Comments on Matthew Franklin “PM Julia Gillard promises reform wave”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-promises-reform-wave/story-fn59niix-1225937893280
The government's NBN has done enough damage to Labor and the government's credibility on reforms, productivity, and Gillard's announcement of rail link in Sydney during the election campaign and her now saying "A rigorous, disciplined drive for reform has to inform all our economic decision-making," and "I want to take the market-based tools that have made our financial and industrial capital so much more productive" and etc.
What about her policy on the run, including the citizens' assembly during the election and now being dumped? No carbon tax during the election and now not ruling out it? Her minsitry names fiasco?
So far, it has not been looking too goo d for Gillard.
How can people believe anything they say?
Politics is hard, but it shouldn’t be that hypocritical and lack of integrity!
Showing posts with label political integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political integrity. Show all posts
2010-10-13
2009-07-27
Issues surrounding the "Labor's China Inc" need through investigation
Comments on Glenn Milne “Labor's China Inc is starting to smell fishy”, 27/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25838637-33435,00.html
This article has raised serious issues related to the “Labor’s China Inc”. The Rudd government should establish an anti-corruption commission style inquiry to clear the air, either to prove its parliamentary members are innocent, or to take actions, including possibly criminal prosecutions to rid the government off any serious corruption.
Some sequences of the facts presented in this article raises serious possibility of “inside trading” involving possibly government or commercial information before what was occurring latter on. Whether government officials were involved or not, it must be investigated.
This article and the issues it raised also put some further clouds over the affair of Mr Stern Hu’s detention by Chinese authorities. If implications of this article are true that “Labor’s China Inc”, potentially, could have been involved in improper business conduct in Australia here, then what could it happen in China? One has to wonder.
This article has raised serious issues related to the “Labor’s China Inc”. The Rudd government should establish an anti-corruption commission style inquiry to clear the air, either to prove its parliamentary members are innocent, or to take actions, including possibly criminal prosecutions to rid the government off any serious corruption.
Some sequences of the facts presented in this article raises serious possibility of “inside trading” involving possibly government or commercial information before what was occurring latter on. Whether government officials were involved or not, it must be investigated.
This article and the issues it raised also put some further clouds over the affair of Mr Stern Hu’s detention by Chinese authorities. If implications of this article are true that “Labor’s China Inc”, potentially, could have been involved in improper business conduct in Australia here, then what could it happen in China? One has to wonder.
2009-07-10
Mr Turnbull is rushing again - this time on the detention of Mr Hu and on international affairs
Comments on the news report “China accuses Rio Tinto's Hu of bribery during iron ore negotiations”, 10/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Hu-accused-of-bribery-during-negotiation-TT7D5?OpenDocument
Mr Turnbull is acting irresponsibly now. He says “Mr Hu deserves to be protected, he deserves the protection and the intervention of the Australian prime minister.” What if Mr Hu really violated Chinese laws? If that is the case, why should he deserve protection and protection of Australian prime minister? Isn’t it a ridiculer argument? What nonsense is that?
You say that “It is completely unacceptable”. What is acceptable to you? Do you want China not to prosecute any person who breaches its laws? Do you also want that to be applied in Australia?
Mr Turnbull says “He (Mr Hu) was arrested by the Chinese secret police, taken to an unknown location, and is being held there without access to his family, his employers, to a lawyer or to consular officials ... an extraordinary denial of human rights”. Mr Hu was arrested in China presumably according to Chinese laws. There are agreements between Australia and China on reporting of detetion of each other’s citizen and the time within which consular access must be given, as the Australian foreign minister has said. So far it has not been reported that China has breached those agreements. So why was the matter an extraordinary denial of human rights, Mr Turnbull? Doesn’t it show you violate the rights of others by wrongfully accusing China, by asking for special favour for an accused person without knowing if those accusations are correct or not? Isn’t this another of your acting in a rushed, emotional and unchecked and unbalanced manner as you did in accusing Rudd misleading the parliament for that you have been burnt severely?
As the opposition leader of this country, you should act responsibly and reasonably. Political opportunistic actions are unlikely to earn you the respect you seek. If you continue act like this, your position as the opposition leader is unlikely to last long. You shouldn’t be hypocritical in talking about human rights by denying the rights of a nation!
Mr Turnbull is acting irresponsibly now. He says “Mr Hu deserves to be protected, he deserves the protection and the intervention of the Australian prime minister.” What if Mr Hu really violated Chinese laws? If that is the case, why should he deserve protection and protection of Australian prime minister? Isn’t it a ridiculer argument? What nonsense is that?
You say that “It is completely unacceptable”. What is acceptable to you? Do you want China not to prosecute any person who breaches its laws? Do you also want that to be applied in Australia?
Mr Turnbull says “He (Mr Hu) was arrested by the Chinese secret police, taken to an unknown location, and is being held there without access to his family, his employers, to a lawyer or to consular officials ... an extraordinary denial of human rights”. Mr Hu was arrested in China presumably according to Chinese laws. There are agreements between Australia and China on reporting of detetion of each other’s citizen and the time within which consular access must be given, as the Australian foreign minister has said. So far it has not been reported that China has breached those agreements. So why was the matter an extraordinary denial of human rights, Mr Turnbull? Doesn’t it show you violate the rights of others by wrongfully accusing China, by asking for special favour for an accused person without knowing if those accusations are correct or not? Isn’t this another of your acting in a rushed, emotional and unchecked and unbalanced manner as you did in accusing Rudd misleading the parliament for that you have been burnt severely?
As the opposition leader of this country, you should act responsibly and reasonably. Political opportunistic actions are unlikely to earn you the respect you seek. If you continue act like this, your position as the opposition leader is unlikely to last long. You shouldn’t be hypocritical in talking about human rights by denying the rights of a nation!
2009-06-25
Swan's selective use of IMF report
Comments on the report “Swan welcomes IMF assessment”, 25/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Swan-welcomes-IMF-assessment-pd20090625-TBTTF?OpenDocument
This is another poor and desperate show by a desperate man the Treasurer.
Swan selected what was good for him while avoid what was bad for conveniently. For example, the following sentence is quoted from the IMF report: "Output will likely remain below potential for a number of years, reducing core inflation."
What does that statement by IMF suggest of his budget projection of above trend growth of 4.5% from 2011-12? The Treasury growth forecast has been questioned and criticised by some economists and commentators in Australia. Why didn’t Swan mention that IMF indicates his growth projection is unrealistic?
An interesting and awkward selective performance by an incompetent and politically seriously wounded Treasurer who should resign over the OzCar affairs, but stubbornly refused to do so helped by a mistake by the opposition leader in his tactics.
While it was lucky for Swan for now, it is bad for the nation and the country. The taxpayers will suffer more from his incompetence in managing the economy and the government budget. It remains the case that the earlier this incompetent Treasurer resigns, the better for him, the government, Labour, taxpayers, the nation and the country.
This is another poor and desperate show by a desperate man the Treasurer.
Swan selected what was good for him while avoid what was bad for conveniently. For example, the following sentence is quoted from the IMF report: "Output will likely remain below potential for a number of years, reducing core inflation."
What does that statement by IMF suggest of his budget projection of above trend growth of 4.5% from 2011-12? The Treasury growth forecast has been questioned and criticised by some economists and commentators in Australia. Why didn’t Swan mention that IMF indicates his growth projection is unrealistic?
An interesting and awkward selective performance by an incompetent and politically seriously wounded Treasurer who should resign over the OzCar affairs, but stubbornly refused to do so helped by a mistake by the opposition leader in his tactics.
While it was lucky for Swan for now, it is bad for the nation and the country. The taxpayers will suffer more from his incompetence in managing the economy and the government budget. It remains the case that the earlier this incompetent Treasurer resigns, the better for him, the government, Labour, taxpayers, the nation and the country.
2009-05-05
PM should stick with promised tax cuts
Kevin Rudd and his government should be commended if they stick with their key election commitment on tax cuts, at least keep the integrity of it. It may be and is likely to be unpopular, but it will demonstrate the PM and the government’s resolve to integrity, credibility and resolve to be economically/budgetary conservative and work hard to make the economy more efficient, even we are faced with the unprecedented world financial and economic crisis and enormous difficulties for any government to manage the economy and budget. On the other hand, if the government scraps agreed tax cuts, it will be viewed as cowards to avoid hard issues and only be interested in seeking easy and popular measures instead of working hard and intelligently to resolve hard issues. Popularity, though important in politics, should not be confused with good a government. The issue will be a real test for the PM and the government. The report, if it happens, will show a resilient government to withstand the test and show its true leadership. It needs this especially now at this time, and very badly so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
