Dr. M. Bakri Musa Speaks His Mind:Liberating the Malay Mind


Malay_liberating-the-malay-mind>>>> ” 90% of the Doctorates held by Malays is not worth the toilet paper on which it is printed because it was all produced by some internet degree mill for a fee and worse still is when you hold them to a discussion or debate , the thoughts that emanate from the area between their ears is so embarrassing you want to run away and jump off a cliff but yet they proudly parade their Doctorates with pride “

>>
>> ” 90% of the Malay wealth is not from the fruits of their labour as great entrepreneurs , like the Chinese , but rather the hand-outs of their political patronage and cronyism and there is nothing to be proud of the huge mansions and expensive cars and life-style , because they are nothing but the produce of utter corruption at stealing the wealth of the people’s blood , sweat and tears , and yet , without shame their spouses and children flaunt it like they earned all these through intelligence and hard-work . Where is the self pride ? ”

Malay_bakri-musa>> M. Bakri Musa speaks his mind – excellent article

>>
>> Longing For Enlightened Leaders
>> M. Bakri Musa>>

Before Malaysians grant Prime Minister Najib’s request for a mandate in the coming election, we should examine his performance during the past four years. It has been mediocre, satiated with slogans, and drifting amidst an abundance of acronyms.

>>
>> If Malaysians are satisfied with KPI and PEMANDU, or One Malaysia This and Two Malaysia That, then expect more of the same, this time with ever incredulous inanity and flatulent fatuousness. Najib has not demonstrated any ability or inclination to clean up his administrative house. An early indication of his second term performance is this. Thus far no cabinet minister has voluntarily withdrawn from being an electoral candidate. As Najib will not drop them, if they win they will end up in his cabinet again. Nothing would have changed.

>>
>> A wisecrack definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. That is true only if you let the same cast of incompetent characters carry out the task after they have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their inability to do so.

>>
>> Pick others more competent and diligent, and the result may well surprise you. It would be far from insanity. The best advice a science teacher could give a student who repeatedly fails to perform an experiment is to suggest that he pursues music instead, where “practice, practice, practice!” (doing the same thing over and over) may take him to Carnegie Hall.

>>
>> Likewise, the kindest gesture to Najib after he has clearly demonstrated his inability to lead would be for Malaysians to force him into another line of work, by not voting him and his party in.

>>
>> After over half of century in power, what has UMNO, a party that claims to champion Malays, achieved? Malays today are even more morally corrupt, deeply polarized, and economically disadvantaged than ever before. Those are not my observations. I am merely summarizing what Mamak, a man who led the country and UMNO for over two decades, said. Take any social indicator – rate of incarceration, drug abuse, families headed by single mothers – and our community is over represented.

>>
>> Our educational and economic achievements are nothing to be proud of; they are an embarrassment. Yet UMNO Supreme Council members parade their ‘doctorates’ from degree mills as genuine intellectual achievements. The sorry part is that their colleagues believe them! Spouses and families of ministers brag that their luxurious condominiums are the fruits of their entrepreneurial flair where others see those as reflecting the corruption and cronyism of the system.

>>
>> Current UMNO leaders are like that inept science student; it is time to force them to pursue other lines of work, anything other than leading us. Voters must be like the strict teacher; flunk the student who repeatedly fails to perform his assigned task. Letting him continue would not do that individual any service; it would only be detrimental to the rest of the class. Voters must flunk these corrupt and incompetent UMNO leaders by voting them out.

>>
>> Not A Lost Cause

>> This does not mean that UMNO is a lost cause; nothing is. Even the most unseaworthy sloop could through imaginative and skilful craftsmanship be brought up to Bristol condition. The operative phrase or caveat is “imaginative and skilful craftsmanship.” Is Najib imaginative and skilful? I never underestimate the ability of an individual to learn or change.

>>
>> The diminutive, uninspiring and uncharismatic Deng Xiaoping was well in his 70s when he assumed power. He then took his giant nation in a radically different and far better direction. Unlike Deng, Najib is far from being diminutive physically, but he exceeds Deng in being uninspiring and uncharismatic.

>>
>> Again unlike Deng whose path to power was littered with the carcasses of personal and political tragedies (his son was paralyzed by Red Guard goons and Deng was once paraded in a dunce cap on the streets of Beijing ), Najib’s ascend to the top was well paved – by others.

>> Deng was tempered by life’s bitter lessons; Najib’s the beneficiary of its many blessings.

>>
>> If Najib considers that a handicap and an excuse for his under performance, then he should look up to another transformative leader of modern times, Franklin D Roosevelt, for inspiration. Roosevelt , whose name means a field of roses in Dutch, was born into privilege. Yet he uplifted the lives of Americans especially the poor through his New Deal initiatives. His progressive redistributionist policies earned him the sobriquet, “traitor to his class.”

>> Najib’s name is equally rosy; it means wise, intelligent, or high birth in Arabic. Like Roosevelt , Najib was also born into privilege though not on the same scale as FDR or today. Corruption and cronyism were not yet the norms when Razak Hussein was Prime Minister.

>>
>> Going back to Deng, Najib too spent his formative years as a young man abroad, in Britain , to Deng’s Europe . When Deng left, his father asked him what he hoped to learn. Deng replied, “To learn knowledge and the truth from the West in order to save China .” I do not know whether Najib had a similar conversation with his father, but one thing I do know. Razak Hussein sent all his children abroad to escape the very Malaysian system of education he was championing! Hypocrisy is a good word to describe such a stance. That is one trait Najib inherits from his father.

>>
>> I risk flattering Najib by mentioning him in the same sentence with Deng and FDR. My doing so merely reflects a longing on my part for a leader who could inspire us. Najib could initiate change now to give us a hint that he is indeed capable of being a “transformative leader” as he so frequently bragged, and not be content with merely mouthing slogans. He could announce his “shadow” cabinet should Barisan be returned to power. Better yet, revamp his cabinet now and pick his new team to go into the election so citizens could have a reason to vote for Barisan and not merely against Pakatan.

>>
>> Malaysians do not expect miracles or demand a super team, merely capable and honest ministers. It is not a tall order. Begin by getting rid of those stale politicians in his cabinet. If they haven’t yet made their mark, they are unlikely to do so in the next few years. Characters like Nazri, Rais and Hishamuddin are like durians that have remained unsold for far too long. They are tak laku (unsellable), not even good for making tompoyak. All they do is stink the place up and lower the value of what few remaining good durians Najib has. Nor are his junior ministers, the next tier of leaders, any better, as exemplified by the recent idiotic utterances of one Dr. Mashitah. She is supposedly better educated, sporting a doctorate of some sort. I could add a few more names including that of Muhyyiddin, but that would only be divisive. After all he has as much claim and legitimacy to the top post as Najib. Instead why not join forces and together pick the new dream team. While he is at it, Najib should also pick a new Attorney General and anti-corruption chief.

>>
>> If Najib were to name individuals with impeccable credentials and professionalism to those two offices, then those old tak laku durians he dropped from his cabinet would not dare create trouble for him. Najib’s address to the UMNO General Assembly later this month will reveal whether he is content with another session of sloganeering or serious about transforming his party and country. The greater significance is this. By indulging in the former and naming the same old nincompoops to his cabinet and top positions, Najib soils the reputation of our community. It gives the impression that the Nazris, Raises, Mashitahs and Hishamuddins represent the best our race is capable of producing or that we are bereft of talents. The shame reflects on all of us.

>>
>> May Allah have mercy on the Malays.

From: Anthony Dass Joseph Dass

Community Organization

U.S. Ambassador Mark Lippert attacked by South Korean


US ambassador attacked_South KoreaSEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The U.S. ambassador to South Korea struggled with pain as he recovered Friday from a knife attack, while police searched the offices of the anti-U.S. activist who they say slashed the envoy while screaming demands for Korean reunification.

The attack Thursday on Mark Lippert, which prompted rival North Korea to gloat about “knife slashes of justice,” left deep gashes and damaged tendons and nerves. It also raised questions about security in a city normally seen as ultra-safe, despite regular threats of war from Pyongyang.

While an extreme example, the attack is the latest act of political violence in a deeply divided country where some protesters portray their causes as matters of life and death.

Lippert, 42, was recovering well but still complaining of pain in the wound on his left wrist and a finger where doctors repaired nerve damage, Severance Hospital official Yoon Do-Heum said in televised briefing. Doctors will remove the 80 stiches on Lippert’s face on Monday or Tuesday and expect him to be out of the hospital by Tuesday or Wednesday. Hospital officials say he may experience sensory problems in his left hand for several months.

Police, meanwhile, searched the offices of the suspect, Kim Ki-jong, 55, for documents and computer files as they investigated how the attack was planned and whether others were involved. Police plan to soon request a warrant for Kim’s formal arrest, and potential charges include attempted murder, assaulting a foreign envoy, obstruction and violating a controversial South Korean law that bars praise or assistance of North Korea, Jongno district police chief Yun Myung-sung told reporters.

Police are investigating Kim’s past travels to North Korea — seven times between 1999 and 2007 — during a previous era of inter-Korean cooperation, when Seoul was ruled by a liberal government. Kim attempted to build a memorial altar for former North Korean leader Kim Jong Il after his death in December 2011, police said.

Kim, who has a long history of anti-U.S. protests, said he acted alone in the attack on Lippert. He told police it was meant as a protest of annual U.S.-South Korean military drills that started Monday — exercises that the North has long maintained are preparations for an invasion. Kim said the drills, which Seoul and Washington say are purely defensive, ruined efforts for reconciliation between the Koreas, according to police officials.

While most South Koreans look at the U.S. presence favorably, America infuriates some leftists because of its role in Korea’s turbulent modern history.

Washington, which backed the South during the 1950-53 Korean War against the communist North, still stations 28,500 troops here, and anti-U.S. activists see the annual military drills with Seoul as a major obstacle to their goal of a unified Korea.

“South and North Korea should be reunified,” Kim shouted as he slashed Lippert with a 25-centimeter (10-inch) knife, police and witnesses said.

Kim is well-known among police and activists as one of a hard-core group of protesters willing to use violence to highlight their causes.

Police didn’t consider the possibility that Kim, who has ties to the Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation, which hosted the breakfast meeting where Lippert was attacked, would show up for the event, according to a Seoul police official who didn’t want to be named, citing office rules.

U.S. ambassadors have security details, but their size largely depends on the threat level of the post. Seoul is not considered to be a particularly high threat post despite its proximity to the North Korean border. It’s not clear how many guards Lippert had, but they would have been fewer than the ambassadors in most of the Mideast.

Seoul’s Foreign Ministry said it was the first time a foreign ambassador stationed in modern South Korea had been injured in a violent attack.

However, the Japanese ambassador narrowly escaped injury in 2010 when Kim threw a piece of concrete at him, according to police. Kim, who was protesting Japan’s claim to small disputed islands that are occupied by South Korea, hit the ambassador’s secretary instead, media reports said, and was sentenced to a three-year suspended prison term over the attack.

The website of the Woorimadang activist group that Kim heads describes the group’s long history of anti-U.S. protests. Photos show him and other activists rallying last week in front of the U.S. Embassy in Seoul to protest the U.S.-South Korean military drills, which are to run until the end of April.

North Korea’s state-controlled media crowed Thursday that Kim’s “knife slashes of justice” were “a deserved punishment on war maniac U.S.” and reflected the South Korean people’s protests against the U.S. for driving the Korean Peninsula to the brink of war because of the joint military drills.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in Saudi Arabia for meetings with regional leaders, said the U.S. “will never be intimidated or deterred by threats or by anybody who harms any American diplomats.”

Activists in Seoul, meanwhile, expressed worries that the attack on Lippert would harm the public image of peaceful protesters, or prompt the conservative government to suppress their activities.

Small to medium-sized demonstrations regularly occur across Seoul, and most are peaceful.

But scuffles with police do break out occasionally, and the burning of effigies of North Korean and Japanese leaders is also common. Some demonstrators have also severed their own fingers, thrown bodily fluids at embassies and tried to self-immolate.
Lippert became ambassador last October and has been a regular presence on social media and in speeches and presentations during his time in Seoul. He’s regularly seen walking his Basset Hound, Grigsby, near his residence, not far from where the attack happened. His wife gave birth here and the couple gave their son a Korean middle name.

–  Associated Press writers Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul and Matthew Lee in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, contributed to this report.

Related posts:

More spell-binding Korean landscapes are found beyond Seoul in the Seoraksan mountain range. Mountain culture and customs are hot-wired …

“Super China” Boom in South Korea

Enter the Chinese Century: China is now the world’s No.1 economic power


Chinese century

The natural American reaction would be to “contain” China—and that would be a mistake.
SOFT POWER For America, the best response to China is to put our own house in order., © M. Garfat/MGP (Feather), © Gino’s Premium Images (Leaves), both from Alamy; © Cary Anderson (Wing), © Michael Nolan/SpecialistStock (Eagle’sHead), © Aaron Joel Santos (Bamboo Forest), all from Aurora Photos; © Getty Ellis/Globio/Minden Pictures/Corbis (Panda and Grass); Photo Illustration by Vanity Fair

Prof Joseph E StiglitzWithout fanfare—indeed, with some misgivings about its new status — China has just overtaken the United States as the world’s largest economy. This is, and should be, a wake-up call—but not the kind most Americans might imagine.

by Prof Joseph E. Stiglitz – Coluimbia Business School

When the history of 2014 is written, it will take note of a large fact that has received little attention: 2014 was the last year in which the United States could claim to be the world’s largest economic power. China enters 2015 in the top position, where it will likely remain for a very long time, if not forever. In doing so, it returns to the position it held through most of human history.

Comparing the gross domestic product of different economies is very difficult. Technical committees come up with estimates, based on the best judgments possible, of what are called “purchasing-power parities,” which enable the comparison of incomes in various countries. These shouldn’t be taken as precise numbers, but they do provide a good basis for assessing the relative size of different economies. Early in 2014, the body that conducts these international assessments—the World Bank’s International Comparison Program—came out with new numbers. (The complexity of the task is such that there have been only three reports in 20 years.) The latest assessment, released last spring, was more contentious and, in some ways, more momentous than those in previous years. It was more contentious precisely because it was more momentous: the new numbers showed that China would become the world’s largest economy far sooner than anyone had expected—it was on track to do so before the end of 2014.

The source of contention would surprise many Americans, and it says a lot about the differences between China and the U.S.—and about the dangers of projecting onto the Chinese some of our own attitudes. Americans want very much to be No. 1—we enjoy having that status. In contrast, China is not so eager. According to some reports, the Chinese participants even threatened to walk out of the technical discussions. For one thing, China did not want to stick its head above the parapet—being No. 1 comes with a cost. It means paying more to support international bodies such as the United Nations. It could bring pressure to take an enlightened leadership role on issues such as climate change. It might very well prompt ordinary Chinese to wonder if more of the country’s wealth should be spent on them. (The news about China’s change in status was in fact blacked out at home.) There was one more concern, and it was a big one: China understands full well America’s psychological preoccupation with being No. 1—and was deeply worried about what our reaction would be when we no longer were.

Of course, in many ways—for instance, in terms of exports and household savings—China long ago surpassed the United States. With savings and investment making up close to 50 percent of G.D.P., the Chinese worry about having too much savings, just as Americans worry about having too little. In other areas, such as manufacturing, the Chinese overtook the U.S. only within the past several years. They still trail America when it comes to the number of patents awarded, but they are closing the gap.

The areas where the United States remains competitive with China are not always ones we’d most want to call attention to. The two countries have comparable levels of inequality. (Ours is the highest in the developed world.) China outpaces America in the number of people executed every year, but the U.S. is far ahead when it comes to the proportion of the population in prison (more than 700 per 100,000 people). China overtook the U.S. in 2007 as the world’s largest polluter, by total volume, though on a per capita basis we continue to hold the lead. The United States remains the largest military power, spending more on our armed forces than the next top 10 nations combined (not that we have always used our military power wisely). But the bedrock strength of the U.S. has always rested less on hard military power than on “soft power,” most notably its economic influence. That is an essential point to remember.

Tectonic shifts in global economic power have obviously occurred before, and as a result we know something about what happens when they do. Two hundred years ago, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain emerged as the world’s dominant power. Its empire spanned a quarter of the globe. Its currency, the pound sterling, became the global reserve currency—as sound as gold itself. Britain, sometimes working in concert with its allies, imposed its own trade rules. It could discriminate against importation of Indian textiles and force India to buy British cloth. Britain and its allies could also insist that China keep its markets open to opium, and when China, knowing the drug’s devastating effect, tried to close its borders, the allies twice went to war to maintain the free flow of this product.

Britain’s dominance was to last a hundred years and continued even after the U.S. surpassed Britain economically, in the 1870s. There’s always a lag (as there will be with the U.S. and China). The transitional event was World War I, when Britain achieved victory over Germany only with the assistance of the United States. After the war, America was as reluctant to accept its potential new responsibilities as Britain was to voluntarily give up its role. Woodrow Wilson did what he could to construct a postwar world that would make another global conflict less likely, but isolationism at home meant that the U.S. never joined the League of Nations. In the economic sphere, America insisted on going its own way—passing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and bringing to an end an era that had seen a worldwide boom in trade. Britain maintained its empire, but gradually the pound sterling gave way to the dollar: in the end, economic realities dominate. Many American firms became global enterprises, and American culture was clearly ascendant.

World War II was the next defining event. Devastated by the conflict, Britain would soon lose virtually all of its colonies. This time the U.S. did assume the mantle of leadership. It was central in creating the United Nations and in fashioning the Bretton Woods agreements, which would underlie the new political and economic order. Even so, the record was uneven. Rather than creating a global reserve currency, which would have contributed so much to worldwide economic stability—as John Maynard Keynes had rightly argued—the U.S. put its own short-term self-interest first, foolishly thinking it would gain by having the dollar become the world’s reserve currency. The dollar’s status is a mixed blessing: it enables the U.S. to borrow at a low interest rate, as others demand dollars to put into their reserves, but at the same time the value of the dollar rises (above what it otherwise would have been), creating or exacerbating a trade deficit and weakening the economy.

For 45 years after World War II, global politics was dominated by two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., representing two very different visions both of how to organ­ize and govern an economy and a society and of the relative importance of political and economic rights. Ultimately, the Soviet system was to fail, as much because of internal corruption, unchecked by democratic processes, as anything else. Its military power had been formidable; its soft power was increasingly a joke. The world was now dominated by a single superpower, one that continued to invest heavily in its military. That said, the U.S. was a superpower not just militarily but also economically.

The United States then made two critical mistakes. First, it inferred that its triumph meant a triumph for everything it stood for. But in much of the Third World, concerns about poverty—and the economic rights that had long been advocated by the left—remained paramount. The second mistake was to use the short period of its unilateral dominance, between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers, to pursue its own narrow economic interests—or, more accurately, the economic interests of its multi-nationals, including its big banks—rather than to create a new, stable world order. The trade regime the U.S. pushed through in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization, was so unbalanced that, five years later, when another trade agreement was in the offing, the prospect led to riots in Seattle. Talking about free and fair trade, while insisting (for instance) on subsidies for its rich farmers, has cast the U.S. as hypocritical and self-serving.

ADVERTISEMENT

And Washington never fully grasped the consequences of so many of its shortsighted actions—intended to extend and strengthen its dominance but in fact diminishing its long-term position. During the East Asia crisis, in the 1990s, the U.S. Treasury worked hard to undermine the so-called Miyazawa Initiative, Japan’s generous offer of $100 billion to help jump-start economies that were sinking into recession and depression. The policies the U.S. pushed on these countries—austerity and high interest rates, with no bailouts for banks in trouble—were just the opposite of those that these same Treasury officials advocated for the U.S. after the meltdown of 2008. Even today, a decade and a half after the East Asia crisis, the mere mention of the U.S. role can prompt angry accusations and charges of hypocrisy in Asian capitals.

Now China is the world’s No. 1 economic power. Why should we care? On one level, we actually shouldn’t. The world economy is not a zero-sum game, where China’s growth must necessarily come at the expense of ours. In fact, its growth is complementary to ours. If it grows faster, it will buy more of our goods, and we will prosper. There has always, to be sure, been a little hype in such claims—just ask workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs to China. But that reality has as much to do with our own economic policies at home as it does with the rise of some other country.

On another level, the emergence of China into the top spot matters a great deal, and we need to be aware of the implications.

First, as noted, America’s real strength lies in its soft power—the example it provides to others and the influence of its ideas, including ideas about economic and political life. The rise of China to No. 1 brings new prominence to that country’s political and economic model—and to its own forms of soft power. The rise of China also shines a harsh spotlight on the American model. That model has not been delivering for large portions of its own population. The typical American family is worse off than it was a quarter-century ago, adjusted for inflation; the proportion of people in poverty has increased. China, too, is marked by high levels of inequality, but its economy has been doing some good for most of its citizens. China moved some 500 million people out of poverty during the same period that saw America’s middle class enter a period of stagnation. An economic model that doesn’t serve a majority of its citizens is not going to provide a role model for others to emulate. America should see the rise of China as a wake-up call to put our own house in order.

Second, if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different stages of production; the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.

Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.

Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.

And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.

The United States is confronted with real foreign-policy challenges that will prove hard to resolve: militant Islam; the Palestine conflict, which is now in its seventh decade; an aggressive Russia, insisting on asserting its power, at least in its own neighborhood; continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. We will need the cooperation of China to address many, if not all, of these problems.

We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.

A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.

Related posts:

A woman walks past the headquarters of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the central bank, in Beijing, in this file picture taken …

Abe’s strategy clearer after Japanese ISIS hostage crisis



The release of a video on Saturday showing a message thatHaruna Yukawa, one of the Japanese hostages captured byIslamic State (IS) militants, had been slaughtered, shocked both Japanese society and its Western allies. Official institutions in both Japan and the US consider the video is likely to be authentic.

The IS claimed last Tuesday it had abducted two Japanese and gave the Japanese government 72 hours to pay $200 million in ransom for the captives. The Abe administration was put in a conundrum. In front of requests from the victims’ families to save the hostages, the Japanese government vowed it would never give in to terrorism on one hand, on the other, it displayed a high-profile stance of striving to free the hostages. But it’s believed that the Abe administration would be unlikely to carry out a dramatic rescue, which has already decided the fate of the hostages.

The brutality of the IS has become well-known. They kill hostages in a cold-blooded manner. Now that Japan has become a victim of global terrorism, Tokyo may reassess the challenges it faces. In the past few years, Japanese rightists portrayed China as Japan’s major threat, despite the fact that China has never infringed upon Japan over the past century. It’s instead Japan that invaded China and persecuted Chinese people again and again.

The death of the hostage also offers a new excuse for Abe to lift the ban on collective self-defense. Abe will face fewer hurdles now if he decides to cooperate with the US strategic deployment and strengthen Japan’s military activities in the Middle East and its security deployment in East Asia.

Some claimed that Abe is more concerned about promoting rightist policies than rescuing hostages. For the good of peace in East Asia and the Japanese public, we hope such analysis is just speculative. Japan is not capable of playing an active role in the Middle East. East Asian countries are not supposed to be key targets of the atrocious IS. The Japanese hostage case sends a warning signal.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US has spent great efforts in ensuring its domestic security. However, US allies such as European countries and Japan have been constantly targeted by terrorism. It’s worthwhile studying the underlying reasons.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo seemingly unveiled the conflicts between the whole of European society and the Muslim community, but it was striking to see how the US tries to remain neutral over the issue.

Having a geopolitical advantage, Japan should be a country without enemies. However, the country is plagued with a terrible mess in its national strategy. It misperceives China as an imaginary enemy. Tokyo’s ultimate goal is said to be getting rid of US control, however, it is forced to defer to the US due to its confrontation with China. The killing of the Japanese hostage is more or less the price that Japan has paid for its support to Washington.

We strongly condemn the brutal killing by the IS. In the meantime, we hope Japanese public opinion will take a clear-cut attitude against any terrorist attack launched on China. – Global Times

Related post:

Chinese and Russian policemen attend a joint anti-terror drill in Manzhouli City, north China’s Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region, Oct …

West should end its hypocrisy on anti-terror war!


Anti_terrorists_China-RussiaChinese and Russian policemen attend a joint anti-terror drill in Manzhouli City, north China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Oct 20, 2014. [Photo/Xinhua]

Senior US leaders invited sharp criticism at home for not attending last week’s solidarity rally in Paris against the terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in which 12 people were killed. As a result, US Secretary of State John Kerry was in Paris this week to make up for the mistake.

However, terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Nigeria, where Boko Haram fighters killed hundreds of, if not more, ordinary people early this month, have not received the same attention in the US and the Western world as the Paris attack. Yet such double standards and hypocrisy of the Western world is nothing new.

Over the past few years, the US and some Western countries have not responded to the terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Beijing, Kunming and the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region the way they reacted to the Paris attack.

On several occasions, US State Department spokespersons have used the excuse that they need more information and investigation into the incidents in China to condemn them as terrorist attacks. But they did not ask any such question after the Paris attack.

Some Western news organizations have refused to describe the perpetrators at Kunming railway station in Yunnan province as terrorists, insisting on calling them “knife-wielding attackers”. And on the rare occasions that they have used the word terrorist, they put it within quotation marks as if the ruthless killers in China were any different from those in Paris or elsewhere in the Western world. One CNN report even posed the question, “Terrorism or Cry of Desperation?”, as if killing innocent civilians in China can be somehow justified.

Even though China and the US have common interests in fighting terrorism, some Americans still seem to believe that only those setting off bombs in New York are terrorists while those doing the same in Beijing or any other Chinese city demand a different description.

The West’s double standards are not restricted to China and Nigeria. The decade-old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but the mainstream media outlets in the US have largely ignored the tragedies and focused on the loss of their own troops.

If the number of civilian casualties is a measure of the intensity of a terrorist attack, tragedies like the Sept 11, 2001, attacks have occurred multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Western media don’t seem to care much about them.

Some Western observers have even found excuses for West’s inadequate response to the terrorist attacks in Kunming on March 1 last year in which 31 were killed and 141 injured. But by failing to immediately condemn the attacks against innocent civilians in Kunming and Xinjiang, these people have by default condoned the action of the perpetrators.

It is true that terrorists in the eyes of some could be freedom fighters in the eyes of others. That is why Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter to the US in the 1980s but a top terrorist in the 21st century. And Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela was still on the US terrorism watch list as late as 2008, years after stepping down as South Africa’s president.

There is no doubt that the US and its allies have failed miserably in their “war on terror” despite the more than 1,000 air strikes launched against the Islamic State group. In spite of the heavy bombardments, we have seen terrorists gaining strength and spreading their tentacles to more areas across the world.

And the Western world responds to this deadly threat with double standards.

By Chen Weihua China Daily/Asia News Network

The author, based in Washington, is deputy editor of China Daily USA. chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com

Related:

Double standards in the fight against terror and acquiescence in religious extremism do no good to any party. Instead, they brew a universal threat to all.

 

 The murder of Jume Tahir, the imam of China´s largest mosque in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous … Imam’s murder is death-knell for terror. Police in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region announced on Thursday that they …
It was a typical terrorist attack and also a severe crime against the humanity. It was China’s “9-11.” Any explanation for the attack, like those in previous cases elsewhere in China, would be feeble at the bloody scene, where …
 Ironically, in spite of critical changes such as the relevant fall of the US and the rise of China, a basic factor remains constant. This is the success of terrorism. It was Al Qaeda 13 years ago and it is the IS now, as far

Malaysian worked as janitor is a serious innovator


Malaysian innovator_G WalterTV star: Dr Walter showing the company’s big LED television.

From Janitor to serious innovator

MALACCA: As a university student, he worked as a janitor to earn some pocket money.

Dr Gabriel Walter, 37, who studied electrical engineering at an American university, now holds about 100 patents in electronic and electrical innovations.

The Kelabit boy from Bario, Sarawak, wants to break the monopoly of foreign brands selling their products at exorbitant prices.

For example, he has introduced a big screen light emitting diode (LED) television, which includes all connecting gadgets, and priced at about RM6,000 compared to popular foreign brands that can cost almost RM20,000.

There is also a smartphone application, costing just a few hundred ringgit, that can integrate home appliances with just a cyberspace connectivity.

“I am determined to make available quality, feature-perfect appliances that can communicate with any other devices in an ad hoc network with a single connectivity.

“All these wonders are packaged and assembled here and sold at affordable prices. It is a Malaysian invention,” he said in an interview.

Dr Walter, who was a Mara scholar, studied at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where he earned a doctorate.

He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor from 2003 to 2009 at the university, where he was also once a senior research scientist.

Despite his long list of achievements, Dr Walter has not forgotten his humble beginnings where his father used to live in a longhouse.

At a tender age, he started selling groundnuts to help supplement the family income.

“Life was hard then. I used to work as a janitor when I was studying in the United States as the scholarship was only adequate to cover my education,” he said.

Several months ago, Dr Walter returned to Malaysia for good after receiving a government grant of RM2mil for research and development before setting up his own manufacturing plant in Batu Berendam.

“I must thank former Chief Minister Tan Sri Ali Rustam who was persistent that I should set up a plant in Malacca when he first met me in 2006 during a bio-tech conference in the United States,” he said.

Dr Walter established Quantum Electro Opto Systems Sdn Bhd (QEOS) and launched its first commercial product based on its patented high-speed light-emitting technology known as tilted charge dynamics in 2013.

QEOS is based here with an office in the Silicon Valley, California, where Dr Walter is the chief executive officer.

His university mentors – professors Nick Holonyak Jr and Milton Feng – are part of his team.

The QEOS website stated that Prof Nick Holonyak Jr is widely regarded as the inventor of LED.

The company, it said, wanted to “pioneer the commercial development of high speed, low-cost and power efficient fiber optics communication solutions”.

By R.S. N. Murali The Star/ANN

Related posts:

WhatsApp users worldwide received surprising news when Jan Koum, the founder of
WhatsApp announced that Facebook was buying over WhatsApp for USD19
billion in cash and stock. It is by far the biggest acquisition …

SoftBank invests $250M in GrabTaxi, an Internet company founded in Malaysia

The round is the highest raise for a startup in Southeast Asia to date —
Rocket Internet companies aside — and it is GrabTaxi’s fourth funding
activity this calendar year, taking it past $320 million in capital from
investors.

Will shale oil survive the price fall?


American shale oil enterprise WBH Energy filed for bankruptcy ro January 4, 2015. This could be the beginning of a shakeout of shale oil enterprises. Since 2010, the debt of America’s energy enterprises has increased 55 percent; meanwhile, the energy sector of S&P 1500 index has dropped rapidly. The shale oil revolution has not only been stricken by the low oil price, but also “abandoned” by investors. As liquidity runs short, small and medium-sized shale oil enterprises will either go bankrupt or be taken over if they survive the oil price crisis.

American shale oil

The reason for the oil price slump is becoming clearer: oversupply. However, since oil producers will not reduce output, the downward trend continues. Canadian heavy crude has dropped below 35 USD, a new low since February 2009. In the past six months, the price has fallen by 60 percent. We can say that the shale oil revolution is being blocked by the low oil price – in other words, it is being hindered by OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), principally represented by Saudi Arabia. When the oil price dropped below 50 USD, OPEC had a meeting seeking consensus on maintaining oil output. The average production cost of OPEC is about 40 USD, while the cost of shale oil is above 60 USD. As long as the price is above 40 USD, OPEC can still make profit, but the shale oil enterprises will be squeezed out. At the end of 2014, in order to exploit the market for US oil producers, the US Department of Commerce lifted the ban on the export of condensate oil. The US has ended its 40-year oil export ban to join in competition with the other oil producers, which means that on the one hand the US has become an international oil producer, while on the other hand shale oil has had a huge impact on the world energy structure, and the world oil market has excess production capacity. For the US, shale oil has provided a new economic growth point and provided additional chips when competing with other oil producing countries. Therefore, the US government will offer necessary supports to shale oil enterprises. However, the market cannot be easily manipulated by one or two countries. The US wanted a moderate drop in the oil price, which would stimulate its economy as well as “fix” those insubordinate oil producing countries. But the downward trend of the oil price has been irresistible, and now threatens the survival of the American shale oil industry. Faced with the falling oil price, shale oil enterprises, with their relatively high production costs, have entered a crucial phase of life and death. Unless all the oil producing countries join hands to limit production and achieve a rebalancing of supply and demand, the oil price will not rebound in the short term. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries blame the oil price crisis on the irresponsible behavior of non-OPEC oil producing countries, which in fact targets the shale oil producers. The new energy industry is suffering under the impact of the falling oil price too. The stock price of electric vehicle producer Tesla is also in a slump. But for the shale oil enterprises, this is an issue of life or death. – (People’s Daily Online) Related posts:

Oil Enters New Era as OPEC Faces Off Against Shale; Who Blinks as Price Slides Toward $70? How Oil’s Price Plunge Impacts Wall S…
PETALING JAYA: With the oil and gas (O&G) sector being the hardest hit in the current market rout, tycoons who own significant stake…
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,223 other followers

%d bloggers like this: