Response to Sabrina’s Political Findings
first of all. i’m impressed with Sabrina’s blog post on the topic of How
our leaders mock free speech .
http://wittybubblynerdy.blogspot.com/
you’re right. instead of seeing the difference we people
share, why can’t we see the common
visions we share?
instead of debates, why can’t we start a whole new thing we
call, "Anti-debate".
imagine if schools start organizing this totally other way
round debates. you fight for the OPPOSITION/ your OPPONENT, with rock solid
points, and your opponents the other way round, fighting for your stand. and
see who won the battle.
see what i see? do not disclose the hidden agenda behind the
education value of that debate, which is to surprise them at the end of the day
by asking them to reflect upon themselves, "had you just fought for your
opponents? had you not proven that they are as sound as you are or even much
better than you are?"
regardless of who you are, had you been seriously
considering the goods of your opponent instead of magnifying their bads.
can the future be better if everybody tries to make a tiny
difference by seeing others they never would have seen good as GOOD?
think about it.
imagine if somebody is able to level the
"playfield" of these opposing parties. the ex-PM perhaps, or somebody
wiser and yet has no political interest in any ways, widely recognized for his
or her impartialness. Perhaps a higher judge?
"let us all have a fair fight. let’s see if you can win
this real life debate."
"you can only win this deal/ bid by convincing us that
you see ALL the POSITIVES and that
you had checked the limitations and
CORRECT them. afterall a REAL LEADER
is a leader who can make believe amazing
possibilities and he or she will not be able to do so without the forevision of seeing the GOODs HAPPENING in
the EYE."
to the opponents, "imagine you are one of the government party leaders. what are
your strengths and how would you plan for a better national development by
using them?"
so to the government party, you expect the opposite.
"for every negative point you highlight, your 1 mark
credibility will be deducted, whereas for every positive point you highlight, you’ll get 2 marks added to your
credibility."
"let us not take our own party into the debate. for
every point we touched on our own party, 3 marks of credibility deducted!"
"let us not take this as a game, but a real deal. if
you win the debate, you win the parliament and we grant you the bid!"
"stop the fXXking rage by starting with ‘crap!
nonsense, this is totally impossible and i think it’s ridiculous because the
government/ the opposition has got NOTHING worth to be CREDITED for!’…"
"if you go about that way, you lose the bid,
effectively and immediately!" to be ruled by high court!
and we imagine the whole debate session running through and
done.
here comes the result, announcing, "the (government/
opposition) wins!"
everybody cheered and some, the losers might be pissed.
here comes the highest judge, "hadn’t we just found
some common grounds we can work together? so you win, but had you seen
something you had never given yourself a chance to see?"
let the crowds reflect upon themselves.
i’m pretty optimistic that the government party and the
opposition will shake hands and laugh together after.
if you think it’s too hard or almost impossible to have them
do so..
i have a suggestion.
assemble the youth debate talents and assign them their
roles of either side of the parties. let them study into the party first for
perhaps 1 week.
then on the exact date of the debate itself, INSTRUCT the above rules of the game by
a TWIST of CHALLENGE!
document the whole
thing. then show them to the public if it impresses them.
alternatively, assemble youth talents who are able to stage
dramas. present the sketch above and document them. but then i believe the
effect and impact wouldn’t be as strong cause it’s STAGED and PLOTTED. NOT REAL.
what do you think about it.
just my vision, hopefully it inspires.. thanks and great to
read your blog post!
=P i’m glad i know you sabrina
