IS attacks now more targeted

According to Rita Katz, the director of the SITE intelligence group, there is a big change in the tactics of IS coming out from the latest attack in Bangladesh. IS used to adopt a kill all tactic, a kind of indiscriminate killing that can be expected from mindless people, regardless of who the victims were, just kill and create havoc, terror and fear. The order to its operators in Europe was to go out and kill ‘anyone and everyone’.  The order given to the terrorists in Bangladesh was ‘to kill a white foreigner at random.’

Reports coming out from the Bangladesh attack said the terrorists separated the locals from the foreigners before hacking them to death, sparing the locals. The IS and Al Qaeda were at loggerheads on the tactics to kill at random or only kill the non Muslims. Al Qaeda has been attacking the IS tactics especially in the triple suicide bombing in Istanbul. To quote the NYT report reproduced in the Today paper on 4 Jul, this was what the Al Qaeda twittered. ‘The Turkish people are Muslims & their blood is sacred. A true Mujahid would give his life for them, not massacre them….’

The earlier tactic of wanton attack had let to Muslims and Muslim countries being the target. And it would be tough to explain to their fighters and supporters should their families and homes be hit. They were making enemies of everyone, indiscriminately and wildly. This change in IS tactics would have very serious implications on who they would attack and what kind of establishments or targets would be hit.

The Bangladesh attack was an attack on foreigners and foreign establishments. The NYT report said, ‘The bakery is in what expatriates affectionately call the “Tri State” area of Dhaka…that are popular with foreigners. It was founded to provide expatriates with the comfort foods they missed, including American bagels and cream cheese.’

With this new development, would IS attacks be more predictable, attacking foreigners or establishments of foreigners or their enemies instead of hitting at anything anywhere? How would this relate to the safety or high risk areas or establishments here in our little island?  Would Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia be safer, be spared from IS and Al Qaeda attacks or if it so happened, would be against the so called, ‘nationals from Crusader nations in Bangladesh’?

Singapore is not really a Muslim state but has a substantial Muslim population and a bigger presence of ‘nationals from Crusader nations’.  How would this play out and how would our anti terrorist organizations respond to this tactical change? Would the Puchong bombing in Malaysia be a sign of things to come in the Asean countries? Our intelligence and security agencies would now be under pressure to monitor closely the numerous establishments, particularly the ‘sinful’ types in the Clark Quay, Boat Quay and Mohammed Sultan areas. What about MacDonald and Kentucky, the comfort food providers?

Kausaikan and his personal thoughts about Asean - Russia relations

Subject: Kausaikan and his personal thoughts about Asean - Russia relations

In "TODAY" paper, Thursday,30th June, Kausaikan wrote an article on "Fulfilling the potential of Asean - Russia relations." The article is an exercise in frivolity. Separately each Asean country or Asean as a whole will never be able to influence the big powers action and behaviour How then, does Kausaikan think he can influence Russia's policy in East Asia and South China Sea in the way he thinks Russia should do? Personally I see nothing commendable and positive in his writing. He has given me and perhaps the public at large the impression that he relishes in creating more choas and turmoil  in East Asia and the South China Sea.

He said he was once an ambassador to Russia. All the more he should not denigrate himself with outrageous speech and frivolous writing. He should be more circumspect as he is part of the govt. What he says and what he writes should best avoid offending the big powers as the repercussions may adversely affect  his country and Asean.

He regrets that Asean-Russia relations do not develop far enough into a strategic partnership.He slights at Russia for wanting to hold an Asean-Russia summit in Sochi with no purpose but just because other powers have been holding summit meetings with Asean.

He wants to know how Russia relation will fit into his Asean plan and vision. As his article drags on it reveals his agenda of trying to drive a wedge between the good and friendly  relations of Russia and China. He looks at the good relation between Russia and China with jaundiced eyes. It reveals his prejudicw  ill feelings toward China. He  claims that Western rebuffs of Russia has caused Russia to be driven thoughtlessly into the arms of China, " locking Russia into a subordinate relationship with China and an essentially passive regional role."

He is very clever in veiling his dislike for China with nuances and insinuations. I quote what he writes on Russia's stance regarding the South China Sea issue. "Some signs of this are already discernible.China recently appropriated Russia's position on the South China Sea. Russia's stance on this issue is in fact more nuanced than China made it out to be , but Moscow had to bite its tongue and did not clarify its position. But fortunately the situation is not yet irreversible." Here he reveals himself that he still harbours his insidious thought that it is not too late for Russia to turn against China in the South China Sea issue. Why would he want to take such a stand? Is this his personal view or the position of Asean.

Did he really want Russia to play a strategic role in South China Sea issue so that Asean can manipulate Russia vis a vis China and USA?  I quote him, " Russia as an active and autonomous participant in regional diplomacy will widen our scope for manoeuvre, particularly , as I think will occur sooner or later , the US and China reach a new modus vivendi over South-East Asia." He thinks of nothing but using Russia to disrupt the modus vivendi between USA and China.  Kausikan should show his bravery in the front line if war breaks out in the South China Sea and not talk bravado in the cool comfort of his airconditioned room.

He wants Russia to concentrate its strategic military in the East against China rather than in Europe against the West. I quote, " But the Western security system in East Asia is no longer directed against Russia, unless Moscow makes it so by its position on  the maritime disputes in the East and South China seas. Moscow should not let anger with the West drives its policy in East Asia." and again,  " The West in particular USA , must encourage Moscow to make this differentiation in its interest by itself differentiating its approach to Russia in Europe from its approach to Russia in  East Asia.The current blanket systems of sanctions against Russia only promotes Moscow's dependence on China by depriving it of alternatives." These comments are openly very unfriendly to China. Again  is this his personal view or that of Asean?

He wants Russia to play a security role in East Asia as casually uttered by US Defence Secretary Aston Carter.He says it is in Moscow's interest for Russia to make "a new articulation of Russia's position on the South China Sea and clear support for United  Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when the Arbitral Tribunal reaches a decision on the legal issues that the Philippines brought before it."

He further asks, "Will these conditions be met? Only one is within Asean's control. The most important decisions are clearly going to be made in Moscow."

He thinks he is influential enough to guide Russia to make decisions which are anathema to China. He gives the public readers of his article the impression that his antagonism towards China is so deep that he is blinded by the fact that The Tribunal has no legal right at all and it is nothing but a farce. Anyone reading his article will know where he is coming from. He is openly against China and for the USA. If this is said in his personal capacity, fair enough. If this is the stand of Asean fair enough. If not, Asean should comment or distance itself from Kausikan's views?

Kausaikan is intentionally ignoring the basic facts both historical and legal that  the South China Sea islands and reefs have been China's sovereign territories since centuries before him. The big question, what is Kausikan's motive or agenda?
  
Southernglory1

Monday,4th July,2016

My experience with a Dental Clinic

The govt has started to scrutinize the claims made by clinics under the CHAS scheme.  Two dental clinics had been suspended and more are under investigations. I had an experience with a dental clinic sometime last year and it gave me mixed feelings.

It was nice to seek dental treatment under the CHAS/Pioneer Generation Scheme and came out without having to pay a single cent. Wow, wasn’t that nice?

It was something else when the dental surgeon hardly did anything to your teeth. I asked for a broken filling to be redone but was told it was still ok. It has been chipped and breaking down in several parts and would only get worse. But that was it. The dental surgeon did think it necessary to do anything. I was not pleased.

The other strange feeling was that I did not received any receipt or statement as to the treatment done and how much it cost, how much was the subsidy and how much the dental clinic would be claiming on my treatment.

This is unacceptable as a dental patient would not know, and need not care how was the billing done and whether that was the treatment done. This big hole must be plugged, with the patient receiving a statement on the treatment he received and the cost of the treatment as a check on the clinic involved.

Hope this violation of a govt subsidy scheme is not abused too widely and public money not wasted unnecessarily. Let’s wait for more audit reports and scrutinizes to know the whole truth.

American’s use of warships to control the South China Sea not disturbing

A typical western set piece by AGENCIES with the title “China’s use of fishing vessels in Indonesian waters to assert claims ‘disturbing’” was reported in the Today paper on 23 Jun 16.  The first para, ‘China is using its fishing fleets with armed escorts to bolster maritime claims in disputed territory, a senior United States’ State Department official warned yesterday, calling China’s behavior “disturbing’ and, “I think it’s a disturbing trend to see Chinese fishing vessels accompanied by coast guard vessels, used in a way that appears to be an attempt to exert a claim that may not be legitimate,” said another US official to journalists in SE Asia.

What is not disturbing is the Americans moving more of their military hardware into Asia and SE Asia, sailing their warships and flying their warplanes and conducting military exercises in the South China Sea.  Let me rephrase what the US official said and see if it is disturbing? ‘I think it’s a disturbing trend to see American aircraft carriers in the South China Sea accompanied by more naval vessels, used in a way that appears to be an attempt to exert a claim that may not be legitimate.’ The silly Asean country leaders are blinded by their greed to try to seize a few low hanging fruits in the Chinese garden and did not know that the Americans are surrounding the Chinese garden, including their own gardens, and are taking over all of them.

The Americans also claimed that the Chinese fishing boats were accompanied and escorted by Chinese coast guard vessels. If that be the case, how could the Indonesian frigate be firing at the Chinese ships without the Chinese coast guards firing back?  Or the coast guards were not there in the first place?

The western media have been repeatedly pushing out articles to poison the minds of the readers to hate China. There is also an article by a Nick Frisch from the local Yale Law School asking whether it is worth looking back at Tiananmen after 27 years. This is another way to revive memories of the Tiananmen Incident. I would also like to ask whether it is worth it to looking back at the 200 years of African slavery in America and the genocide of 70m to 100m native Americans, depending on which American historian’s figure?  Or those incidents happened too long ago and better not to be remembered. Why were there no Slavery Day to remember the enslavement of Africans in the USA? Why were there no Genocide of Red Indians Day to remember the millions killed, murdered and slaughtered by the Europeans? Too few Red Indians left to remember? Or no one dare to remember them to offend the White Americans?

I have not read the article yet. Maybe I should and write an article about the white man’s conscience.

The dangerous precedents to be set by The Hague

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has announced that a
decision will be made on the South China Sea island dispute filed by the
Philippines unilaterally without the consent of the counter party, China.
Those parties on the side of The Philippines are eagerly rubbing their
hands for a judgment in favour the latter, dreaming that it would favour
their attempts to make claims in the South China Sea against China. The
provocateur or mastermind behind this theatre of course will be smiling in
glee at the puppets fighting among themselves without a clue of what are
in store for them. Have no doubt that the puppets could only see as far
as their nose, and would end up being slapped by the same insidious act they
supported blindly or for short term interests.
The Asean states wanted and are praying very hard that their wishes would
be granted. Let me remind them that before their wishes come true, they
better reflect on the implications of the farcical decision or the
political statement that The Hague is going to make. The case violates many good
principles of law and order governing international relations. In this case
there is an international institution, a court that chose to preside over
a territorial dispute that it has no jurisdiction to hear. And they are
arrogant enough to want to make a judgment despite objections by the
affected party and without hearing its side of the story, ie in
abstentia. This is not about a criminal case or a dispute between citizens
of a country where the court has the legal right to sit and hear the case
and the citizens have no grounds to object. This is an international court
and the parties are sovereign nations that owe no obligation to the court
and could choose to tell the court to lump it. The decision or judgment
thus has no legal standing and is not binding to the party that chose not
to oblige.
How would a decision by The Hague be important to the Asean countries and
other countries of the world? Many countries, including those within Asean,
have territorial disputes with their neighbours. Take the case of the Philippines and Malaysia as an example. If Malaysia were to take the
position that China must abide by the 'judgment' made by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration, would Malaysia also do so should the Philippines,
with the support of the same mastermind, filed a case to claim Sabah
despite Malaysia's objection and refusal to participate should the Hague
ruled that Sabah belonged to the Philippines? This can also apply to
Singapore Malaysia relations when the latter is still harbouring the idea
that Singapore belonged to Malaysia. Likewise, Malaysia could unilaterally,
with the support of the same mastermind, if it behaves well and to the
liking of the mastermind, filed a case to take over the four Muslim southern
states of Thailand. Would Singapore or Thailand abide by the rulings of the
Hague in its decisions when they refused to participate in the hearing and
refused to make their defence?
The Koreans also have island dispute with Japan. China and Russia also have
similar disputes with Japan and so are many other countries. Would any of
these countries fall victims of a similar scam when they offended the
mastermind and have the international court making judgment against their
territories and would they accept the farcical decision?
The Hague decision is going make a very dangerous precedent that would
affect many countries around the world. A big power could connive and bribe
or coerce an international court to judge against any country with or
without their objection or without their participation. Is this what Asean
countries and the world at large think is a good thing, a good way of solving inter state territorial disputes?