Turnbull may not be any different in approach to US ally relationship

Comments on Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University: “History can provide many lessons for Turnbull as he prepares for Trump meeting”, 3/5/2017

What you argue is obviously correct, even though it is easy said than done. Apart from some of the unbalanced nature in the relationship between the two countries, there is also an issue of being politically correct that makes few in the government dare to argue for an more meaningful, equal and beneficial relationship between Australia and the USA. This latter point applies to both major parties equally.

Turnbull now embraces Gonski school funding approach

Comments on Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra: “Turnbull announces schools funding and a new Gonski review”, 3/05/2017

While it is understandable to have doubt about and to be cynical at the Coalition government’s turn of event in education, we should give reasonable benefit of doubt that this change of heart and its embrace of Gonski to some degree may be a good thing, given that the two major parties now are all not opposed to Gonski.

If both cooperates with bipartisan support, then it will be a good thing for school education and students in Australia.

Second airport in Sydney and fast train linking Canberra to Sydney

Comments on Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra: “Government to build second Sydney airport”, 3/05/201

Has the government done a comparative study on which would be the most beneficial and economic option to resolve the expected increase in air travel around Sydney, of the following two options: first one as the government proposal for an airport in and the second one is to build fast train between Sydney and Canberra as the first of potentially a longer eastern coast fast train line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne/Geelong? The latter would also have other benefits than simple another airport would offer.

A better approach to sharing ideas and beliefs for a better world

Comments on Jieun Baek, Oxford University: “Send North Korea media before missiles”,
2/05/2017

Firstly, I appreciate the idea and proposal by the author to send media before missiles to North Korea to avoid war and achieve better outcomes for all parties concerned, particularly those in the region which may be directly affected by a war in a huge way as opposed to those parties outside the region which may not be affected much by such a war in the Korea peninsular.

Secondly, I think we need to go beyond and above the purpose of spreading or achieving liberal democracy everywhere in the world and instead to aim at purely information and ideas sharing without hoping our own system and beliefs will prevail and dominate others'.

Now it is probably a fact that no significant forces, organisations and countries are still trying to spread communism and trying to achieve communist revolutions in other countries following the collapse of the former USSR and the East Communist bloc and the introduction of reforms and open door policy in China.

However, we have continued to see the efforts and actions including some not so subtle ones to transform the world into all liberal democracy, such as the Arab Springs and the color revolutions in some other countries.

I think it is time that we need to redefine ideas competition for the benefit of all human beings and that we don't impose our own onto others and let people to choose. Maybe that is true democracy!

Better first things first on North Korea nuclear issues

Comments on Tom Le, Pomona College: “Living with failure on the Korean Peninsula”, 3/05/2017

While it is a legitimate concern on the human right conditions of the people in North Korea, the task of dealing with the NK nuclear and missiles issue is so paramount that it would not be very helpful to mix these two issues together. Besides, while it is admirable to have high international standards in terms of human rights, it should for most cases be left to each country to handle it. Essentially that should be the responsibility of the government of each country.

In terms of the NK nuclear and missiles issues, I tend to agree with China that every side needs, has to or must give a little so that every side can gain from a settlement of the issues. That means the US should be mindful enough not to continue to post a threat to the existence of the NK irrespective what and what kind of regimes it may have. They may have a regime we don’t like, but we should not attempt too much in having each regime in the world to our own like.

I think if every side is sincere enough to resolve the issues and rid of the Korea peninsular off nuclear weapons, I don’t think it is impossible to achieve. But we need to focus on the main issues and make our best effort to do that. We should definitely avoid mingle too many issues together unnecessarily.