So Bart (William Shakespeare) was right when he wrote in ‘As You Like It’

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts,…


Wow! So can I conclude that the Olympic Games offered to China was really a political ploy on ‘human rights issue’ by the IOC eventhough this was not a unanimous vote?

The drama is becoming more interesting as each day unfolds.

Hm…what about the forthcoming Youth Olympics Games that will be held in Singapore 2010? The toss was between Russia’s Moscow? and Singapore…both have issues — I believe protest is illegal in Singapore.

If this is the case, Singapore had better consider exit considering the monies and future stresses. 


In school, I was taught to memorise some apt proverbs for English subject. I see its relevance today when I can use these to understand a little of that written by the media.

At the moment, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ stands out.

One interprets that read depending on which side of the fence one is sitting on.

I pick ‘the talking point’ below for convenience and I like the perspective of the Chinese to the recent Olympics Torch fiasco.




Now I’m going to lift a section of news reported:

The Dalai Lama, on a visit to Japan, said China had the right to host the Games but blamed Beijing for the unrest, saying there was no freedom of speech in his homeland.

“They really deserve” the Olympics, he said. “In spite of the unfortunate events in Tibet, my position has not changed,” he said.

Pro-Tibet groups, human rights activists and other campaigners have shadowed the flame since it was lit in Greece on March 24, starting its 20-country journey across the globe.

Protesters disrupted the torch relay this week in London and Paris, where officials had to extinguish the flame several times.

There was no major trouble in San Francisco after organisers shortened the course and switched the route. The torch is now in Buenos Aires for a planned 13-kilometre (eight-mile) relay through the Argentine capital.

The White House on Thursday shrugged off concerns about US protests targeting the flame and vowed to keep pushing China on human rights, and holding talks with the Dalai Lama.


I have many unanswered questions to the going-ons using the Olympic Games platform — personally I see this as the opportunists using this Games to vent and stir unrests and chaos.

The protestors in UK and France have brought this upon themselves — many have seen the chaos and unrests mounting — do you think China will allow such protest groups during the Olympic Games? Haha…Will the terrorist groups disguise themselves as part of the protest groups? Then the blame-game begins…

Do the Tibetans want a theocracy state or the young want to move on with the times? Why did the Dalai forsake his people in 1959? Why are the world leaders rallying behind him on this ‘label’ of ‘China’s past track records of human rights’?

Who is right? Who is wrong? Can anyone tell another how to govern one’s country?

Why is the human rights issue, the land Tibet and the Dalai taking centerstage at this Olympic Games — is the Games not a display and about the sportspersons and athletes?

Are we missing the point here? If this is, then scrap the Olympic Games…to the glee of human rights’ organisations and its leaders!

#73 freedom of speech 2

I read with great interest when I entered blog ‘What’s going on?’ http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/freedom-of-speech-under-fire/  to discover bloggers in the US can be sued by companies. This is not the first of its kind I read and know. (Can this be a hoax?…I’m just expressing my thots on that I read…)

It seems those medical blogs are most susceptible to this. I know bloggers in blogspot.com where medical doctors were sued when they expressed their doubts about certain medical issues to eventual demise of that blog.

Is this how ‘freedom of speech’ is translated? Or the netizens have no right to freedom of speech?

Can I verify: ‘Is there freedom of speech?’

Or one that applies to one country and not to another? Or are we hypocrites — wanting yet not wanting?