The Children of Agent Orange

These pictures are not too pleasant and could be difficult to some viewers. They are the gifts from the Americans to Vietnam. 40 years after Agent Orange is a programme screened recently on CNA. It is a very painful story of what the Americans did to Vietnam during the Vietnam War. 1/5 of South Vietnam was sprayed with Dioxin or Agent Orange which it was harmlessly called. It was pushed around as a pesticide, to deforest the jungles of Vietnam, to destroy the natural shelters protecting the Vietcongs in their struggle against an occupying foreign military force. There was no concern about the long term effects of Dioxin on the flora and fauna of the country, to the people who are living there.

By the time the war was over, over 300,000 American soldiers and dependents were struck by Agent Orange, living in America. In Vietnam, over 500,000 births with defects were reported. Many more went unreported, either dead at birth, or went underground as the family will suffer a social stigma for having a member inflicted by the sickness. It means that the whole family is condemned as the Dioxin will stay in the genes, maybe mutated, and could appear in any of the offsprings for generations to come.

There were hardly any compensations for the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange. The audacity of the US Supreme Court ruled that the pesticide was meant to destroy foliage, not humans, and humans so affected were not intended. They had not invented the words collateral damages yet. Monsanto, the company that produced the Agent Orange only paid compensations to the American victims. The Americans too suffered many birth defects from the Dioxin, by soldiers who served in the war, who either sprayed the Dioxin across the countryside, or friendly soldiers on the ground being sprayed.

The children of Agent Orange are still alive, kicking, and many will continue to be born that way, looking like anything except normal human beans.

Thank you America. You are so kind, so humane, so generous.

US meddling is causing surge in extremism

Updated: 2012-10-09 16:55

By Han Dongping ( chinadaily.com.cn)

Comments(3) Print Mail Large Medium  Small 1

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, recently condemned the recent demonstrations and protests against the US in the Middle East and elsewhere. It seems that both President Obama and Secretary

US meddling is causing surge in extremism

Clinton still don’t get it.
Yes, there are extremists in this world. But it takes more than extremists to hold such large scale demonstrations and protests against the US presence in the Middle East. US leaders are blinded by their own arrogance. And as result, they can’t see the connections between these demonstrations and its foreign policies toward third world countries and their involvement in other countries’ internal affairs.

During his speech at the UN General Assembly, Obama also defended freedom of speech to justify his government’s refusal to ban the internet movie The Innocence of the Muslim. Yes, freedom of speech is a fundamental right that the American Constitution endows in its citizens. But freedom of speech is not limitless. One needs to exercise one’s freedom of speech wisely and prudently.
To defend the American freedom of speech amid wide spread demonstrations and protests by the Muslim population in the world is sheer American arrogance.
President Obama, in his speech to the UN, also vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This is yet another example of American arrogance. The US was the first to develop nuclear weapons, and was the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country.
The US developed ten plans to attack the former Soviet Union between 1945 and 1949.
The US only gave up its plans after the USSR acquired its own nuclear bombs in 1949.
Before China developed its nuclear bombs in 1964, the US threatened to use nuclear weapons against China eight times. Many countries have found it necessary to develop nuclear weapons solely because if they do not have them, they would forever have to face threats by those countries that do have them. Today, there are close to twenty countries that officially and unofficially have nuclear weapons.
The US needs to explain to the world why some countries can have nuclear weapons, and why other countries cannot have them.
Why it is reasonable for the US and its allies to have them, while at the same time, it is unacceptable for other countries to have them? How can the US and the UN preach the ideals of fairness for all countries, while still advocating this exclusionary measure? Does the moral principle of fairness to all mean anything in the UN General Assembly?
The devastating destruction caused by the US Invasion of Iraq, by its fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by the American involvement in Libya and Syria is the real reason behind the mass protests that are occurring around the world, and not the existence of extremists.
The people in the Muslim world have felt and seen the impact of US foreign policy and military action.
It can be argued that it is exactly US foreign policy and military action in the Muslim world that has generated the phenomenon of so called extremists. It is time for US leaders to pause and reflect.
Why do Muslims hold such strong anti-US sentiments? Who are these extremists?
And why do they feel so strongly about this issue that many are willing to sacrifice their lives for its cause? The US has military bases in more than 120 countries, and stations over four hundred thousand troops on foreign soil.
The US does this in the name of national security. Apparently, these military bases and large scale military spending have not made Americans any more secure. Since Sept 11, 2001, Americans have constantly been under the threat of terrorist attacks overseas and at home.
Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying that he was surprised to see the scale of CIA operations in Libya when he saw the large number of Americans that had to be evacuated at the airport when Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards were killed.
The huge amounts of money that the US has spent on its military in the past 60 years has not necessarily equated to a level of security you might otherwise expect from such a large military budget. On the contrary the biggest effect of such a large military budget has been its negative effects on the US domestic infrastructure and the well-being of its own people.
One former Chinese leader said before that every time the American government builds an overseas military base, it ties a knot around its own neck, and in the end, it would strangle itself.
It is really tragic that the US government cannot see this for themselves, and continue to involve itself with other countries’ internal affairs, and continues to build more military bases overseas.
These overseas military bases and CIA operations messing with other countries’ internal affairs are not only a big burden for the US government and the American people, but it also generates anti-American sentiment around the world as demonstrated by the recent demonstrations and protests.
The US should not forget that Iran has become one of the deadly enemies of the US exactly because of the CIA’s involvement in Iran’s internal affairs and its support for the Shah of Iran at the expense of its people.
It is time for the US to have a general discussion about why there has been such anti-US sentiment around the world. It is time for the American people to see that military muscle does not necessarily generate security for the US. But goodwill toward other people can.
The author is a Professor of Warren Wilson College in the US.

As if our children did not have enough pressure

Sinkie parents have gone through so many rounds of pressure cooking to ensure that their wards are as equally good as their neighbours. They are so distraught when their children could not get into good schools, cannot get into gifted programmes, did not get straight As, did not get A stars, did not qualify for IP programmes…etc etc. Life is really traumatic to Sinkie parents and their children.

In order to please all the parents and release some pressure they put on their children, it would be good if MOE could design a system where every student gets straight As. If not, the alternative is for every student to get straight Bs. Then there will be no more comparison on who is smarter or better.

Now why should people be disturbed by which kid is smarter than which kid? Aren’t kids all be gifted differently and are blessed differently? Now what is this Scroolball or Skoolbo, some organization coming here to test and find the smartest kid in Sinkieland. They are organizing an event called, ‘Smartest S’pore 2012 – The Search for S’pore’s Cleverest Children’.

My God, all the poor parents will be up on their toes to prepare their children for this event, to be the smartest kids in the island. They have no choice. And if their children are not, it is going to be hell for both parents and children once again. How can their children not be the cleverest? Why are other people’s children so smart?

To prevent the parents and children from another round of agony, I hope they will cancel this event. It is just so stressful!

Shane Hill, Skoolbo CEO has this to say,  “Singapore possesses some of the world’s brightest children and we are looking forward to seeing them show their skills. I think this is bad as the bright ones will put pressure on the not so bright ones, especially the parents.

NSmen – cheap talk or for real

Hsien Loong paid tribute to NSmen who have protected Singapore for the past 45 years during his trip to Australia. He also visited them in the field.

‘He said, “For them to spend 20-odd days overseas (ICT) continuously like this for the country, I think we owe them something.”’

NSmen should find comfort in the words of the PM for acknowledging their contribution and sacrifice to the country. So, what is this something that the country owes them? The NSmen are training and being prepared to defend this country, to fight and die for it. How many NSmen are left without a home, cannot even buy a HDB flat for all kinds of crappy reasons? And they are supposed to fight and die for this country, defending it, when foreigners are flocking here, turned PRs or citizens the next day and eligible to buy HDB flats that these NSmen are supposed to fight and die for. And the silly NSmen did not even have a roof over their heads.

As long as NSmen are deprived of the right to buy a HDB flat, it is all cheap talk for nothing. The very basic and fundamental needs of a citizen is a roof over his head. And that is the least the country owes him for believing in the duty and obligation to be an NSmen, to fight and die for this country. Without a stake in the country, they might as well emigrate somewhere. What is there to fight and defend for?

‘I think we owe them something.’ Put the money where the mouth is. Get the basics right. Make sure that the citizens, the NSmen, are not disadvantaged and treated worst than PRs and new citizens who have no need to serve NS or as reservists, and to answer the call of the country. Is this too difficult to understand?

What internet standard are we talking about?

Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, said on 8 Oct in Geneva at a conference that developing codes of practice for the internet is good. He added that industry self-regulation is needed to ensure a high level of credibility and quality in the net.

I think the Minister needs to be more specific when he talks about the internet. Some forum in the net are very similar to a news media and may replace the role of the print media in times to come. But many sectors of the net are actually gossips, personal diaries, or simply kopitiam talks among bloggers. What kind of standard is the Minister talking of, or is there a need for a standard when many are personal and private conversations? Obviously the Yaacob is not expecting facebook or blogs to have the equivalent of the standard of professional media. They don’t have to and need not be. People in kopitiams say whatever they want according to their personal standards.

Can the Minister specify which group or groups in the net that he is referring to that needs to raise their standard and credibility? As far as bloggers are concerned, as long as they don’t get into areas of scandals or inciting troubles among the people, they can say as much nonsense or fiction as they want in the most atrocious or crazy English or Singlish or rojak language as they like. And these will be of no concern to the Minister or his ministry.

You only need standard and credibility when it is a business concern or some institution of recognition. Then again, the internet is in a virtual world, transcending international boundaries. It is a grey area that is beyond any govt. Who is the rightful authority to impose standards and code of conduct on netizens?

What do you think, Minister?