onsdag 27 april 2011
Substancial patience: the government's promise: less administration for ...
Substancial patience: the government's promise: less administration for ...: "The year was 2010, election year in Sweden. Within the promises of actual government parties one could read about the parties promise for le..."
the government's promise: less administration for minor companies...or?
The year was 2010, election year in Sweden. Within the promises of actual government parties one could read about the parties promise for less administration for small businesses, all for the purpose of lower unemployment figures in Sweden. Because: the one who cannot find a job, can always start up an own company if not scared off by the high administration level due to declarations, taxes, accounts.
Please let me remind any reader in Sweden that we could see the same promise four years earlier in 2006 and in 2010 we still could not see any changes. But a promise that has not been fullfilled after elections four years earlier, can always be re-used!
The thing that I wonder about is if our government already has forgotten about their promise to minor companies less than six months later? Halv a year has gone since elections and within one week one could read about two government suggestions regarding small businesses:
1. a special declaration in which businesses have to report all employees on a monthly base, including all information such as namn, adress, socialsecurity number, etc. Until now all employers in Sweden have to report this information once a year.
2. today you can read about a suggestion regarding companies that declare vat once a year (meaning companies with earnings less than 1MSEK) in their ordinary tax -form. Suggestion is that those companies shall report vat in a separate declaration about 3 months earlier.... this means that small companies will have higher costs for their accounting as most of them choose to outsource their accounting because of complicated tax laws. Of course: two reposrt/ declarations will cost twice as much.
Both of the suggestions above would be gratefully embraced by me, as I run an accounting firm, but would implicate such a higher cost for the small companies. I would rather see that company leaders of minor businesses would put their money into financial and structural consultancy to improve their business than into more reports to the Tax-authorities. Thing is: better functioning businesses will create more jobs, more jobs will bring down unempolyment rates and with this improve national economics. More reports will not make that difference! Instead of putting even higher administrative costs for more reports on small enterprises, give them a special premium that gives them the opportunity to engage into more particular concultancy with accountants and auditors to improve business and results! Let small businesses be able to run their companies without growing administrative impacts on their lifes and give them opportunity to chose to put their hard earned money into consultancy instead of reports!
Please let me remind any reader in Sweden that we could see the same promise four years earlier in 2006 and in 2010 we still could not see any changes. But a promise that has not been fullfilled after elections four years earlier, can always be re-used!
The thing that I wonder about is if our government already has forgotten about their promise to minor companies less than six months later? Halv a year has gone since elections and within one week one could read about two government suggestions regarding small businesses:
1. a special declaration in which businesses have to report all employees on a monthly base, including all information such as namn, adress, socialsecurity number, etc. Until now all employers in Sweden have to report this information once a year.
2. today you can read about a suggestion regarding companies that declare vat once a year (meaning companies with earnings less than 1MSEK) in their ordinary tax -form. Suggestion is that those companies shall report vat in a separate declaration about 3 months earlier.... this means that small companies will have higher costs for their accounting as most of them choose to outsource their accounting because of complicated tax laws. Of course: two reposrt/ declarations will cost twice as much.
Both of the suggestions above would be gratefully embraced by me, as I run an accounting firm, but would implicate such a higher cost for the small companies. I would rather see that company leaders of minor businesses would put their money into financial and structural consultancy to improve their business than into more reports to the Tax-authorities. Thing is: better functioning businesses will create more jobs, more jobs will bring down unempolyment rates and with this improve national economics. More reports will not make that difference! Instead of putting even higher administrative costs for more reports on small enterprises, give them a special premium that gives them the opportunity to engage into more particular concultancy with accountants and auditors to improve business and results! Let small businesses be able to run their companies without growing administrative impacts on their lifes and give them opportunity to chose to put their hard earned money into consultancy instead of reports!
måndag 18 april 2011
Substancial patience: Syria - what next?
Substancial patience: Syria - what next?: "So, now it started boiling in Syria. Made-up demonstrations and excessive media surveillance on non-existing events have led to a massive ex..."
Syria - what next?
So, now it started boiling in Syria. Made-up demonstrations and excessive media surveillance on non-existing events have led to a massive explosion of shootings, from both opponent's and regim's side, demonstrations, even those from both sides and now even published, non-official interference from USA's side. The question that the states and all other western countries should ask themselfes is: what do they want to achieve by bringing down a country like Syria? What are they winning by destroying one of the last stable dictatorships of the middle-east?
So many people are talking about how all people need democracy NOW. That all people have the right to choose and elect their own leadership just like Europe, USA, Russia. They are comparing the middle-east with the fall of Sovjet, it's movement towards democracy. But, can you really compare the fall of the Egyptian government and dictatorship with the fall of the Berlin wall? Can you compare the staged demonstrations to the great monday demonstrations in Eastern Germany (GDR) in 1989? I do not believe you can.
There are two reasons why I do not believe in these comparisons:
At first the demonstrations back in the late 80s were a great public movement defying all government interaction. Thousands and even millions of people were demonstrating against the rulership of their government and the pressure of the russian supremacy. It was a movement started by the people for the people. And this is why it became so intense. This movement might be compared to Egypt, but the question that follows is: what then? What will happen afterwards?
In Germany, western Germany (BRD) took over and democracy followed. I will leave all economic problems that followed out of sight this time. In Egypt there is no history of democracy. The country was governed by a king or a colonial power. Borders were drawn with a ruler without any consideration of clans, ethnic groups, or similar. You can already see today what happens: as military is in charge right now, demonstrators that are identified from videos are imprisoned and tortured. Religion becomes more important and devides big parts of the people. A lot of people believe it will get better after elections in September, however I am not so sure. I believe that democracy has to be taught and learned until it is possible to introduce it to a country and its people. Hopefully Egypt will receive some help to educate its people, otherwise the risk for a civil war is impending.
The second is foreign countries' interest in middle-east countries' natural assets and military impact in the region. Why would countries like USA otherwise be interested in the well-being of Syria, Egypt or Lybia? Why would they take any possible opportunity to engage in an interior conflict? This is the second, but even bigger difference between the movement in the eastern parts of Europe then and the middle-east now.
This great interest of so many different parties in these countries' internal affairs will, at the end, lead to an earthshaking experience that will make everyone wish that it never happened. An unstable middle-east region will not only push up petrol prices, produce even more refugees, raise poverty, but could even lead to a war over boundaries. Syria, Lebanon, Irak, Iran, ..... and at the end.... Israel. I look with fear at the development of Syrian protests and hope that no one forgets what's at stake here. When USA supports opposing groups in Syria with money and arms, when UN drop bombs in Lybia and put arms in opponents hands, do they know what will follow? Do they know that there will be some control over the development in those countries or will they be left on their own? I hope all of this is worth its price!
So many people are talking about how all people need democracy NOW. That all people have the right to choose and elect their own leadership just like Europe, USA, Russia. They are comparing the middle-east with the fall of Sovjet, it's movement towards democracy. But, can you really compare the fall of the Egyptian government and dictatorship with the fall of the Berlin wall? Can you compare the staged demonstrations to the great monday demonstrations in Eastern Germany (GDR) in 1989? I do not believe you can.
There are two reasons why I do not believe in these comparisons:
At first the demonstrations back in the late 80s were a great public movement defying all government interaction. Thousands and even millions of people were demonstrating against the rulership of their government and the pressure of the russian supremacy. It was a movement started by the people for the people. And this is why it became so intense. This movement might be compared to Egypt, but the question that follows is: what then? What will happen afterwards?
In Germany, western Germany (BRD) took over and democracy followed. I will leave all economic problems that followed out of sight this time. In Egypt there is no history of democracy. The country was governed by a king or a colonial power. Borders were drawn with a ruler without any consideration of clans, ethnic groups, or similar. You can already see today what happens: as military is in charge right now, demonstrators that are identified from videos are imprisoned and tortured. Religion becomes more important and devides big parts of the people. A lot of people believe it will get better after elections in September, however I am not so sure. I believe that democracy has to be taught and learned until it is possible to introduce it to a country and its people. Hopefully Egypt will receive some help to educate its people, otherwise the risk for a civil war is impending.
The second is foreign countries' interest in middle-east countries' natural assets and military impact in the region. Why would countries like USA otherwise be interested in the well-being of Syria, Egypt or Lybia? Why would they take any possible opportunity to engage in an interior conflict? This is the second, but even bigger difference between the movement in the eastern parts of Europe then and the middle-east now.
This great interest of so many different parties in these countries' internal affairs will, at the end, lead to an earthshaking experience that will make everyone wish that it never happened. An unstable middle-east region will not only push up petrol prices, produce even more refugees, raise poverty, but could even lead to a war over boundaries. Syria, Lebanon, Irak, Iran, ..... and at the end.... Israel. I look with fear at the development of Syrian protests and hope that no one forgets what's at stake here. When USA supports opposing groups in Syria with money and arms, when UN drop bombs in Lybia and put arms in opponents hands, do they know what will follow? Do they know that there will be some control over the development in those countries or will they be left on their own? I hope all of this is worth its price!
torsdag 14 april 2011
Substancial patience: Swedish Taxation and drops in unmeployment
Substancial patience: Swedish Taxation and drops in unmeployment: "There is not a month going by without any news on Sweden's high income-tax level and its impact on unemployment rates. It seems as if politi..."
Swedish Taxation and drops in unmeployment
There is not a month going by without any news on Sweden's high income-tax level and its impact on unemployment rates. It seems as if politicians today cannot see beyond one main reason why unemployment rates are not dropping anymore although the country's economy seems to be in a real boom. The reason is according to Swedish Prime minister Reinfeldt the high tax level as described above.
Income taxes here in Sweden followed a very simple formula before Reinfeldt came into the picture: about 30% of income taxe until a yearly income of 395 600 Swedish Kronas (SEK). For an income above this sum taxes will rise to 50% and for a yearly income of above 560 900 SEK taxes will be about 55%. But please note that only the marginal sums will be within the higher tax rate. And Swedish taxes are all inclusive: they include social security, pension, sickness insurance, the works. No more fees have to be paid by the employee. Compared with Germany where you can see tax-rates of about 20%, but then the employee will have to pay sickness insurance, pension insurance, unemployment insurance, ... it seems alright. The big difference is that we call it taxes, Germany calls it fees...
However, since Reinfeldt started his crusade against high taxation in sweden, we have received tax deductions for the working that decreases income taxes according to their working income, meaning: only the once who are working will receive this deduction. Reinfeldt administration says that this taxreduction has lead to declining unemployment figures. Well, please let me remind you that economics right now is moving upwards and in a boom unemployment figures ALWAYS drop. But: thing is, unemployment has not dropped as much as it was planned. So what is Reinfeldt administration's answer? Yes, of course, more tax reductions and less taxes for the people with higher income. At the same time important community parts i.e. hospitals, schools and care for elderly are sold out, not working, closing down.
I personally do not understand the advantage of another taxreduction. The last 8% of the unemployed will not start working because they have in mind that they will have to pay less taxes?! I believe that a major questions instead should be why employers are not hiring people anymore? Why do companies, both minor and large once, stop employing in good times like this? Could it be because labor is too expensive? An employer pays beyond salary even social fees that amounts to 31,42% of the gross-salary. Meaning: an employee will cost a month's salary plus 31,42% social fees. Why did not anyone discuss a reduction of those fees instead? Give employers an opportunity to hire more people for a minor cost. THIS should be a great bait for any company, espescially minor companies with a few employees and where the cost of the social fees is extremely high in relation to other costs.
In 2010 941.458 MSEK were paid as salary (including employee's taxes) from private, non-governmental comapnies (source: SCB). Above that 286.109 MSEK were paid in social fees, so the total cost for Swedish companies sums up to 1.227.567MSEK, more than a billion Swedish Kronas. Is it crazy then, to wonder if it would be more interesting to hire someone if it was cheaper? And lower taxes will not do the works, lower social fees will!
Income taxes here in Sweden followed a very simple formula before Reinfeldt came into the picture: about 30% of income taxe until a yearly income of 395 600 Swedish Kronas (SEK). For an income above this sum taxes will rise to 50% and for a yearly income of above 560 900 SEK taxes will be about 55%. But please note that only the marginal sums will be within the higher tax rate. And Swedish taxes are all inclusive: they include social security, pension, sickness insurance, the works. No more fees have to be paid by the employee. Compared with Germany where you can see tax-rates of about 20%, but then the employee will have to pay sickness insurance, pension insurance, unemployment insurance, ... it seems alright. The big difference is that we call it taxes, Germany calls it fees...
However, since Reinfeldt started his crusade against high taxation in sweden, we have received tax deductions for the working that decreases income taxes according to their working income, meaning: only the once who are working will receive this deduction. Reinfeldt administration says that this taxreduction has lead to declining unemployment figures. Well, please let me remind you that economics right now is moving upwards and in a boom unemployment figures ALWAYS drop. But: thing is, unemployment has not dropped as much as it was planned. So what is Reinfeldt administration's answer? Yes, of course, more tax reductions and less taxes for the people with higher income. At the same time important community parts i.e. hospitals, schools and care for elderly are sold out, not working, closing down.
I personally do not understand the advantage of another taxreduction. The last 8% of the unemployed will not start working because they have in mind that they will have to pay less taxes?! I believe that a major questions instead should be why employers are not hiring people anymore? Why do companies, both minor and large once, stop employing in good times like this? Could it be because labor is too expensive? An employer pays beyond salary even social fees that amounts to 31,42% of the gross-salary. Meaning: an employee will cost a month's salary plus 31,42% social fees. Why did not anyone discuss a reduction of those fees instead? Give employers an opportunity to hire more people for a minor cost. THIS should be a great bait for any company, espescially minor companies with a few employees and where the cost of the social fees is extremely high in relation to other costs.
In 2010 941.458 MSEK were paid as salary (including employee's taxes) from private, non-governmental comapnies (source: SCB). Above that 286.109 MSEK were paid in social fees, so the total cost for Swedish companies sums up to 1.227.567MSEK, more than a billion Swedish Kronas. Is it crazy then, to wonder if it would be more interesting to hire someone if it was cheaper? And lower taxes will not do the works, lower social fees will!
söndag 10 april 2011
Substancial patience: Personal choices or getting persuaded
Substancial patience: Personal choices or getting persuaded: "As my friends know, I am very interested in politics and even an active politician here in Stockholm. Together with another friend we founde..."
Personal choices or getting persuaded
As my friends know, I am very interested in politics and even an active politician here in Stockholm. Together with another friend we founded an own political association within the Swedish Socialdemocrats. For about 15 years a couple of my friends hunted me down because they wanted me to become more active and at least it became that way. Now, just 2 years after my start, I am already hesitant about the development of my political career.
I follow news about internal elections, I watch with my eyes widely opened upon the development of the party of my choice. And I ask myself: is it only within the immigrant parts of the party lobbyism and persuasion is normality before elections? Is it only within the immgrant parts of the party when a promise does not count for anything anymore? I can see that many of the discussions within the group of immigrants active in politics only concern political power, careersteps, hierarchy and ranking. I miss debates on political toppings and powerful discussions about how to improve Sweden, how to make it better for all of us immigrants.
I do not want to be a part of a situation when it does not matter anymore what I want and what I believe in, but the only thing that matters is who to elect and whom to follow to suceed in making a career. I stand for what I say and think, I stand for my thoughts and instinctive actions, I stand for making unbiased decisions instead of surrender to other people's views and choices. Will I be punished for this? We will see!
I follow news about internal elections, I watch with my eyes widely opened upon the development of the party of my choice. And I ask myself: is it only within the immigrant parts of the party lobbyism and persuasion is normality before elections? Is it only within the immgrant parts of the party when a promise does not count for anything anymore? I can see that many of the discussions within the group of immigrants active in politics only concern political power, careersteps, hierarchy and ranking. I miss debates on political toppings and powerful discussions about how to improve Sweden, how to make it better for all of us immigrants.
I do not want to be a part of a situation when it does not matter anymore what I want and what I believe in, but the only thing that matters is who to elect and whom to follow to suceed in making a career. I stand for what I say and think, I stand for my thoughts and instinctive actions, I stand for making unbiased decisions instead of surrender to other people's views and choices. Will I be punished for this? We will see!
torsdag 7 april 2011
Substancial patience: Modern economics
Substancial patience: Modern economics: "Today ECB has raised European point interest rate with 0.25 points in a time when Portugal asked for financial support to avoid bankruptcy a..."
Modern economics
Today ECB has raised European point interest rate with 0.25 points in a time when Portugal asked for financial support to avoid bankruptcy and Ireland and Greece already received a multi billion Euro package to save the countries economics. And Spain is still at risk. ECB seems to make its decisions based on good old school of economics.
When I studied at Stockholm University 10 years ago, we were taught that interset rates were to be raised in times when inflation raises above inflation goals. The big difference is that a decennium ago, inflations rates were rising in times when unemployment rates were low, countries economics were on top and Centralbanks had to subpress economics to avoid a meltdown. But do you think that unemployment rates of 8% (England), 12% (Greece), or 7.5% (Germany) are low? Or even our own Swedish economy that is described so positivly in media. But read inbetween the lines: unemployment rate of 7.6%, Industrial orders begin to sink and sinking consumtion figures. I do not think that these are signs for an upgoing and positiv development. Government incitaments of tax reductions for the working did not have the planned effect. Unemployment rates did not sink as wished and consumtion did not raise. Instead the whole EU and even the US can see raised inflation rates that put governments and Centralbanks in fear.
Well, then lets see why inflation is higher than foreseen? ECB states that it is afraid that high petrol prices will statute a higher inflation rate in the future. High petrol prices, did I not write something about petrol in the last couple of weeks? Yes, right, there were a couple of wars going on and the only winners (for now) are the weapon industry that has its show-off at the sights. Now, they can really advertise for their latest technics. Swedish ministers talked about the Swedish involvement in Lybia as if this was some kind of commercial jippo, " now we canshow how great our planes are"! Well, ok, If the weapon industry now will make much more money thanks to the problems in those petrol-generating countries that lead to a financial crisis due to higher inflation and subsequent raised interest rates... let the weapon industry help those countries in need, those countries that will have even more problems to pay of their debts because of the higher interest rate. Do not put this on our shoulders by raising interest rates according to market rules that no longer apply.
When I studied at Stockholm University 10 years ago, we were taught that interset rates were to be raised in times when inflation raises above inflation goals. The big difference is that a decennium ago, inflations rates were rising in times when unemployment rates were low, countries economics were on top and Centralbanks had to subpress economics to avoid a meltdown. But do you think that unemployment rates of 8% (England), 12% (Greece), or 7.5% (Germany) are low? Or even our own Swedish economy that is described so positivly in media. But read inbetween the lines: unemployment rate of 7.6%, Industrial orders begin to sink and sinking consumtion figures. I do not think that these are signs for an upgoing and positiv development. Government incitaments of tax reductions for the working did not have the planned effect. Unemployment rates did not sink as wished and consumtion did not raise. Instead the whole EU and even the US can see raised inflation rates that put governments and Centralbanks in fear.
Well, then lets see why inflation is higher than foreseen? ECB states that it is afraid that high petrol prices will statute a higher inflation rate in the future. High petrol prices, did I not write something about petrol in the last couple of weeks? Yes, right, there were a couple of wars going on and the only winners (for now) are the weapon industry that has its show-off at the sights. Now, they can really advertise for their latest technics. Swedish ministers talked about the Swedish involvement in Lybia as if this was some kind of commercial jippo, " now we canshow how great our planes are"! Well, ok, If the weapon industry now will make much more money thanks to the problems in those petrol-generating countries that lead to a financial crisis due to higher inflation and subsequent raised interest rates... let the weapon industry help those countries in need, those countries that will have even more problems to pay of their debts because of the higher interest rate. Do not put this on our shoulders by raising interest rates according to market rules that no longer apply.
söndag 3 april 2011
Substancial patience: right wing movement all over the world
Substancial patience: right wing movement all over the world: "I do not believe that you missed the spectacular koran-burning of an american referend with all of its brutal consequences? Or have you miss..."
right wing movement all over the world
I do not believe that you missed the spectacular koran-burning of an american referend with all of its brutal consequences? Or have you missed that facebook has been sued for a page that fb actually closed down? If you do not live in Sweden, you might not know that we have a right wing, xenophob party (Sverigedemokraterna, SD) in the Swedish government that plays a crucial role in Swedish politics as it determines which side wins votings in Swedish parliament: red/green or blue (liberal). Today it was announced that on 90% of all votings SD votes for the right wing. NO, what a surprise! But SD still says that they are a neutral party with no orientation to any side.
I am just wondering what happened to basic human rights, compassion and respect? Do we have to burn books to show how low we can sink? Do only some people have the right to express themselves on the internet and social networks? How can there still be people in upplighted countries like Sweden that think that they are better than others?
I do not know if it is thanks to my German blood that I am always reminded of all the happenings throughout worldwar II? Did not Hitler order a big book-burning? And look what happened then. Did not Hitler put an end to all kind of opposite coverage and questioning journalism and only allowed some groups to speak in public? And look what happened then. Did not Hitler from the beginning say that he just wants the best for the german people? And look what happened then!
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not think that the demand for freedom of speech should make it possible to attack other groups or individuals. But why should this right be declared valid for some groups but be void for others? Take the Koran-burning as example: I just wonder what referend Terry Jones would think about a general Bible-burning? He explaines that he wants to illustrate the violence that is related to Islam. Is this not a paradox? To perform such an upsetting spectacle to show violence? Is the act of awaking violence not an act of violence itself? I am sure that he must have been aware that his actions would lead to violent reactions.
Facebook: an internet community that gives the right to most of opinions and political directions to go public. If you type the word Israel or Nazi you will find at least a dussin pro-israelian sites there. And that is great. It shows the possibility to meet, to discuss and to debate. Still: the pro-palestine site "third palestine intifada" was shut down and now fb has been sued for over a billion USdollars. What makes one group better than the other? I have made my homework and have been reading a couple of the pro-israelian sites and I can promise you that not all posts are peaceful. I can understand that sometimes the violent aspects of some posts are more than excessive and I can understand that sometimes this kind of publications has to be stopped but then this should be applicable to everyone! Terry Jones still has his fb-site online...
And please, SD, stopp being so superiour, believing to be better than everyone else. Everyone knows that you running a right wing party. Xenophobia cannot be left wing, ever!
I am just wondering what happened to basic human rights, compassion and respect? Do we have to burn books to show how low we can sink? Do only some people have the right to express themselves on the internet and social networks? How can there still be people in upplighted countries like Sweden that think that they are better than others?
I do not know if it is thanks to my German blood that I am always reminded of all the happenings throughout worldwar II? Did not Hitler order a big book-burning? And look what happened then. Did not Hitler put an end to all kind of opposite coverage and questioning journalism and only allowed some groups to speak in public? And look what happened then. Did not Hitler from the beginning say that he just wants the best for the german people? And look what happened then!
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not think that the demand for freedom of speech should make it possible to attack other groups or individuals. But why should this right be declared valid for some groups but be void for others? Take the Koran-burning as example: I just wonder what referend Terry Jones would think about a general Bible-burning? He explaines that he wants to illustrate the violence that is related to Islam. Is this not a paradox? To perform such an upsetting spectacle to show violence? Is the act of awaking violence not an act of violence itself? I am sure that he must have been aware that his actions would lead to violent reactions.
Facebook: an internet community that gives the right to most of opinions and political directions to go public. If you type the word Israel or Nazi you will find at least a dussin pro-israelian sites there. And that is great. It shows the possibility to meet, to discuss and to debate. Still: the pro-palestine site "third palestine intifada" was shut down and now fb has been sued for over a billion USdollars. What makes one group better than the other? I have made my homework and have been reading a couple of the pro-israelian sites and I can promise you that not all posts are peaceful. I can understand that sometimes the violent aspects of some posts are more than excessive and I can understand that sometimes this kind of publications has to be stopped but then this should be applicable to everyone! Terry Jones still has his fb-site online...
And please, SD, stopp being so superiour, believing to be better than everyone else. Everyone knows that you running a right wing party. Xenophobia cannot be left wing, ever!
fredag 1 april 2011
Substancial patience: About integration - or why we will never be united...
Substancial patience: About integration - or why we will never be united...: "Yesterday I was on a meeting of the Swedish Socialdemocrats immigrationsboard and followed it with a sense of surprise. So often I hear..."
About integration - or why we will never be united
Yesterday I was on a meeting of the Swedish Socialdemocrats immigrationsboard and followed it with a sense of surprise. So often I hear immigrants talking about the Swedish people's unwillingness to integrate foreigners to the Swedish society. So often I hear voices rising that the Swedish people are xenophobic and do not like foreigners. So often I hear that we immigrants are not welcomed to this country.
Well, yesterday I experienced a second of enlightenment: how can we immigrants expect the Swedish people to accept us and allow us integration into their society if we cannot even find agreement inbetween ourselfes?
The whole meeting can be described as a show off between different immigrant groups and when our assignment was to plead for a new chairman, all kind of objectives were put on the board. We should vote for a European citizen, we should have someone from outside the EU. We should vote for someone blond, we should vote for a black person. We should vote for a christian, we should vote for someone who knows arabic to please muslims. The only real suprise for me was that the choice was between two (fantastic bright and professional) women. Otherwise I was chocked and disappointed.
If we immigrants cannot find some kind of serious possibility to agree, to find the middle-path and to find some consensus, how can we then become members of the Swedish society? I do not mean that everyone always has to be of the same opinion. No! There has to be some scope that gives people the opportunity to disagree. BUT: sometimes you have to agree to disagree. You have to find a consensus and to split the note. This seems to be impossible for us. Everyone who stood up yesterday had their very own interest in mind, despite the risk that it will harm the board and even the party. A party that is just on its way to recover from disasterous internal problems.
If we cannot jump over our own shadows to prevail this kind of troubles and to give in for a greater cause, if we cannot become one minority, instead we become 28 different groups who are all concerned about their own benefits, how can we become integrated into Swedish society? I would like to see us stand united to demand our place in society, to demand our place in politics and in the government. For us, for the country and for our future.
Well, yesterday I experienced a second of enlightenment: how can we immigrants expect the Swedish people to accept us and allow us integration into their society if we cannot even find agreement inbetween ourselfes?
The whole meeting can be described as a show off between different immigrant groups and when our assignment was to plead for a new chairman, all kind of objectives were put on the board. We should vote for a European citizen, we should have someone from outside the EU. We should vote for someone blond, we should vote for a black person. We should vote for a christian, we should vote for someone who knows arabic to please muslims. The only real suprise for me was that the choice was between two (fantastic bright and professional) women. Otherwise I was chocked and disappointed.
If we immigrants cannot find some kind of serious possibility to agree, to find the middle-path and to find some consensus, how can we then become members of the Swedish society? I do not mean that everyone always has to be of the same opinion. No! There has to be some scope that gives people the opportunity to disagree. BUT: sometimes you have to agree to disagree. You have to find a consensus and to split the note. This seems to be impossible for us. Everyone who stood up yesterday had their very own interest in mind, despite the risk that it will harm the board and even the party. A party that is just on its way to recover from disasterous internal problems.
If we cannot jump over our own shadows to prevail this kind of troubles and to give in for a greater cause, if we cannot become one minority, instead we become 28 different groups who are all concerned about their own benefits, how can we become integrated into Swedish society? I would like to see us stand united to demand our place in society, to demand our place in politics and in the government. For us, for the country and for our future.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)