Civil Servants no access to internet

‘The Govt’s move to delink computers used by civil servants from direct access to the Internet is “absolutely necessary” to keep govt data and public services secure.’ Hsien Loong.

When this policy takes effect in May next year, civil servants can only access the Internet through dedicated computers or through their personal computers. Hsien Loong has disclosed that there have been very determined attacks on the Govt’s IT systems and the threats are getting more severe and sophisticated. Just relying on the system’s defensive measures is looking like a losing proposition and it is best to cut the connection to the minimum. Hsien Loong quoted the possibility of personal data like NRIC numbers, addresses and income tax returns being hacked and put up for sale in the Internet. It is all about being safe and secure and the safety of citizens.

Given the same kind of logic and thinking, would the govt clamp down on immigration if more Singaporeans are being beaten by foreigners here or if the threats of terrorism increase, or if actual terrorist acts occurred? Or would it be too late by then? Data security cannot be more serious that personal security and safety and the threats of terrorism on our soil or in the heartland? How badly exposed are Singaporeans to terrorism with so many foreigners here?

The preventive and proactive policies and measures taken to safeguard the data and information safety and security of our citizens should be extended to make sure citizens’ personal safety is protected and not compromised by the hoards of foreigners with unknown backgrounds. Tiok boh? Important or not? No attack does mean we are safe. Terrorists planning to hit their home country from here does not mean we will be safe.

What are the govt going to do about these threats? Should we cut down the human connections as well or at least reduce the numbers here? Terrorists can also wear suit and ties among the professional ranks.

Power and the exercise of Power

Power is sexy, intoxicating and tempting. People who grew up in the HDB heartland and found themselves in position of authority and power would suffer an initial cultural shock. Wah, I have so much Power, I am so powerful. Suddenly, from a neighbourhood Ah Kow, the heartland kid becomes a somebody. Walk also different, talk also different, dress differently and eat differently, even smell differently. Suddenly from a nondescript nothing to look at kid, the kid becomes so attractive, so sexy.

Power can be very wonderful and can change a person, his character. From a meek little kid, he may now talk very big, even turning himself into a monster or a bully.

Power can come from many sources, money, position of authority and in politics, political power, the most fearsome when abused. People in position of authority and power should, ok this is spoken from the point of a person without Power and could fall victim to Power, exercise Power with a little humility and sensitivity. The very reason for saying this is that this is a democracy, I think it is though some may disagree, and your position in Power can be taken away by the very people that gives you the power and the very people you are throwing your power at.

You just do not know when you will lose your power, and become Ah Kow again, though you may not live in the HDB heartland anymore. But Singapore is such a small place and you are going to bump into people that were at the receiving end of your Power when you exercise them abusively. I bet you it would not be a pleasant encounter and experience should that day come.

When one is stripped of Power, the playing field will be level again and an Ah Kow will be treated as an Ah Kow.  Be more foresighted and circumspect and prepared for that day when you are Ah Kow again.  Exercise your Power, the temporary Power bestowed upon you by virtue of your current position and authority with a little care.  It is not going to be with you forever. Hope the day would not come when abusive Power is thrown at you, when you are on the wrong side of Power.

Life is temporary, everything is temporary and changing. Don’t be cocky.

When Asean states are transparent and irrelevant

The Shangri La Dialogue came and gone. What happened? It was a forum for bickering between the two super powers, the US and China and how they compete for control and domination of the South China Sea. Where is the voice of Asean and Asean states in the Dialogue, hosted by Singapore and supposed to be a forum about Asean countries and their interests?

The Americans were telling the Chinese that it was all about freedom of navigation when freedom of navigation was never an issue in the first place. But freedom of navigation was an excuse for the Americans to threaten the Chinese with consequences and vowing to take actions should China continue to build structures in their islands. And China responded by saying it does not create trouble and fear no trouble, 无事不找事，有事不怕事. China is reclaiming land from the sea and building infrastructures inside its own territories. None of the Americans business.

And into the fray came more secondary powers or bit players as Sam Bateman called them, from all corners of the world from as far as Canada, France and the European Union and neighbouring India and Japan, all using this opportunity to claim their right to conduct military patrol in the South China Sea. Whose South China Sea is that? What about the littoral states of the South China Sea, what about Asean, the countries with EEZ in the South China Sea? Do they have a say in who should be patrolling the Sea?

With all the clouds and haze being spewed all over the South China Sea by the Americans, a country far far away and has no territorial interest in the South China Sea, the Americans and distant and near countries now conveniently claimed the right to the South China Sea, wanting to control the South China Sea militarily with no regards to the Asean countries, without having to ask the Asean countries for their opinion and their consent like the South China Sea belongs to them.

Such insolence and arrogance can only come from the European powers and young upstart second rate Asian powers  or bit players thinking that they are now military powers and can bulldoze their way all over the South China Sea. The blame should be placed squarely on the Asean states for their ignorance, foolishness and their reticence, for inviting the foreign powers to meddle with affairs in their region, and not protesting. They did not even know that they have served the South China Sea in a silver platter to the powers of the world and given up their interests in the Sea.

Asean is no longer relevant or material to the South China Sea. It has been hijacked by the big powers from far away under the guise of freedom of navigation, and taken over control of the South China Sea. Asean states are now transparent to the issue. Everyone is here to grab a piece of the sea to divide among themselves leaving Asean in the cold.

Do the Asean states know what is happening to their South China Sea? Most appeared to be like innocent school boys attending the Dialogue without knowing that their lollipops had been snatched away right under their noses. Stupidity has no cure.

China showing its anger with Singapore

The Global Times is China’s official media and what is printed in that media is the unofficial official view of the Chinese govt. When articles in the Global Times attacked Singapore for siding with the hegemonic power of the USA, it is China’s way of telling Singapore that it is unhappy with Singapore . And Stanley Loh, the Singapore Ambassador to China has spoken up to refute China’s criticism of Singapore.

Stanley Loh dragged out all the economic cooperation and projects as his proof that Singapore is supporting China or is friendly with China. He side stepped Singapore’s military cooperation with the Americans, providing a military base for the Americans to launch warships and warplanes into the South China Sea to challenge China’s claims to the islands. He also did not mention the political rhetoric or statements by our diplomats against China that are more vehement than even those from the Philippines and Vietnam recently.

On the economic front, Singapore wanted all the cooperation and benefits from a growing Chinese economy. But on the political and military front, the position of Singapore is anything but friendly. The comments by Bilahari Kausikan in his speech in Tokyo and his lectures must have ruffled the feathers of the Chinese govt. Would Bilahari or Stanley Loh think the comments were fair, neutral and positive for Singapore China relations?

Singapore is sticking its neck out, too far out for comfort, by taking a pro American line. The local media too were putting up almost on a daily basis, American views of the South China Sea dispute that were unflattering to China. How would China view these actions from Singapore, supposedly a reliable and close friend with a lot of economic cooperation, economic projects and a lot of legacies of LKY when he was around? Would China be seeing a major shift in Singapore’s policy since the demise the LKY and a Singapore that is increasingly partisan and anti China instead of walking the tight rope, not to be seen to favour either super power?

What would Singapore’s position be like should the Americans open a war front in the South China Sea against China and Singapore providing a military base for the Americans to attack China? Would Singapore maintain its neutrality by closing down the American base here, or would Singapore say it is ok and it is neutral and still a friend of China and allowing the Americans to launch military attacks at China?

Is the rude and undiplomatic comment that China is attempting to divide up Asean in the South China Sea dispute helpful when the other Asean countries were diplomatic enough to keep mum when they have vested interests and stakes in the dispute while Singapore did not?

The complaints in the Global Times are just a tip in the iceberg of the souring of relations between Singapore and China. There could be official complaints to register China’s unhappiness that were not reported in the media.

Singapore is now in a fix, and would have to make its stand clear to China. Is it going to be neutral or more pro America, more anti China on matters that affect China’s core interests and how would Singapore’s relation with China proceed from here? A diplomatic storm is brewing and it does not look good for Singapore. Singapore may be left out in the cold in China’s OBOR projects and other economic cooperation as well.  Trying to hang on to China’s gravy train and taking unfriendly positions against China would not work. Singapore cannot have the cake and eat it.

There is no LKY to smoothen things out in our relations with a China that is growing in strength and confidence to deal with small countries. Don’t try to punch above your weight when dealing with China or any big powers. That is a myth. When the big powers refused to give you face you will look silly in the eyes of the world if you try to punch in their face.

China no right to be world cop?

A Japanese, a diplomat I think, by the name of Shigeru Ichige, commented that Chinese Admiral Sun Jiangguo ridiculed the international communities by saying that China would ignore the verdict of The Hague on the Filipino claims on the islands in the South China Sea. And because of this, ‘China cannot and should never be a world cop able to maintain the world order as the United States does.  This kind of Japanese half truth logic is no longer passable when the world is fully aware of all the facts of past and present.

What this Shigeru did not want to mention is that the United States were the one that set the precedence of ignoring the verdict of The Hague when it ruled against the US in the past. The US even committed an act of contempt of The Hague by tearing to pieces the verdict in full media coverage. What Shigeru also refused to disclose is that The Hague has no jurisdiction over territorial issues under the UNCLOS. And what Shigeru also did not disclose is that the US refused to sign as a signatory to abide by the rules of UNCLOS. The US is NOT a signatory of UNCLOS or is not willing to abide by the laws of UNCLOS. This is the biggest American hypocrisy, demanding other countries to abide by UNCLOS rules when it refuses to do so.

So is USA more suitable as the world cop? Or is Japan more suitable as the world cop? The Japanese must remember the crimes and atrocities committed by Japan in WW2 against the whole of Asia and South East Asia by their invasion to conquer and rule over these countries.  On record at least 24 million people were killed by the Japanese, not counting the wounded and maimed and the destruction to their country’s economies and the lives of their people. And Japan is everywhere pitching to be a peacekeeper and potential world cop. And some stupid Asean leaders agree that it is alright for this beast of a nation to be a peacekeeper when their people were massacred by the Japanese, their countries conquered and colonized by the Japanese. They got to thank the Americans for dropping the two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war and save their skins.

By the way, China is not interested in being a world cop and has no desire or intent to be a world cop. The term world cop in reality is more like an international gangster, using might to control and intimidate smaller countries, to conduct regime change and to provoke and conduct wars. How virtuous is this international gangster to be called a world cop? How many thousands or millions of innocent lives have been killed or destroyed by the current ‘world cop’ and the world cop aspirant in Japan during the invasion of Asia?

Both are the most unsuitable candidates to be world cop when bullying and conducting wars are their modus operandi, their way of conducting international relations. They conduct wars instead of keeping peace as a cop should be doing. And no need to bother about China wanting to be world cop. China is not interested. Only aggressive warmongering nations would want to assume the role of ‘world cop’ to rule over other countries, to bully countries that refused to toe their line.

The world does not need a self appointed world cop. If there is to be one, it should come under the banner of the United Nation, not the United States of America.