Between a chit chat and a global dialogue

The ST has two interesting articles yesterday which I believe should qualify as something serious and worthy of reading than about some little girl’s diary or how I shampoo my dog. The first article was about a chit chat between two very senior gentlemen about to be hit by dementia or senility. Fortunately, at the ripe old age of the nineties, their minds are still lucid and functioning as fine as they could be. The other article was about a dialogue between middle age intellectuals with big titles but ended up more like a TV commercial repeating stereotype views and ideas that lack depth and insight to the evolving geopolitical scenario that is being played up in the Asia Pacific region.

In the chit chat, the issues were more about the dominance of civilisations and their roles towards humanity and the progress of human beans. It eventually narrowed down to the western missionary zeal to teach the world how to live and what is good and right. And there is the trigger happy righteousness to intervene into other nations to save the pathetic and the uncivilised. Genocide was briefly touched on with questions about the missed opportunities or the right or wrong to intercede in the events at Chechnya, Rwanda, Kampuchea and even Tiananmen Square.

The wise men simply grouped them together as matters of genocide. Were they? What is genocide? I think there is no need to define what is genocide as the answer is simply obvious. Tiananmen was a political uprising, a people’s grievance against a govt and its policies, nothing about genocide though it was put down forcefully with military force.

Chechnya is genocide, and so is Rwanda, and so is the holocaust of WW2. But conveniently no one would like to remember the greatest genocide of human history, the termination of the Red Indians. In all definition, the killing of 100m or there about of a civilisation of people by virtue of their race, for whatever reasons, political, economic or religion, must be genocide.

And should there be an intervention by any powers, it should be the savings of the Red Indians that were brutally and systematically put down. And there are still a few that are living and waiting to be saved but conveniently forgotten by the greatest human rights provocateur among nations. Or is it that the violators were the human rights provocateurs themselves? This is history or western history’s biggest hypocrisy.

In the dialogue, it was clear that the world exists only for the Americans and the Americans or the Empire decides what and who should be placed where and at which pigeon hole. Any country that dares to challenge this status quo, called the balance of power, in favour of the Empire is evil and must be put back into his respective hole, exceptions like Israel, Japan and the allies with the Empires blessing. The Americans spoke like there is only one world view, or one view that counts, and that is the Empire’s.

China’s rise as an economic and military power is seen as a challenged to the status quo and not permissible. It can only be allowed and accommodated if the Empire said so. And so are the other smaller countries. Those that tried would be brutally put down by military intervention in the name of human rights and regime change. Their enemy Number One is not China but the Muslim World that lives by a religious order that is in direct conflict and opposed everything the Empire stands by. But this has been well taken care of, and the Muslim World is torn and tattered and would be kept at least 50 years behind the rest of the world in all spheres of development.

Having taken care of this enemy, the Americans see it their right to shift all its military assets to the Asia Pacific to prevent the rise of China, as a ‘friendly measure’ to maintain peace and for the progress of the region. And all believes that this is true and a right thing to do.

According to the top proponent of the Empire, he said that ‘China was widely perceived in the US and the region as behaving in unusually assertive fashion.’ The Empire needs only think about what it perceives of others. Does the Empire ever think of what the rest of the world perceive of its behaviour, its aggressiveness, war mongering and assertiveness in intervention and regime change? No, doesn’t matter, immaterial? Yes, the Empire does not care two hoots what it does and how it is being perceived. That was exactly how the woman from the White House felt so shock when its ambassador was killed in Libya. How could that be? How could there be so much hatred against the Empire? Never mind, only a passing thought. The Empire will get down to business as usual, formenting dissent, inciting, conniving and starting wars.

Why the need for more wars? The Empire’s emissary admitted, ‘the US had done so far, moving its assets from other parts of the world to the Asia Pacific region, had reached the end of its usefulness and that there was a need to spend on new weapons.’ He added that the Empire ‘should maintain spending at 3 to 4 per cent of GDP’ on new weapons. This is perhaps the most clearly stated reason for the Empire’s action, to profit from more arms and weapons manufacturing.

Between the two pieces of works, I find the chit chat between two senior gentlemen having coffee and a puff, without the trappings of power and title more enlightening that the Global Dialogue that it was called. The stereotyping of views is so pedestrian and more like MacDonald’s hamburger commercial.

CHEATING EXPOSED BY SULTAN of Johore.

'Defence Ministry Acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles Wednesday, 12 September 2012
  
 The reprimand by the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail on the acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs) at exhorbitant prices highlights the malaise in the Ministry of Defence procurement exercises
 
Tony Pua
 On Saturday 8 September 2012, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail asked that “nobody should take advantage of the situation for personal gains when acquiring equipment for the Special Forces,” adding that recently four Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV) were purchased for RM2.76mil or RM690,000 eachby the Ministry of Defence
 
Sultan Ibrahim then displayed one of the RIV vehicles and another personal vehicle that he purchased for RM150,000.
 
“Which of these will be your choice? I do not understand why government purchases involve exorbitant charges that do not make sense,” Sultan Ibrahim, who is also a Colonel in the Special Forces, was reported to have said.
 
The above acquisition follows a series of controversial procurement of defence vehicles by the Ministry of Defence that have raised major question marks over whether the tax payers are getting value for their money….'

I received the above attachment in an email that is circulating around. What I posted is only a small part of the article. The original included purchases of helicopters, naval vessels, weapons, etc, etc..

What is interesting is the accompanying comment that our Brompton Bikes were chicken feat compare to the value of these purchases. I dunno if that is something we should be proud of. What is wrong is wrong, and there is no comfort for a pot to calling a kettle black.

This revelation by the Sultan is like the returning of a kindness by the royalties to the govt. The royalties were shamed by the Mahathir govt for similar accusations and now they are reciprocating the niceties to redeem themselves.

Agreeing with William Pesek

This western journalist has an article deemed worthy to be published in the Today paper yesterday, titled ‘Why outrage over islands full of goats is crazy’. He is of course referring to the tension between China and Japan. It is a little piece of wasteland, why quarrel over it and threatening to go to war? Simply foolish. At least the British were smarter to fight over the Falklands, somewhere in the Antartic, thousands of miles away from civilization. But Falkland is a bit bigger, with human beans instead of goats.

And he could envision a few Japanese being dragged into the streets in Shanghai, beaten and killed. The bigger picture could be lynching by mobs in white robes and silly conical hats, or simply gunned down like the Wild Wild West in the streets.

China and Japan should end this silly row now, he added. I fully agree with his perception of the pettiness in this quarrel. The British had long stopped quarrelling with the Americans over the North American continent. That is a very meaty piece of pie. And so have the Red Indians. They too have given up for good reasons, even for a piece of land the size of a continent. The aborigines in Australia too have given up fighting for their continent. And the Maoris too have given up fighting for New Zealand and happily sharing the islands with the Europeans. No need to fight over goat land right.

China must think big like the Europeans. If they want to fight a war, look for something big, like the Americas, or at least the Middle eastern countries, or north Africa where there are plenty of oil. That’s what the Europeans and the Americans are doing. And what is happening to Japan, trying to fight with China over a piece of rock when they were coveting for the whole of Asia at one time?

And Willaim Pesek suggested that the two countries should bring their dispute to the USA and let Obama be the broker, to divide it between them. By the way, who was the asshole who took the Chinese islands and handed it to the Japanese? And why is this asshole not coming out to explain why they did it in the first place? Remember, they wanted to return the islands to Chiang Kai Shek but that man had his hands full fighting China and told the Americans to hold it in trust till a later date.

Did the Americans, while fighting Communism, had anything to do with the handing over of the islands to Japan with the agreement that the US be allowed to build a military base on the islands? Would the Americans explain the legality of such an act, handling over another country’s territory that America was not the legal owner, to another country was not the legal owner?

And would Pesek be living happily with his neighbor for cutting away a corner of his garden for keeps sake?

Mother Nature the Painter神画(22 Oct -21 Dec 2012)

A unique exhibition of paintings by Mother Nature, the Painter, is available for viewing for the first time. 40 pieces of work in pigment colours on archival paper will be on show at the NUSS Guild House at 9 Kent Ridge Drive, University of Singapore.  The work, a collaboration between the Painter, Mother Nature, that conceived and created every painting, and the Photopainter, Chua Chin Leng, is brought to life using a photography technique called The Art of Reflection and Refraction(RAR).

The work of Mother Nature is never found on canvas or on a medium convenient and recognizable by the mortals. In this exhibition, the artistry of Mother Nature as a painter is finally on display in a form never seen before.

The public may need to be accompanied by a member of the NUSS Graduate’s Club, or can contact me, email redbeansg@yahoo.com, for a convenient time to view the paintings.

Chua Chin Leng

A preview of some of the paintings in digital image can be seen at my Art of RAR Gallery. The link is on the right. Click on the purplish abstract painting.

The title of this piece of rar art is called The Inner Consciousness or The Third Eye. It is a face within a face. The original face opens up, right in middle from forehead to the upper lips, to reveal another face or the inner consciousness. This inner face has two eyes, one open, one close. The closed eye is the normal vision that would retire when the third eye is opened and seeing at a different dimension or plane of existence.

This piece is totally conceived and created naturally, by Mother Nature. This piece will be at the exhibition.

I support ISA, I don’t support ISA…

This new controversy now has four members in the ring, Function 8, Maruah, the Catholic Church and the MHA. Apparently the Archbishop had sent two letters to Function 8 and Maruah in support of abolishing ISA sometime in June this year before the small rally in Hong Lim. Now the Archbishop’s letters, content not disclosed yet, is mentioned in the open by Alex Au after the former retracted his letter, and presumably the support for the cause. One side is saying that the Archbishop was pressured by MHA to withdraw. The Archbishop is saying that he feared his letters could be misused for the wrong reasons or causes.

Now we have a new dispute on top of abolishing the ISA. What is happening behind closed door that is leading to this controversy? I believe the truth would slowly creep out and there will be more red faces.

The main issue is the ISA. Is there a need for the ISA? I think so then and now. There are elements that can wreck havoc and threaten securities and safety of people and country. The question is how to deal with them and play by their rules instead of being constrained by the slow pace of the legal and policing systems? I think the ISA per se is not an issue. Abolishing it will see a new transformation, a new tool be invented to take its place and the problem will just recycle itself.

The main problem of the ISA is the fear and the perception of it being misused and abused for the wrong reasons, for the wrong purpose. The ISA is seen as a draconian and outdated tool of oppression by some quarters. Why does it acquire such a bad reputation? Why should it not be seen as a necessary and respectable tool for the govt to use for country and people?

The ISA is not the only govt instrument that can acquire such an infamous reputation. The other apparachiks of the govt like the CPIB, the IRA or even the Law Society, if not carefully managed, can also acquire equally offensive and evil reputation. So, is the abolishing of the ISA a solution? I don’t think so. It is how the tool is being applied, being misused that matters. And this boils down to the operators, the intent and the authority. If the authority is seen to be applying all the instruments of power fairly, justly, for the good of country and nation, if the operators act professionally, all the govt instruments will be highly respected and regarded.

It is not the ISA alone, look at the HDB, the MOE, MOM, all can be viewed with mistrust and disgust too. Should they all be abolished? This will bring things back to square one. Why is an organization seen as a bad organization and some people wanting it to be abolished and some people seeing it as an instrument of fear or of ill repute?