周兴哲 - 以后别做朋友

习惯听你分享生活细节
Xi guan ting ni fen xiang sheng huo xi jie
害怕破坏完美的平衡点
Hai pa po huai wan mei de ping heng dian
保持着距离一颗心的遥远
Bao chi zhe ju li yi ke xin de yao yuan
我的寂寞你就听不见
Wo de ji mo ni jiu ting bu jian
我走回从前你往未来飞
Wo zou hui cong qian ni wang wei lai fei
遇见对的人错过交叉点
Yu jian dui de ren cuo guo jiao cha dian
明明你就已经站在我面前
Ming ming ni jiu yi jing zhan zai wo mian qian
我却不断挥手说再见
Wo que bu duan hui shou shuo zai jian

*
以后别做朋友 朋友不能牵手
Yi hou bie zuo peng you peng you bu neng qian shou
想爱你的冲动 我只能笑着带过
Xiang ai ni de chong dong wo zhi neng xiao zhe dai guo
最好的朋友 有些梦 不能说出口
Zui hao de peng you you xie meng bu neng shuo chu kou
就不用承担 会失去你的心痛
Jiu bu yong cheng dan hui shi qu ni de xin tong

划一个安全的天空界线
Hua yi ge an quan de tian kong jie xian
谁都不准为我们掉眼泪
Shui dou bu zhun wei wo men diao yan lei
放弃好好爱一个人的机会
Fang qi hao hao ai yi ge ren de ji hui
要看着你幸福到永远
Yao kan zhe ni xing fu dao yong yuan

Repeat *

忍住失控 太折磨 我自作自受
Ren zhu shi kong tai zhe mo wo zi zuo zi shou
回忆都是我 好不了的伤口
Hui yi dou shi wo hao bu liao de shang kou

以后还是朋友 还是你最懂我
Yi hou hai shi peng you hi shi ni zui dong wo
我们有始有终 就走到世界尽头
Wo men you shi you zhong jiu zou dao shi jie jin tou
永远的朋友 祝福我 遇见爱以后
Yong yuan de peng you zhu fu wo yu jian ai yi hou
不会再懦弱 紧紧握住那双手
Bu hui zai nuo ruo jin jin wo zhu na shuang shou

Who can marry whom? Family Law in 2009

In the United Kingdom (2009), the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 11 sets out which marriages are void:

• marriages between people within the prohibited degrees of relationship (e.g. a brother and a sister);
• either of the parties is under 16;
• either of the parties is married to someone else. If they were previously married but the marriage has ended through death or divorce, they are free to marry;
• the parties are of the same sex.

In a matter of few years, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act came into force in July 2013, but it was not until 13 March 2014 that couples were able to register their intention to marry under the Act for the first time.

Civil partnerships were introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to provide gay couples with the same legal rights as heterosexual partners, but campaigners continued fighting to have their marriages recognised by law.

You can get married or form a civil partnership in the UK if you’re:

16 or over
free to marry or form a civil partnership (single, divorced or widowed)
not closely related
You need permission from your parents or guardians if you’re under 18 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Only same sex couples can form a civil partnership.

Heart pain

Today is 5/10/2017.

Yesterday night i went to her work place and waited for her. But of course i didnt let her i was there. Waited.waited. waited...
I didnt see her.
So i text her with a Hi..

She forgotten last time we dont need to talk much. A simple hi will engage us.
She took a long time to reply and informed that it was busy work week for her as it was her hospital JCI week.

We txt very long until 12am.

I still didnt tell her that i was there waiting for her.

At stroke of 12am, she said bye. She wants to get out of this cycle.

No longer she wants me into her life.

I was sad. Very sad.
I waited till 1am. No sign of her.
Today i woke up.. Felt even hurt before.
Hurt people hurt people.
Not me, i will not do that.

I told her before it is not she make the decision, but it was i who knows she wanted Olevel to be with her.. Always.
So even many times,  i just could not do it. The hot cold hot cold hot cold makes the relationship changed.
Chemically the substance in its form is the same but its contents /the love has already fizzles.. Thats why she says she hates me.

When i wanted her to go back my purpose is for her to keep olevel. But i was selfish.
I want to let go and yet i still hold on. Thats why she hates me for the hurt.
Yesterday we inevitably say good bye to each other. My objective finally on 4/10/2017 achieved. We dragged so long. Since 2014...

Yet my heart still hurts... Sometimes i wonder did i make the wrong choice.?

God tells me No.  She believes it. I believe it. But to act out is very difficult. Maybe becos we were lovers once.

Early Sociologists

C Wright Mills (1959) descirbed socialogical imagination as an awareness of the relationship betweenan individual and the wider society. A key element in the sociological imagination is the ability to view one's own society as an outsider would, rather than from the limited perspective of personal experiences and cultural biases.

Emile Durkhiem (1947) will be remembered for his insitance that behaviour cannot be fully understood in individualistic terms, that it must be understood within a larger social context.

Max Weber pointed out that much of out social behaviour cannot be analysed by the kinds of objective criteria we use to measure weight or temperature. To fully comprehend behaviour, we must learn the subjective meanings people attach to their actions - how they themselves view and explain their behavior. Weber (1947) developed a classification of system regarding authority that has become one of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of sociology. He identified three ideal types of authority; traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Weber did not insist that only one type is accepted in a given society or organization. Rather, all can be present, but their relative importance will vary. Sociologists have found Web's typology valuable in understanding different manifestations of legitimate power within a society.


Karl Marx shared with Durkheim and Weber a dual interest in abstract philosophical issues and in the concrete reality of everyday life. Marx focused on conflict between social classes, as represented by industrial workers and the owners of factories and businesses. Under Marx's analysis, society was fundamentally divided between classes who clash in pursuit of their own class interests. He argued that history could be understood in diatectical terms as a record of the inevitable conflicts between economic groups. This view forms the bass for the contemporary sociological perspective of conflict theory.

What are the qualities of a great statesman? Illustrate your answer with examples from the past and present.

Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves against attack, and then they attack others. 

Niccolo Machiavelli


Statesmanship may be considered either as a branch of applied philosophy, involving knowledge of the true ends of political society and the means by which they may be attained; or as a practical art, the objects of which are the achievement and retention of political power. For Plato, statesmanship is part of knowledge that any wide and virtuous man may possess. For Machiavelli, it means the craft of becoming and remaining a ruler. A true stateman is one who is able to strike the golden mean between the idealism of Plato and the earthly pragmatism of Machiavelli.

                Many writers and philosophers have written about statesmanship as a science and as an art. The test of a statesman is not his ability or skill of analysis but his uncanny knack of sensing possibilities. When Solon said that he had given the Athenians not the best laws but the sort of laws that they needed, he exemplified the fundamental character of statesmanship.

                A statesman is one who uses the religious, social and political institutions to his advantage, while a politician at best will only serve these slavishly. A good statesman would also use the persistent traditions and tendencies of action which characterise a people. He will, for example, consent to the survival of anomalies if the pain of transition to a new form of organisation can be mitigated. When circumstances are all equal, the statesman would display, in the words of Jefferson, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”, even when they run counter to his own opinions or beliefs. Even a leader who makes a violent breach with the past, will wisely pay attention to forces worth conciliating. Like Lenin, he will adopt a new economic policy or like his followers make of the dead leader’s mausoleum a shrine of a kind familiar of national traditions. ‘Putting old wine in new bottles’ is a permanent task of a statesman. This is because he cannot bring about any change unless it is under the guise of continuance of tradition.

                A good statesman is different from a politician. A statesman like a doctor must have a cure and also have a mind to get his fees. The doctor has a responsibility whether he is a consultant or a practitioner. A politician can escape from a bad policy decision by throwing the blame on political pressure. A statesman cannot absolve himself of responsibility for a bad decision. This would mean aggravating his failure, not justifying it.

Apart from the general duty to give the best possible advice and action, a good statesman has to give thought to the concept of expansionism. Men would like to belong to their own group in a small state than to be members of an alien community. But they would not like to accept that theirs is a small state and hence would be prepared to pay a price to make their small town a great city. With the rise of nationalism, this feeling is more intense now. Beside this, a statesman should also be a shrewd economist. There has never been any period in history when the prosperity of the state was not regarded as a test of political skills. But today most statesmen should find their glory in real or apparent economic successes. Whether the statesman is the servant, the ally or the master of the great economic forces of the state, he must stand to them in closer relation than was possible in earlier days, when he could afford to choose between the policy of power or a policy of plenty.

The success of a statesman thus depends on his pragmatism, as defined by the context of his age. With the growth of independence, ethical standards, the problem of morality of statesmanship began to emerge in a new form. Now a statesman has duties to perform or advice to give which in a private individual might seem unethical or even to be a sin. The making of war or the execution of criminals are examples. It is, however, accepted that the safety of the state is the supreme law and this is a valid rule for the public man. But again, this gives room for excesses and therefore it is now agreed that the circumstances in which a statesman find himself alter the case. This dilemma of the statesman has to be effectively tackled by the statesman himself. In fact, his accountability is part of the statesmanship.

Thus the rule of a statesman is of crucial importance in the governance of a state or country. While the role of politicians are short-lived, as are politics, the statesmen give a state its fibre, its tradition and its identity. There have been several statesmen throughout the ages from Themistocles of Greek times to Jefferson, or Jawaharlal Nehru who have embellished the role of statesmen by their genius in running the affairs of state which in modern times can be likened to a tight-rope walk or skating on thin ice. The statesman needs patience, stout-heartedness and honesty of purpose.