J’ai manifesté le 1er juillet à Saigon

André Menras / Hồ Cương Quyết

Ce matin était un de ces jours où la colère citoyenne s’exprime car on ne peut plus la contenir. La colère contre une agression chaque jour plus ouverte, plus profonde, plus humiliante, des autorités de Pékin sur le Vietnam. En même temps que la colère, s’exprimait le soutien patriotique déterminé des citoyens à ceux qui, parmi les dirigeants, dans les différentes couches sociales, dans les milieux populaires sont conscients de gravité de la menace et veulent y faire barrage.

Manifester à ce moment-là, c’était aussi pour moi une façon de rafraîchir la mémoire aux hautes autorités de Hà Nội (Bộ Văn Hoá Thông Tin, Cục Điện Ảnh… ¹) auxquelles j’ai remis il y a plusieurs semaines ma demande renouvelée d’autorisation de diffuser au Vietnam le film documentaire «  Hoàng Sa Vietnam : nỗi đau mất mát » ². J’avais simplement réclamé que ce film, plus que jamais d’actualité, soit au moins diffusé dans les deux espaces culturels français à Hà Nội et Sài Gòn ainsi que par la télévision de la province de Quảng Ngãi d’où partent les pêcheurs victimes des agressions chinoises à Hoàng Sa. Malgré les sourires amicaux lorsque j’ai remis les lettres en main propre au secrétaire du ministre, à la directrice adjointe du Cục Điện Ảnh ; malgré une franche entrevue de plus d’une heure avec celle-ci en présence de son secrétaire, le silence a été la seule réponse à mes sollicitations très mesurées et très déférentes, pourtant soigneusement notées.

Cette sorte de silence terriblement pesant qui empêche et interdit sans le dire, vous donne l’impression qu’on joue avec vous comme le chat joue avec la souris. Qu’on vous méprise.

La technique est simple : quand il n’y a pas d’argument logique, démocratique, à opposer à une question grave et pressante, on laisse le temps opérer son effet d’usure. «  Cứt trâu hóa bùn ». Mais de la boue renaît la fleur souvent très belle et le coq continue de chanter même les pieds dans le fumier ! On n’étouffe jamais définitivement les vraies questions, on ne fait qu’augmenter la tension du ressort qui jaillira un jour avec d’autant plus de force.

La deuxième façon de refuser de répondre aux vraies questions, faute d’arguments logiques et légitimes, c’est la politique de la matraque. Comme la précédente, cette méthode ne fait que tendre le ressort pour le rendre explosif. Ce que j’affirme dans tous les cas, c’est que ces deux méthodes sont celles des faibles qui se croient forts, des irresponsables, de ceux qui ont peur, voire des lâches qui en tout cas ne méritent pas la responsabilité de dirigeants politiques.

Ce matin, j’avais donc préparé mes slogans en anglais et en vietnamien sur un petit tableau magnétique acheté la veille dans une librairie de la rue Nguyễn Huệ. Chacun sait bien qu’écrire sur un tableau c’est la déformation professionnelle la plus fréquente chez les anciens enseignants comme moi. Alors j’ai écrit : « Chine : Le Monde déteste les pirates ! » « Chine pas un seul «  chữ vàng » pas un seul «  tốt » pour les « ăn cướp » ³ ! » « Chine : respectez la loi internationale, respectez le peuple du Vietnam. » « Chine : retournez à Hai Nan. Go Home ! » Je voulais exprimer le plus simplement possible ma colère contre l’insolence des agressions grandissantes mais aussi contre la mollesse que certains appellent complicité ou lâcheté d’un noyau de dirigeants vietnamiens qui décident sans partage de la vie politique et de l’avenir du pays. Car, si la responsabilité essentielle de l’imminente tragédie vietnamienne incombe sans aucun doute aux dirigeants annexionnistes de Pékin, il faut aussi bien dire clairement que l’attitude chinoise est le fruit d’un échec total de la politique de soumission des « 16 en or » et des « 4 bons » que les membres dirigeants du Parti Communiste vietnamien ont concédée à la pression de Pékin et imposée au peuple du Vietnam. Les concessions inavouées, les arrangements privés, les affaires, les complicités sur fond de corruption directe ou protégée ont peu à peu livré à la Chine des espaces entiers de la vie économique, du territoire terrestre et maritime de la patrie vietnamienne. Jusqu’à la situation très critique où nous sommes aujourd’hui. Une autre politique était possible. Une politique de clarté démocratique, de paix mais de fermeté. Elle n’a pas été possible faute de démocratie.

Ce manque de démocratie, malgré des avancées notoires telles la toute récente loi sur la mer adoptée par l’assemblée nationale vietnamienne, est une chose évidente aux yeux de chaque Vietnamien et du monde. Il affaiblit le pays sur fond de répression, de peur, de corruption et le livre à Pékin pieds et poings liés en empêchant l’expression de la seule force de dissuasion efficace, la seule force vive patriotique : celle de l’action et du contrôle populaire. Privé de cette force majeure, le Vietnam ne sera plus bientôt que la sixième étoile du drapeau de Pékin. C’est inéluctable s’il n’y a pas de changement de cap.

Malgré les coups de téléphones amicaux mais dissuasifs de certaines autorités reçus la veille, ce matin, avec mes jeunes vieux frères de combat des années 70, nous sommes donc redescendus dans la rue, cheveux grisonnants et rhumatismes taquins. Nous avons été comblés, nous les vieux contestataires ! Rien n’était organisé. J’étais quasiment le seul à avoir préparé des slogans. Nous avons vu arriver des jeunes, des familles, à pieds ou à moto… Quelquefois, même si l’on est persuadé d’avoir raison, on a besoin d’être rassuré. Et la présence spontanée de ces centaines de personnes nous a rassurés.

Nous avons aussi pris la juste mesure de l’importance de notre modeste action citoyenne à la qualité écologique de l’environnement policier. L’herbe verte du Parc du 30 avril était jalouse des palettes de vert des différents uniformes, du plus foncé au plus clair en passant par le kaki… Toutes sortes de polices concentrées, casques impressionnants, élégantes gapettes. Un vrai festival. C’était très beau. Merci à eux.

Bien sûr j’ai bien vu que mon petit tableau, maintes fois photographié et commenté par téléphone, n’était pas le bienvenu. On m’a menacé d’appeler l’immigration, ce qui m’a obligé à sortir ma carte d’identité de citoyen vietnamien. Quatre ou cinq « đầu trâu mặt ngựa » ⁴, en civil, pareils à ceux que j’avais connus de près dans l’ancien régime, surgissant de plusieurs côtés à la fois, ont essayé de m’arracher mon précieux tableau. Mais le vilain vieillard que je suis a résisté avec succès. Et nous avons pu repartir à travers les rues et la circulation, escortés par une police cette fois protectrice qui nous a accompagnés de près jusqu’à la rue Hai Bà Trưng, à 100 m de Consulat chinois, juste à portée de voix pour rappeler plusieurs fois aux représentants de Pékin que Hoàng Sa et Trường Sa étaient vietnamiens. Puis nous sommes sagement repartis jusqu’au point de départ pour dissoudre nous-mêmes la manifestation. Avec émotion et, au fond du cœur, le sentiment du devoir accompli. J’avais un peu l’impression de me trouver chez moi, à la fin d’une manifestation, dans ma ville du sud de la France. Une petite sensation de démocratie… et une réflexion : après la loi patriotique sur la mer il faut prévoir la loi démocratique sur le droit populaire à manifester. Les deux sont liées, intimement.

Bien sûr, quand j’ai quitté mes amis, je savais bien que je traînais ma queue derrière moi. Une de ces queues à deux pattes avec une oreille droite toute rouge à force d’y coller le téléphone. Mais pour moi pas autant d’émotion qu’au début : cela aussi commence à faire partie de l’écologie ambiante… Et cela serait même amusant si les citoyens, déjà bien pressurés par la hausse des prix ne devaient pas payer en plus des impôts pour entretenir ces centaines de milliers de queues et d’oreilles improductives, voire quelquefois destructrices…

André Menras Hồ Cương Quyết

Notes:

1Ministère de la Culture et de l'Information, Département du Cinéma (relevant de ce ministère)...

2Hoang Sa (Archipel Spratley, La Meurtrissure), ce film est accessible sur de nombreux sites : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzESPBvwuyc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avGu-fCq2ZU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEoAgT7lMMI...

3« Chữ vàng », « tốt » : « Mot d'or », « Bon », des « principes de camaraderie, d'amitié et de coopération totale » que propose la Chine pour soumettre les dirigeants de Hà Nội ; « ăn cướp » : brigand. C'est au nom de ces « principes » que le Ministère de la Culture et de l'Information impose à la presse vietnamienne le « silence  radio » chaque fois que la Chine commet des exactions.

4« đầu trâu mặt ngựa » : gros bras (à tête de buffle, à visage de cheval)

 Sources:

http://www.diendan.org/viet-nam/jai-manifeste-le-1er-juillet-a-saigon/
Vietnamese version
http://boxitvn.blogspot.fr/2012/07/toi-i-bieu-tinh-o-sai-gon-ngay-1-thang.html

"ObamaCare"-- Public Reactions

Public Split on Health Care Law Ruling

Supreme Court settles little in the court of public opinion

 

What next, now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act? Though it's still anyone's guess how the ruling will reshape the delivery of health care in the U.S., one thing's sure: Our politically divided country is also divided over the ruling and what to do about it.

A new USA TODAY/Gallup poll finds that Americans are pretty much "split down the middle" on their approval and disapproval of the ruling, reports USA Today. A slim majority wants part or all of the law repealed.

Who supports the ruling? The poll shows that those in favor tend to be:

• Democrats (nearly four in five agree)
• Women
• Minorities
• Singles
• Young adults

Who disagrees? The poll shows that those leaning against it tend to be:

• Republicans (more than four in five disagree)
• Men
• Whites
• Married people
• Those over 30

Independents are split — 50 percent of those polled favor at least partial repeal; 40 percent who want to keep the law intact or expand on it.

When asked what action Congress should take now that the court has ruled, those surveyed said:

• The entire law should be repealed: 31 percent
• Congress should expand health care even more: 25 percent
• Parts of the law should be repealed: 21 percent
• No further action should be taken: 13 percent

Four in five Americans say they'll consider candidates' views on the issue this November; however just 21 percent say they will vote only for the candidates who share their opinions.

The health care law, passed in March 2010, is designed to expand health coverage by requiring that most people get insurance or pay a penalty. The court ruled that the law was constitutional because the penalty takes the form of a tax on those without health insurance. It did not uphold the law on the broader grounds that requiring people to get health insurance constitutes a form of interstate commerce, regulated by Congress.

Onto the election!

 by Paula Spencer Scott, Caring.com senior editor

Last updated: June 29, 2012

http://www.caring.com/blogs/fyi-daily/public-split-on-health-care-law-ruling

 

Death by China Revisited

Death by China reveals GREED in action at various levels in our age of GLOBALIZATION and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. From the book we can see all kinds of economic, political, and military dishonest tactics and strategies (cheats and frauds)China has been using to build up its power, expand its territories, and become Number One (or the Center)of the world. Fundamentally, China thrives on human GREED, including its own GREED --GREED for MONEY and POSSESSION, and GREED for POWER.

But who is this "China"? Definitely not the huge land which can superimpose easily upon the USA. For the land itself is suffering day and night by all kinds of human destruction to its rivers and seas, air and soil. Definitely not all Chinese scattered all over the world.

This "China," the root of all evils discussed in the book, is the Chinese hawks, politicians and business tycoons, and members of China's Communist Party- --those who have gained their power and possession from Chinese free trade and business style in the context of globalization. It is this "China" that built up its own systems and subsystems on its land, as well as the 21st-century slavery and imperialism all over the world to dominate and destroy life on our planet Earth.

Remember in China the gap between the rich and the poor continues to be widening. Poor Chinese peasants and ethnic groups in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang are still living in subhuman conditions. Even Chinese babies continue to be fed with contaminated milk, given fake medications and poisonous vaccines while Chinese housewives living in big cities have to soak the vegetables bought from Chinese supermarkets in salt water for a while before they dare to use them as food for their families.

All over the world consumers love to buy goods at low prices. "China" knows this so well, they always offer them "good deals," ever since the early 1990s, from light industries with Christmas toys, sneakers, and garments, to high tech companies, and all kinds of "good deals" for heavy industries. GREED. The big bait is so tempting with the death trap beneath, not for one, but for all--the whole world is being lured into the death trap without knowing it.

CEOs, businessmen and businesswomen love to maximize corporate profits by whatever vicious means and short-term strategies available, including outsourcing, and 21st-century slavery and exploitation. In Africa and Asia, quite a few political leaders have been fed by Chinese business and investment so long; they would rather sell their native land to China, and dump their fellow people than bite their Han master's hand. Giant stock shareholders, many of whom are country leaders and politicians, enjoy life and celebrate their heydays. True, for it is impossible to reverse the course of globalization. The future generations will have to take care of themselves.

There are demonstrations and protests everywhere: uprisings in Tibet,Jasmin Revolutions, demonstrations by the Vietnamese and the Filipinos. The Dalai Lama's messages, His Five-Point Peace Plan, Strasbourg Proposals in 1988 and in 2001, and His Appeal to the Chinese people, monks and nuns....Some are like echoes in the Sahara Desert; some voices are dying out. GREED has drown them with all its might.

But the Earth is dying. GREED is swallowing up humans; yet human desire never subsides, and everybody seems to want more and more. And the "China" thrives on GREED and GLOBALIZATION; its empire continues to expand day and night. Instead of assuming universal responsibilities and promoting co-existence, quality, cooperation and collaboration through negotiations and peaceful dialogs, big fish simply want all their share. "This is MINE, MINE, MINE," shouts China at its neighbors about the South China Sea. And China continues to flex its muscles, threatens, bullies, and tortures its poorer neighbors whose daily meals depend on their daily catch in their small fishing boats. The story never ends, for the South China Sea has oil wells and lots of minerals and precious stones on its islands. "MINE! MINE! MINE!" roars the red dragon as it tries to gulp down everything into its huge stomach.

Let's revisit the issue of Tibet back in 1949 by reading the following excerpts:

In 1949 the People's Republic of China forcibly invaded Tibet. Since that time, Tibet has endured the darkest period in its history. More than a million of our people have died as a result of the occupation. Thousand of monasteries were reduced to ruins. A generation has grown up deprived of education, economic opportunities and a sense of its on national character. Though the current Chinese leadership has implemented certain reforms it is also promoting a massive population transfer onto the Tibetan plateau. This policy has already reduced the six million Tibetans to a minority. Speaking for all Tibetans, I must sadly inform you, our tragedy continues.
http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/strasbourg-proposal-1988

At present in Asia, as elsewhere, tensions are high. There are open conflicts in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and in my own country, Tibet. To a large extent, these problems are symptoms of the underlying tensions that exist among the area's great powers. In order to resolve regional conflicts, an approach is required that takes into account the interests of all relevant countries and peoples, large and small. Unless comprehensive solutions are formulated that take into account the aspirations of the people most directly concerned, piecemeal or merely expedient measures will only create new problems.

When the newly formed People's Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1949/50, it created a new source of conflict. This was highlighted when, following the Tibetan national uprising against the Chinese and my flight to India in 1959, tensions between China and India escalated into the border war in 1962. Today large numbers of troops are again massed on both sides of the Himalayan border and tension is once more dangerously high.

The real issue, of course, is not the Indo-Tibetan border demarcation. It is China's illegal occupation of Tibet, which has given it direct access to the Indian sub-continent. The Chinese authorities have attempted to confuse the issue by claiming that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is untrue. Tibet was a fully independent state when the People's Liberation Army invaded the country in 1949/50.
China's aggression, condemned by virtually all nations of the free world, was a flagrant violation of international law. As China's military occupation of Tibet continues, the world should remember that though Tibetans have lost their freedom, under international law Tibet today is still an independent state under illegal occupation.
http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/five-point-peace-plan

The Middle-Way Approach is proposed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet and to bring about stability and co-existence between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples based on equality and mutual co-operation.

Special Characteristics of the Middle-Way Approach
Considering the fact that the unity and co-existence between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples is more important than the political requirements of the Tibetan people, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has pursued a mutually-beneficial Middle-Way policy, which is a great political step forward. Irrespective of population size, economy or military strength, the equality of nationalities means that all nationalities can co-exist on an equal footing, without any discrimination based on one nationality being superior or better than the other. As such, it is an indispensable criterion for ensuring unity among the nationalities. If the Tibetan and Chinese peoples can co-exist on an equal footing, this will serve as the basis for guaranteeing the unity of nationalities, social stability and territorial integrity of the People's Republic of China, which are of paramount importance to China. Therefore, the special characteristic of the Middle-Way Approach is that it can achieve peace through non-violence, mutual benefit, unity of nationalities and social stability.
http://dalailama.com/messages/middle-way-approach

Any issue, including political, economic and religious activities human beings pursue in this world, should be fully understood before we pass our judgement. Therefore, it is very important to know the causes. Whatever the issue, we should be able to see the complete picture. This will enable us to comprehend the whole story. Excerpts from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's address to the inter-faith seminar organised by the International Association for Religious Freedom, Ladakh Group, in Leh on 25 August.
http://dalailama.com/messages/religious-harmony


I strongly believe that we must consciously develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. We must learn to work not just for our own individual self, family or nation, but for the benefit of all mankind. Universal responsibility is the best foundation both for our personal happiness and for world peace, the equitable use of our natural resources, and, through a concern for future generations, the proper care for the environment.

Many of the world´s problems and conflicts arise because we have lost sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a human family. We tend to forget that despite the diversity of race, religion, culture, language, ideology and so forth, people are equal in their basic desire for peace and happiness: we all want happiness and do not want suffering. We strive to fulfill these desires as best we can. However, as much as we praise diversity in theory, unfortunately often we fail to respect it in practice. In fact, our inability to embrace diversity becomes a major source of conflict among peoples.


I remain convinced that most human conflicts can be solved through genuine dialogue conducted with a spirit of openness and reconciliation. I have therefore consistently sought a resolution of the issue of Tibet through non-violence and dialogue. Right from the beginning of the invasion of Tibet, I tried to work with the Chinese authorities to arrive at a mutually acceptable, peaceful co-existence. Even when the so-called Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet was forced upon us I tried to work with the Chinese authorities. After all, by that agreement the Chinese government recognized the distinctiveness and the autonomy of Tibet and pledged not to impose their system on Tibet against our wishes. However, in breach of this agreement, the Chinese authorities forced upon Tibetans their rigid and alien ideology and showed scant respect for the unique culture, religion and way of life of the Tibetan people. In desperation the Tibetan people rose up against the Chinese. In the end in 1959 I had to escape from Tibet so that I could continue to serve the people of Tibet. http://dalailama.com/messages/tibet/strasbourg-speech-2001

As most of you are aware, beginning with the 10th of March this year, a series of demonstrations have taken place in Lhasa and across many Tibetan areas. These are caused by deep Tibetan resentment against the policies of the Chinese government. I have been deeply saddened by the loss of life, both Chinese and Tibetans, and immediately appealed to both the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans for restraint. I specially appealed to the Tibetans not to resort to violence.

Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities have resorted to brutal methods to deal with the development despite appeals for restraint by many world leaders, NGOs and noted world citizens, particularly many Chinese scholars. In the process, there has been loss of life, injuries to many, and the detention of large number of Tibetans. The crackdown still continues, especially targeting monastic institutions, which have traditionally been the repository of ancient Buddhist knowledge and tradition. Many of these have been sealed off. We have reports that many of those detained are beaten and treated harshly. These repressive measures seem to be part of an officially sanctioned systematic policy.

With no international observers, journalists or even tourists allowed to Tibet, I am deeply worried about the fate of the Tibetans. Many of those injured in the crackdown, especially in the remote areas, are too terrified to seek medical treatment for fear of arrest. According to some reliable sources, people are fleeing to the mountains where they have no access to food and shelter. Those who remained behind are living in a constant state of fear of being the next to be arrested.

I am deeply pained by this ongoing suffering. I am very worried where all these tragic developments might lead to ultimately. I do not believe that repressive measures can achieve any long-term solution. The best way forward is to resolve the issues between the Tibetans and the Chinese leadership through dialogue, as I have been advocating for a long time. I have repeatedly assured the leadership of the People's Republic of China that I am not seeking independence. What I am seeking is a meaningful autonomy for the Tibetan people that would ensure the long-term survival of our Buddhist culture, our language and our distinct identity as a people. The rich Tibetan Buddhist culture is part of the larger cultural heritage of the People's Republic of China and has the potential to benefit our Chinese brothers and sisters.
In the light of the present crisis, I appeal to all of you to help call for an immediate end to the ongoing brutal crackdown, for the release of all who have been detained, and to call for providing immediate medical care to the injured.

The Dalai Lama
Hamilton, NY
April 24, 2008


Our planet is blessed with vast natural treasures. If we use them properly, beginning with elimination of militarism and war, truly, every human being will be able to live a wealthy, well-cared-for life.

Naturally, global peace cannot occur all at once. Since conditions around the world are varied, its spread will have to be incremental. But there is no reason why it cannot begin in one region and then spread gradually from one continent to another.

I would like to propose that regional communities like the European Community be established as an integral part of the more peaceful world we are trying to create. Looking at the post Cold War environment objectively, such communities are plainly the most natural and desirable components of a new world order. As we can see, the almost gravitational pull of our growing interdependence necessitates new, more cooperative structures. The European Community is pioneering the way in this endeavor, negotiating the delicate balance between economic, military and political collectively on the one hand and the sovereign rights of member states on the other. I am greatly inspired by this work. I also believe that the new Commonwealth of Independent Sates is grappling with similar issues and that the seeds of such a community are already present in the minds of many of its constituent republics. In this context, I would briefly like to talk about the future of my own country, Tibet, and China.

Like the former Soviet Union, Communist China is a multinational state, artificially constructed under the impetus of an expansionist ideology and up to now administered by force in colonial fashion. A peaceful, prosperous and above all politically stable future for china lies in its successfully fulfilling not only its own people's wishes for a more open, democratic system, but also of its eighty million so-called "national minorities", who want to regain their freedom. For real happiness to return to the heart of Asia - home to one-fifth of the human race - a pluralistic, democratic, mutually cooperative community of sovereign states must replace what is currently called the People's Republic of China.
Of course, such a community need not be limited to those presently under Chinese Communist Domination, such as Tibetans, Mongols, and Uighurs. The people of Hong Kong, those seeking an independent Taiwan, and even those suffering under other communist governments in North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia might also be interested in building an Asian Community. However, it is especially urgent that those ruled by the Chinese Communist consider doing so. Properly pursued, it could help save China from violent dissolution; regionalism and a return to the chaotic turmoil that has so afflicted this great nation throughout the twentieth century. Currently china's political life is so polarized that there is every reason to fear an early recurrence of bloodshed and tragedy. Each of us- every member of the world community - has a moral responsibility to help avert the immense suffering that civil strife would bring to China's vast population.
I believe that the very process of dialogue, modernization and compromise involved in building a community of Asian states would itself give real hope of peaceful evolution to a new order in China. From the very start, the member states of such a community might agree to decide its defense and international relations policies together. There would be many opportunities for cooperation. The critical point is that we find a peaceful, nonviolent way for the forces of freedom, democracy and moderation to emerge successfully from the current atmosphere of unjust repression.
http://dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/disarmament

There are people with destructive intentions in every society, and the temptation to gain command over an organisation capable of fulfilling their desires can become overwhelming. But no matter how malevolent or evil are the many murderous dictators who can currently oppress their nations and cause international problems, it is obvious that they cannot harm others or destroy countless human lives if they don't have a military organisation accepted and condoned by society. As long as there are powerful armies there will always be danger of dictatorship. If we really believe dictatorship to be a despicable and destructive form of government, then we must recognize that the existence of a powerful military establishment is one of its main causes.

Militarism is also very expensive. Pursuing peace through military strength places a tremendously wasteful burden on society. Governments spend vast sums on increasingly intricate weapons when, in fact, nobody really wants to use them. Not only money but also valuable energy and human intelligence are squandered, while all that increases is fear.

I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess al such matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not.
(http://dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war)
All Citizens in the World:
It is high time for each of us to examine ourselves to see how GREED has lured us and our interest groups into the common Death Trap set up for all humanity and human civilizations.

Supreme Court upholds health care mandate

  By Stephanie Condon 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57462646/supreme-court-upholds-health-care-mandate/?tag=pop;stories

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the critical piece of President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate. By upholding the individual mandate -- the requirement for all Americans to acquire health insurance -- the court kept what many described as the "heart" of the law. The decision creates some certainty surrounding federal health care policy, allowing federal and state rulemakers to implement the law.
The decision was 5 - 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberal justices and writing the majority opinion. The court ruled that the federal government does have the power to require all Americans to acquire insurance if the "fine" imposed on those who don't is considered a tax.
Complete Coverage: Health Care
Read the Supreme Court's full decision
"I see this as a total victory for the Affordable Care Act," said Tim Jost, a consumer advocate and professor of health law at Washington and Lee University. Additionally, he said, the ruling is "a signal to the states that it's time to get going." The states have until November 16 to turn in blueprints for building their respective state health exchange systems.
The court found fault with one major provision of the law, which would have expanded Medicaid coverage. Currently, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health care to certain poor Americans, such as children and the elderly. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act would have opened up Medicaid to anyone with an income under 138 percent of the federal poverty line.
Several states argued the expansion of the program would have placed an undue burden on the states, and the court agreed, writing in its opinion that the provision was like a "gun to the head of the states." If a state had chosen not to expand the program as the law required, it would have had to opt out of Medicaid completely -- something no state could afford to do. The court ruled that the federal government's ability to revoke a state's Medicaid funding is limited -- thus, the states can opt into the expansion, but they don't have to. Jost, the Washington and Lee University professor, said the Medicaid ruling "could be read as imposing a significant new limitation on the power of the federal government to engage in cooperative programs with the states."
It may be that the ruling only applies to Medicaid, he said, or it could apply to other joint federal-state programs like an education program or transportation funding. In that case, the federal government could be limited in what it demands from states before giving them funding.
"It opens up a real can of worms," he said.
While several states objected to the Medicaid expansion, Jost and other experts said they'd expect essentially every state to participate in the program since the federal government is covering the vast majority of the cost of the cost (and all of the cost initially).
"Frankly, I don't think any governor in his right mind would turn down hundreds of millions of dollars to help citizens in their state," Jost said.
The political fight continues
The high court's move hardly ends the political controversy surrounding the law; if anything, the decision to uphold most of the law is sure to renew calls for lawmakers to repeal the Affordable Care Act legislatively.
In response the decision, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that while the court found the law constitutional, "What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law. Obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today."
The Republican candidate added, "What the court did not do in its last day in session, I will do on my first day" if elected president. He asked voters to join him to "defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big."
President Obama today said the court's decision reaffirmed the principle that "here in America, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no illness or accident should lead to a family's financial ruin." He ran through the law's benefits, such as the provision barring insurers from discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions. Several of those provisions will go into effect years from now, after the states have set up their health care "exchanges" or state marketplaces for health insurance.
"When we look back five years from now, 10 years from now... we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law," Mr. Obama said.
The president acknowledged that the individual mandate remains a divisive issue, but he pointed out, "This idea has enjoyed support from both parties, including the current Republican nominee for president."
He added, "It should be pretty clear by now didn't do this because it was good politics...I did it because I believed it was good for the American people."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a statement called the court's decision a "crushing blow" to patients and promised that the House would once again vote to repeal the law. "During the week of July 9th, the House will once again repeal ObamaCare, clearing the way for patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice," he said.
In a written statement, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said, "Today's decision makes one thing clear: Congress must act to repeal this misguided law. Obamacare has not only limited choices and increased health care costs for American families, it has made it harder for American businesses to hire."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, "Our Supreme Court has spoken. The matter is settled. It's time for Republicans to stop fighting yesterday's battles."
Emotional reactions

The ruling inspired emotional responses from both liberals and conservatives across the country, illustrating how politically explosive the issue is.
Upon learning the news, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi first left messages for the president and the vice president, according to a top Pelosi aide. Then she called Vicki Kennedy, the wife of the late senator and health care reform champion Ted Kennedy. "Now, Teddy can rest," Pelosi told Kennedy.
The Democratic leader -- wearing her lucky purple pumps -- called her husband after that and then celebrated with her staff.
On the steps of the Supreme Court, before it was clear what the ruling was, Tea Partiers and other opponents of the law cheered and waved signs, initially thinking the law was struck down. The cheered, "Constitution wins!" A few minutes later, after the news was cleared up, they started chanting, "this is not over," and "repeal it now."
Supporters of the health care law, meanwhile, danced in front of the court and shouted, "Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Meka Sales, a public health professional from Charlotte, N.C., told CBS News that at a meeting of the American Public Health Association there, people were crying tears of happiness when they heard the news.

"We were totally unprepared for such a favorable decision. I think tears were on deck for a disappointment but what an incredible surprise," she said. "The room was filled with complete joy and a sense of justice for those that will have access to health care in the future. "

"ObamaCare"

Health care ruling: What it means for you

By Jill Schlesinger

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57459511/health-care-ruling-what-it-means-for-you/?tag=pop;stories

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed comprehensive health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. Today, the Supreme Court has largely upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by ruling that the cornerstone provision of the law, the individual mandate, was constitutional.
ACA required U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health coverage or else face a penalty up to 2.5 percent of income. The court noted that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
Read the Supreme Court Decision
The court limited, but did not invalidate the Medicaid provision, which would have expanded Medicaid to all individuals under 65, with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), or around $30,000 a year for a family of four. (Note: there is a quirk to this oft-reported 133 percent: ACA adds a five percentage point deduction from the FPL, which means that the Medicaid eligibility threshold is effectively 138 percent of FPL).
The expansion would have provided coverage to 16 million Americans. However, a majority of the Court held that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.
Given the scope of the law, it was meant to be phased in over a number of years. (The Kaiser Family Foundation ACA timeline is a great resource to track what happens, when). The Supreme Court ruling means that the original timeline of events will largely remain in place.

ACA BENEFITS ALREADY IN PLACE: NO CHANGE
Young adults up to age 26: Approximately 2.5 million young adults are now covered on their parents' policies. Before the decision, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), Aetna Inc. (AET) and Humana Inc. announced that they would keep children on plans to age 26. Additionally, many states had laws on the books that support the young-adult rule.
Ban on lifetime limits: The three insurance companies noted above have also said that they would have kept these popular rules in effect
Ban on denying care due to pre-existing conditions: The insurance industry had said that it would be willing to abide by this rule, except in cases of fraud (i.e. when people lie about their conditions on the application). This provision would have been expensive, however, without the mandate, because of the possibility that only sick people would have signed up for insurance.
Preventive healthcare benefits without imposing co-pays/other out-of-pocket charges: Some of the popular tests that this rule covers are mammograms and colonoscopies. About 54 million Americans now have expanded coverage of at least one preventive service since the law went into effect, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Additionally, 32.5 million seniors took advantage of these preventive services.

Gap in Medicare coverage (aka the "doughnut hole"): Seniors who fell into this coverage gap have enjoyed a 50 percent discount on covered brand-name drugs and 14 percent savings on generic drugs.
Temporary insurance coverage: Two programs have provided coverage for retirees who are over age 55 but not eligible for Medicare and for adults with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. These pools were intended to create coverage until 2014, when permanent solutions are in place.
Require health plans to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers: When the law went into effect, insurance companies paid out 74 cents on every dollar -- new rules required that amount rise to 80-85 cents
Requirement that insurance companies justify "unreasonably" large healthcare premium increases: ACA also established standards for insurers to use in providing information on benefits and coverage and will eventually create a new federal body that will have power to block insurers from raising rates
Small Business Tax Credits: Employers with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that provide health insurance for employees will receive tax credits for providing coverage
ACA PROVISIONS TO GO INTO EFFECT IN 2014: CHANGE TO MEDICAID PROVISION
Medicaid Expansion: The ACA was supposed to expand Medicaid to all individuals under 65 earning less than 133 percent of the poverty line, or around $30,000 a year for a family of four. The expansion would have provided coverage to 16 million Americans. The Court prohibited the federal government from punishing states for not complying. The feds can withhold new funds from states that don't comply, but cannot withhold all Medicaid funding.
State insurance exchanges: Exchanges will be established to provide access to insurance for those who don't have coverage through work. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 23 million Americans will gain coverage through the state exchanges by 2019. The government will provide tax credits for individuals and families making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which is currently $92,000 for a family of four.
Paying for ACA: The law will be paid for through new taxes and penalties:
-- A new excise tax on high-premium insurance (Cadillac) plans, equal to 40 percent of premiums paid on plans costing more than $27,500 annually for a family, starting in 2018
-- An increase in Medicare payroll taxes on couples with income of more than $250,000 a year
-- Unearned income, like capital gains, subject to additional 3.8 percent tax
-- Customers of indoor tanning salons would pay a 10 percent tax
-- Fees on insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, including $33 billion over 10 years on fees on drug makers, starting in 2014
-- A tax on individuals without qualifying coverage, maximum penalty set at 2.5 percent of income

Nobel Lecture by Aung San Suu Kyi, Oslo, 16 June, 2012

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Excellencies,
Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
Dear Friends,

Long years ago, sometimes it seems many lives ago, I was at Oxford listening to the radio programme Desert Island Discs with my young son Alexander. It was a well-known programme (for all I know it still continues) on which famous people from all walks of life were invited to talk about the eight discs, the one book beside the bible and the complete works of Shakespeare, and the one luxury item they would wish to have with them were they to be marooned on a desert island. At the end of the programme, which we had both enjoyed, Alexander asked me if I thought I might ever be invited to speak on Desert Island Discs. “Why not?” I responded lightly. Since he knew that in general only celebrities took part in the programme he proceeded to ask, with genuine interest, for what reason I thought I might be invited. I considered this for a moment and then answered: “Perhaps because I’d have won the Nobel Prize for literature,” and we both laughed. The prospect seemed pleasant but hardly probable.
(I cannot now remember why I gave that answer, perhaps because I had recently read a book by a Nobel Laureate or perhaps because the Desert Island celebrity of that day had been a famous writer.)
In 1989, when my late husband Michael Aris came to see me during my first term of house arrest, he told me that a friend, John Finnis, had nominated me for the Nobel Peace Prize. This time also I laughed. For an instant Michael looked amazed, then he realized why I was amused. The Nobel Peace Prize? A pleasant prospect, but quite improbable! So how did I feel when I was actually awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace? The question has been put to me many times and this is surely the most appropriate occasion on which to examine what the Nobel Prize means to me and what peace means to me.
As I have said repeatedly in many an interview, I heard the news that I had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the radio one evening. It did not altogether come as a surprise because I had been mentioned as one of the frontrunners for the prize in a number of broadcasts during the previous week. While drafting this lecture, I have tried very hard to remember what my immediate reaction to the announcement of the award had been. I think, I can no longer be sure, it was something like: “Oh, so they’ve decided to give it to me.” It did not seem quite real because in a sense I did not feel myself to be quite real at that time.
Often during my days of house arrest it felt as though I were no longer a part of the real world. There was the house which was my world, there was the world of others who also were not free but who were together in prison as a community, and there was the world of the free; each was a different planet pursuing its own separate course in an indifferent universe. What the Nobel Peace Prize did was to draw me once again into the world of other human beings outside the isolated area in which I lived, to restore a sense of reality to me. This did not happen instantly, of course, but as the days and months went by and news of reactions to the award came over the airwaves, I began to understand the significance of the Nobel Prize. It had made me real once again; it had drawn me back into the wider human community. And what was more important, the Nobel Prize had drawn the attention of the world to the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma. We were not going to be forgotten.
To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity. When I met Burmese migrant workers and refugees during my recent visit to Thailand, many cried out: “Don’t forget us!” They meant: “don’t forget our plight, don’t forget to do what you can to help us, don’t forget we also belong to your world.” When the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to me they were recognizing that the oppressed and the isolated in Burma were also a part of the world, they were recognizing the oneness of humanity. So for me receiving the Nobel Peace Prize means personally extending my concerns for democracy and human rights beyond national borders. The Nobel Peace Prize opened up a door in my heart.
The Burmese concept of peace can be explained as the happiness arising from the cessation of factors that militate against the harmonious and the wholesome. The word nyein-chan translates literally as the beneficial coolness that comes when a fire is extinguished. Fires of suffering and strife are raging around the world. In my own country, hostilities have not ceased in the far north; to the west, communal violence resulting in arson and murder were taking place just several days before I started out on the journey that has brought me here today. News of atrocities in other reaches of the earth abound. Reports of hunger, disease, displacement, joblessness, poverty, injustice, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry; these are our daily fare. Everywhere there are negative forces eating away at the foundations of peace. Everywhere can be found thoughtless dissipation of material and human resources that are necessary for the conservation of harmony and happiness in our world.
The First World War represented a terrifying waste of youth and potential, a cruel squandering of the positive forces of our planet. The poetry of that era has a special significance for me because I first read it at a time when I was the same age as many of those young men who had to face the prospect of withering before they had barely blossomed. A young American fighting with the French Foreign Legion wrote before he was killed in action in 1916 that he would meet his death:  “at some disputed barricade;” “on some scarred slope of battered hill;” “at midnight in some flaming town.” Youth and love and life perishing forever in senseless attempts to capture nameless, unremembered places. And for what? Nearly a century on, we have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
Are we not still guilty, if to a less violent degree, of recklessness, of improvidence with regard to our future and our humanity? War is not the only arena where peace is done to death. Wherever suffering is ignored, there will be the seeds of conflict, for suffering degrades and embitters and enrages.
A positive aspect of living in isolation was that I had ample time in which to ruminate over the meaning of words and precepts that I had known and accepted all my life. As a Buddhist, I had heard about dukha, generally translated as suffering, since I was a small child. Almost on a daily basis elderly, and sometimes not so elderly, people around me would murmur “dukha, dukha” when they suffered from aches and pains or when they met with some small, annoying mishaps. However, it was only during my years of house arrest that I got around to investigating the nature of the six great dukha. These are: to be conceived, to age, to sicken, to die, to be parted from those one loves, to be forced to live in propinquity with those one does not love. I examined each of the six great sufferings, not in a religious context but in the context of our ordinary, everyday lives. If suffering were an unavoidable part of our existence, we should try to alleviate it as far as possible in practical, earthly ways. I mulled over the effectiveness of ante- and post-natal programmes and mother and childcare; of adequate facilities for the aging population; of comprehensive health services; of compassionate nursing and hospices. I was particularly intrigued by the last two kinds of suffering: to be parted from those one loves and to be forced to live in propinquity with those one does not love. What experiences might our Lord Buddha have undergone in his own life that he had included these two states among the great sufferings? I thought of prisoners and refugees, of migrant workers and victims of human trafficking, of that great mass of the uprooted of the earth who have been torn away from their homes, parted from families and friends, forced to live out their lives among strangers who are not always welcoming.
We are fortunate to be living in an age when social welfare and humanitarian assistance are recognized not only as desirable but necessary. I am fortunate to be living in an age when the fate of prisoners of conscience anywhere has become the concern of peoples everywhere, an age when democracy and human rights are widely, even if not universally, accepted as the birthright of all. How often during my years under house arrest have I drawn strength from my favourite passages in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
……. disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspirations of the common people,
…… it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law . . .
If I am asked why I am fighting for human rights in Burma the above passages will provide the answer. If I am asked why I am fighting for democracy in Burma, it is because I believe that democratic institutions and practices are necessary for the guarantee of human rights.
Over the past year there have been signs that the endeavours of those who believe in democracy and human rights are beginning to bear fruit in Burma. There have been changes in a positive direction; steps towards democratization have been taken. If I advocate cautious optimism it is not because I do not have faith in the future but because I do not want to encourage blind faith. Without faith in the future, without the conviction that democratic values and fundamental human rights are not only necessary but possible for our society, our movement could not have been sustained throughout the destroying years. Some of our warriors fell at their post, some deserted us, but a dedicated core remained strong and committed. At times when I think of the years that have passed, I am amazed that so many remained staunch under the most trying circumstances. Their faith in our cause is not blind; it is based on a clear-eyed assessment of their own powers of endurance and a profound respect for the aspirations of our people.
It is because of recent changes in my country that I am with you today; and these changes have come about because of you and other lovers of freedom and justice who contributed towards a global awareness of our situation. Before continuing to speak of my country, may I speak out for our prisoners of conscience. There still remain such prisoners in Burma. It is to be feared that because the best known detainees have been released, the remainder, the unknown ones, will be forgotten. I am standing here because I was once a prisoner of conscience. As you look at me and listen to me, please remember the often repeated truth that one prisoner of conscience is one too many. Those who have not yet been freed, those who have not yet been given access to the benefits of justice in my country number much more than one. Please remember them and do whatever is possible to effect their earliest, unconditional release.
Burma is a country of many ethnic nationalities and faith in its future can be founded only on a true spirit of union. Since we achieved independence in 1948, there never has been a time when we could claim the whole country was at peace. We have not been able to develop the trust and understanding necessary to remove causes of conflict. Hopes were raised by ceasefires that were maintained from the early 1990s until 2010 when these broke down over the course of a few months. One unconsidered move can be enough to remove long-standing ceasefires. In recent months, negotiations between the government and ethnic nationality forces have been making progress. We hope that ceasefire agreements will lead to political settlements founded on the aspirations of the peoples, and the spirit of union.
My party, the National League for Democracy, and I stand ready and willing to play any role in the process of national reconciliation. The reform measures that were put into motion by President U Thein Sein’s government can be sustained only with the intelligent cooperation of all internal forces: the military, our ethnic nationalities, political parties, the media, civil society organizations, the business community and, most important of all, the general public. We can say that reform is effective only if the lives of the people are improved and in this regard, the international community has a vital role to play. Development and humanitarian aid, bi-lateral agreements and investments should be coordinated and calibrated to ensure that these will promote social, political and economic growth that is balanced and sustainable. The potential of our country is enormous. This should be nurtured and developed to create not just a more prosperous but also a more harmonious, democratic society where our people can live in peace, security and freedom.
The peace of our world is indivisible. As long as negative forces are getting the better of positive forces anywhere, we are all at risk. It may be questioned whether all negative forces could ever be removed. The simple answer is: “No!” It is in human nature to contain both the positive and the negative. However, it is also within human capability to work to reinforce the positive and to minimize or neutralize the negative. Absolute peace in our world is an unattainable goal. But it is one towards which we must continue to journey, our eyes fixed on it as a traveller in a desert fixes his eyes on the one guiding star that will lead him to salvation. Even if we do not achieve perfect peace on earth, because perfect peace is not of this earth, common endeavours to gain peace will unite individuals and nations in trust and friendship and help to make our human community safer and kinder.
I used the word ‘kinder’ after careful deliberation; I might say the careful deliberation of many years. Of the sweets of adversity, and let me say that these are not numerous, I have found the sweetest, the most precious of all, is the lesson I learnt on the value of kindness. Every kindness I received, small or big, convinced me that there could never be enough of it in our world. To be kind is to respond with sensitivity and human warmth to the hopes and needs of others. Even the briefest touch of kindness can lighten a heavy heart. Kindness can change the lives of people. Norway has shown exemplary kindness in providing a home for the displaced of the earth, offering sanctuary to those who have been cut loose from the moorings of security and freedom in their native lands.
There are refugees in all parts of the world. When I was at the Maela refugee camp in Thailand recently, I met dedicated people who were striving daily to make the lives of the inmates as free from hardship as possible. They spoke of their concern over ‘donor fatigue,’ which could also translate as ‘compassion fatigue.’ ‘Donor fatigue’ expresses itself precisely in the reduction of funding. ‘Compassion fatigue’ expresses itself less obviously in the reduction of concern. One is the consequence of the other. Can we afford to indulge in compassion fatigue? Is the cost of meeting the needs of refugees greater than the cost that would be consequent on turning an indifferent, if not a blind, eye on their suffering? I appeal to donors the world over to fulfill the needs of these people who are in search, often it must seem to them a vain search, of refuge.
At Maela, I had valuable discussions with Thai officials responsible for the administration of Tak province where this and several other camps are situated. They acquainted me with some of the more serious problems related to refugee camps: violation of forestry laws, illegal drug use, home brewed spirits, the problems of controlling malaria, tuberculosis, dengue fever and cholera. The concerns of the administration are as legitimate as the concerns of the refugees. Host countries also deserve consideration and practical help in coping with the difficulties related to their responsibilities.
Ultimately our aim should be to create a world free from the displaced, the homeless and the hopeless, a world of which each and every corner is a true sanctuary where the inhabitants will have the freedom and the capacity to live in peace. Every thought, every word, and every action that adds to the positive and the wholesome is a contribution to peace. Each and every one of us is capable of making such a contribution. Let us join hands to try to create a peaceful world where we can sleep in security and wake in happiness.
The Nobel Committee concluded its statement of 14 October 1991 with the words: “In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize ... to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to honour this woman for her unflagging efforts and to show its support for the many people throughout the world who are striving to attain democracy, human rights and ethnic conciliation by peaceful means.” When I joined the democracy movement in Burma it never occurred to me that I might ever be the recipient of any prize or honour. The prize we were working for was a free, secure and just society where our people might be able to realize their full potential. The honour lay in our endeavour. History had given us the opportunity to give of our best for a cause in which we believed. When the Nobel Committee chose to honour me, the road I had chosen of my own free will became a less lonely path to follow. For this I thank the Committee, the people of Norway and peoples all over the world whose support has strengthened my faith in the common quest for peace. Thank you.

Source: 
"Aung San Suu Kyi - Nobel Lecture". Nobelprize.org. 23 Jun 2012
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/kyi-lecture_en.html

Offering and Planting the Bodhi Tree at Truc Lam Zen Monastery in Đà Lạt

On June 11, 2012 (April 22 the lunar year of the Dragon) the Administration Board of the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School together with a huge crowd of monks, nuns and lay Buddhists had a solemn ceremony to welcome a Buddhist delegation led by Most Venerable Pallegama Nayake, Abbot of Atamastanadhipathi Monastery, Sri Lanka, who came to Vietnam to offer the Bodhi tree to the the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School.

This Bodhi tree is part of the Great Bodhi tree Jaya Sri, which Most Venerable Bhikhuni Sanghamitta, daughter of King Asoka, had gotten from the Original Bodhi Tree at Bodh Gaya and brought it to Srilanka to plant while she was disseminating the Dharma and developed the Bhikhuni Sangha there upon the request of her brother, Sir Mihinda, in 249 BC.  King Devanampiya-Tissa of Sri Lanka had the tree planted in Anuradhapura the same year.  Later, the local people named it "Sri- Maha-Bodhi".  This sacred tree has been proliferating for 2,261 years.

Buddhism in Sri Lanka has two national treasures: one is the relic of the Buddha’s teeth enshrined at Ruwanweliseya in Kandy; the other is the Great Bodhi tree Jaya Sri in Pahala Maluwa.  According to Anguttara Nikaya, “ the Bodhi tree must be well respected and worshipped.  Only when any of its parts obstructs the roofs of houses, temple shrines, or becomes rotten, or the birds sitting on the branches contaminate holy places could humans cut the branches.” 

By the second half of the 18^th century the laws had been presented and passed in Sri Lanka that anyone who destroyed temples, and the Bodhi tree, and all religious properties would be prosecuted and sentenced to death by the Sinhala Government.  With the above-mentioned values, the fact that Most Venerable Pallegama Nayake brought part of the sacred Bodhi tree to offer to the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School in Vietnam was truly a very special event of wonderful Dharma meanings and implications.

In fact, on June 6, 2012 (April 17 the lunar year of the Dragon), a Vietnamese delegation of many monastic and lay representatives from many monasteries of the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School from North to South Vietnam (Trúc Lâm Đà Lạt, Thường Chiếu, Trúc Lâm Yên Tử, Sùng Phúc…) had come to Sri Lanka in their pilgrimage to the Bodhi tree, in order to welcome its part to be offered and planted in Vietnam.

At 9:30am on June 11, 2012 (April 22 the lunar year of the Dragon), the two Vietnamese and Sri Lankan delegations arrived at Tân Sơn Nhất Airport and later went on to Thường Chiếu Monastery, where Most Ven. Pallegama Nayake offered the Bodhi tree to the Most Venerable Head of the Administration Board of the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School.  The historical ceremony took place at the Main Shrine Hall (Đại Hùng Bảo Điện) with the solemn sounds of the Prajna bell and drum echoing  the whole monastery, awaking every Buddhist to this Dharma wonder.

After that the Bodhi tree, which had been transplanted into a white pot, was respectfully carried to the hut of the Most Venerable Trúc Lâm Thich Thanh Từ, Head of the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School, so that he would welcome it with blessings.  Upon the order of the the Administration Board of the Trúc Lâm Yên Tử Zen School, the Trúc Lâm Zen Monastery in Đạ Lạt was assigned the responsibility to plant and take good care of this sacred and historical Bodhi tree.

After the end of the receiving ceremony at Thường chiếu Zen Monastery, at 8pm the delegation departed for Trúc Lâm Zen Monastery, Đà Lạt.  On June 11, 2012 the tree arrived in Đà Lạt, and was respectfully kept in the Main Shrine Hall, waiting to be planted the following day in the monks’ Inner Ward.  The ceremony of offering blessings and planting the Bodhi tree solemnly took place in the morning of June 12, 2012 (April 23 the lunar year of the Dragon) with the participation of a huge crowd of monastic and lay Buddhists and representatives from all zen monasteries from North to South Vietnam.

 After the ceremony with both Theravada and Mahayana rituals, Most Ven. Pallegama Nayake, Abbot of Atamastanadhipathi Monastery, signed an offering document to Trúc Lâm Zen Monastery in Đà Lạt, and handed it to the Trúc Lâm Abbot.

Source:

http://thuongchieu.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3152:caybodetvtl&catid=18:tin-tc&Itemid=313