia. Their expulsion was never publicly announced.
How shallow and illogic is this whole article!
Why must a spy to be working for a government or on a government's payroll? Why can't a spy work for some companies and organisations? Why can't espionage be for commercial reasons?
All the arguments in the article are as the article title says - do not ring true. They are baseless, and wrong.
It is interesting to see that this nonsensical and illogical piece can be published in The Australian. The value of the newspaper is thereful also questionable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
