The Internet is Open*

“China’s internet is open and the Chinese government encourages development of the internet” – Jiang Yu, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman

OPEN? The only thing open is the open declaration of a lie. An outright lie such as this, among other things, is why I remained unconvinced that China is fit to lead on a world stage.

*subject to our undisclosed terms and conditions.

—–

It is horribly ironic that China’s internet is so open it can be the source of hacking, email spam and spoofing etc. while blocking sites such as Facebook. It is, in a perversely twisted sense, open. Maybe, just maybe, that’s what the spokeswoman means.

Norton Does It Again

Previously, with 360 – read post here.

This time, with Internet Security version 16.7.2.11. Internet Security came with my Vaio laptop, and now that the subscription has expired, I am not allowed to access any of the program’s features – not even change program settings or its functions – not just simply not being allowed to use the updating service.

Basically, Sony paid Norton to have a useless product sitting in their user’s computers when it expires. Or rather I paid for Sony to pay Norton to have a useless product sitting in my computer.

Norton programs didn’t use to work like this – in the past you paid for the program in the box and the subscription was for the updates to the program. Usually, the box would come with both the program and a year’s worth of subscription, so walking out of the store you pay for both the program and that amount of subscription, in a bundle.

Their products, with flashy eye-catching yellow boxes, are still advertised like this today – “comes with a 1-year subscription” – might I ask then, if in order to use the program I need to pay for subscription, what is it that the subscription is “coming with”? What is it that I am paying for – which is in addition to that 1-year subscription – which is supposed to be the thing that the subscription is “bundled with”? The program? No, not the program, since for it to function I have to pay the subscription. I am paying for a bogus “something”!

Perhaps to make it fair to consumers, then, Norton products should be advertised as “1 year’s worth of use”, not “comes with a 1-year subscription”.

I am lucky that I did not use the Norton Backup feature, which provides online file backup – otherwise I would not even be able to retrieve any of those files today, even to take them out because of an expired subscription, because nothing works anymore with the program. I feel cheated.

So, basically now I have a useless program on my computer taking up system resources. Option? Nuke it off my computer and off my registry. Believe me, for a software that is supposed to be “good” software that helps users stop nasty viruses and malware, there are websites and forums out there that tell you how to completely remove a Norton product, because they can’t be trusted not to leave bits and pieces behind, especially in the system registry, when they are uninstalled. This is one such forum thread, which I found over a year ago because of a similar experience with Norton 360 – here. Notice that that thread is filed under “TechSpot OpenBoards > Operating Systems and Software > Virus and Malware Removal“.

Apt.

We Are Fighting for Your Rights! And We Will Blow You Up in the Process.

I did not know that “the rights of the poor peasants and landless” included getting blown up, killed, maimed and injured by the very people who are “fighting” for them. If I were them, I wouldn’t be so sure I wanted the right to die by those hands claiming to be fighting for me, or be involved in some humanitarian crisis caused by my would-be “saviours”.

Article here.

Mahatma Gandhi fought for rights. Terrorists and “fighters” claim to fight for rights. The difference, if anyone will, please? I’ll rub the salt in – Gandhi did not kill, maim, injure or cause a crisis for the very people he was fighting for. Gandhi fought for people. Terrorists and “fighters” don’t – they kill them.

——–

Naxalite-Maoist rebels have a presence in more than 223 of India’s roughly 600 districts, in 20 states.

More than 6,000 people have died during the rebels’ 20-year fight.

——–

And if a Maoist state were to be established by the blood of its own innocents? What next? That it will be kept, also by the blood of its own innocents? Next, a new fight – but this time, a fight for the rights of the “state”, against alternative voices, against their own people, whom they were supposedly fighting for in the first place – because that is the only way such a state – a state lacking pluralism – can survive.

A Thought Experiment on Chivalry

1.

A man and a woman approach an intersection. At the intersection their paths would cross, and they both stop momentarily. Perhaps, they wish each other “good morning”. The man gives the woman passage first and bids her a safe journey if they have exchanged greetings. He then resumes his passage.

2.

A man and a woman approach an intersection. At the intersection their paths would cross. The woman does not stop, assuming her right to passage first. The man stops momentarily, having no choice, then resumes his passage after the woman passes.

3.

A man and a woman approach an intersection. At the intersection their paths would cross, and they both stop momentarily. Perhaps, they wish each other “good morning”. The man resumes his passage first. The woman is momentarily taken aback but continues her journey.

4.

A man and a woman approach an intersection. At the intersection their paths would cross. The woman does not stop, assuming her right to passage first. Alas, the man does not intend to be forced to stop, and speeds up, narrowly passing the woman first. The woman is momentarily taken aback but continues her journey.

In which of these cases has chivalry NOT occurred?

Let’s see what the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English says about chivalry: it is “courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women”. Now let’s see what it says about being courteous: it means to be “polite, respectful, and considerate”. Neither “being chivalrous” nor “being courteous towards a woman” is an act that does not involve deliberate choice.

The obvious answer to the question above is 3, and many will say 4. And there are many who will not think the same of 2. I say otherwise. Of course, 1 is a case in which chivalry has definitely prevailed, but can 2 truly be called chivalry, and is 4 definitely only the fault of the man?

The difference between 1 and 2 lies in the mentality of the party “expecting” chivalry in 2. Chivalry is a choice, but in 2 instead the man has been forced to accede to a particular outcome of the encounter, a farce of “chivalry”, and to accept the disrespect of being on the receiving end of bad manners. In 4 he has bravely stood up against it but will later on be castigated for his actions, somewhat unfairly.

I suspect what many Singaporean women lament about, especially (some of) the highfalutin “educated elite” types who like to place themselves on a pedestal, on the lack of “chivalry” on the part of Singaporean men, are occurrences of case 4 rather than 3 . But they have taken it for granted, and to lament about the lack of something when it is being taken for granted is to be pompous, conceited, arrogant and even presumptuous.

Lament about it when you have respected the other party and the right of choice, treated the other party with good intentions and he does not show chivalry to you. He may be crossing your path, but remember that you are crossing his too. Learn to respect others and you may stand the chance of having it reciprocated (which should be) and you might find yourself pleasantly in case 1. But take another person’s courtesy for granted and you may find yourself rudely confronted with case 4 as retaliation for your self-aggrandizement and disrespect of others - assuming your “right” to a shared space, “just because”, as in cases 2 and 4. Chivalry does not mean someone else has to accept your lack of basic manners - this is the fine line, and you may only have yourself to blame if you choose to cross it and find yourself in case 4.

Finally I want to say that men should be chivalrous. But chivalrous because they want to be, not because others force them or want them to be. And women who demand chivalry? Chivalry is something that is given, not taken.

礼尚往来 is a two-way street, not one.

————————–

This post may not be written very well – if anyone has suggestions about style and flow, do comment. Bashing or flaming the post, however, will be simply binned.

The Sophisticated Simpleton

I can’t remember the last time I wrote here without checking the last post. One of my readers has nudged me, more than once, to write something, so perhaps I shall write a fictional account of a man. Any resemblance to any persons living or dead is coincidental.

Chee Kang (CK) wakes up at 7am everyday, has cereal for breakfast, then showers, checks his email or does a little reading, then reports for work at 10.30am if it is his shift.  At work, he is busy shifting books or magazines around, placing them in neat order, creating and re-creating precise, tidy arrangements out of piles of tangible mess in various places throughout the day. Otherwise, when he is not busy arranging things, he is punching numbers or scanning bar codes at his station. His work is repetitive, even boring. At every shift he repeats the exact same actions, arranging, tidying, pushing buttons or scanning codes.

But it is simple, and even peaceful, if not occasionally stressful because he often sees the exact same mess at the exact same locations several times a day, which he counters in exacting vain with the exact same action, only to have the exact same loop repeat itself all over again later. CK sometimes wonders if he should find, just out of curiosity, whether the insanely precise loop repeats itself at similarly precise intervals.

After his quite simple work is done, CK heads out for some chow if it is time to eat, or heads back home. CK feels lucky to have a simple, peaceful life. Some might call him a simpleton. Oh, yes, what they think of him, he knows, and he sometimes wonders if they know that he knows. Dismissive of him, yes, people are, many times even overtly, but in his mind CK is equally dismissive of their attitudes, often with a sigh, but not for himself.

In his free time CK observes, reads and listens. He observes people and their mannerisms,  the way they talk and the way they act, when he is relaxing with a cup of coffee at a nearby coffee house once or twice a week with his favourite latte. With a voracious appetite, CK also devours the latest news from around the globe, piecing together the pieces of the puzzles that are his home, country and planet. He loves language and logic and the way phrases, sentences and paragraphs can be crafted to fit perfectly with each other to deliver seamless meaning, often finding poetry in the unlikeliest of places such as current affairs blogs.

Of his school days, CK remembers only a couple of teachers, and thought that most of university was useless in developing critical insight, a sharp, astute mind and most of all, exposure. Only those couple of teachers had taught him how to think, and not what to think, and that there exists a whole plethora of views and mindsets about just about anything. He feels that most of his education, while essential, was to turn him into a tool or cogwheel, albeit a polished one, to be applied to some profession than bring to it his expertise, resulting in his eventual distance from that entire system, which seemed at times to have been engineered – insidiously.

He wonders if the bourgeoisie elite tottering around toting Guccis and donning Armanis, who are often the root cause of the repeating loops at his work, realise the subtle ways they have bought into the whole scheme and that there are viable, alternative paths in life than being superficially great at the work one does while knowing next to nothing – or nothing – about the universe one inhabits and having an informed opinion, perhaps excepting the current value of X bond and Y derivative. Gaza – “huh? What?” West Bank – “oh, did it collapse in the recent financial crisis?” Gee. Describe the human condition – “er…??? That’s such a weird question… (i.e. ‘how should I know, why the heck are you asking me that’, politely).”  CK is great at his work too, you know, but he isn’t a programmed robot – he refuses to be one.

CK, too, thinks complaining about elementary maths questions ridiculous. Einstein, Fourier, Laplace, Euler, Newton, Archimedes, Euclid, Pythagoras et al, just to name a few, didn’t sit around complaining about something they couldn’t solve, they moved on and found better ways to approach problems. Newton probably wasn’t exposed beforehand to apples rudely confronting his innocent crown, but he certainly didn’t stand around complaining about the one that hit his soon-to-be-inspired self. (CK advocates algebra for said elementary maths questions, and rejects the notion of not testing problem sums even though they involve first interpreting the problem in addition to actually doing the maths later, since that would entail doing maths for maths’ sake and not, surprise, surprise, as a way to logically approach a problem and tool to solve it.)

No, CK refuses to be defeated by petty maths questions he’s never seen before, crafty systems of socialisation (for you politics heads out there who don’t realise the existence of a third meaning of this word in addition to making socialist and fraternising, it is the adoption of the behavioural patterns of the surrounding culture), indefatigable people seemingly bent on making his workplace living hell and most of all he refuses to be ignorant of the happenings in, on or out of the green and blue sphere hurtling with blinding speed through seemingly empty space he calls home.

CK thinks that’s not too much of a tall order. He has a mind he can call his own and boy, is he going to use it! He likes learning about the world, perhaps even takes it to a fault; engaging his mind is the reason why he chose to become a bookstore assistant in the first place, leading a simple, peaceful life so he could better apply his energies to enrich his worldview. CK is a sophisticated “simpleton”, the kind of person appearing simple, which “sophisticated” big-shot bourgeoisie types masquerading as well-educated like to scoff at but who wouldn’t have a clue as to the question – “what do you actually know?”

——-

I could not resist adding in the part about parents complaining about maths questions in elementary school graduation exams: “The setters made it too difficult, the kids haven’t been exposed to this type of questions before! I’ve never seen my kid cry after an exam!” Perhaps the more pressing question is that they haven’t been exposed to the sort of invaluable life-skills that allow them to deal with difficulty and uncertainty – and whose fault is that?

养不教，父之过，教不严，师之过。Notice that some things are written first in this expression.

Politics Over… Food.

I read this and laughed. I may be wrong, but I think most people have better things to do, and it’s not something that I would follow as “news” – I recently ran a post on what constitutes newsworthiness – but anyway, is taking ownership of a dish (and getting into spats with your neighbours because of it), rather than simply promoting that you have that dish, really vital to promoting tourism?

Chilli crab is called chilli crab, not [country] chilli crab.

Hainanese chicken rice is called hainanese to differentiate the way it is prepared from other varieties of chicken rice.

French fries are called french (not French) to differentiate the way the fries are cut.

An Update On Temasek (from “Looking Pretty”)

Temasek recoups its losses.

I still stand by my previous post “Looking Pretty” that the PR was badly crafted. I would not be so quick to forget the bad PR, though financially Temasek has made progress from its earlier >SGD$40bn loss. It is still not their money, and it is up to them to be honest about what they are doing with it and why, and show that they take responsibility when things go wrong as opposed to the evasive PR that came up after that debacle – I think that is pretty fair, if they also want to be patted on their backs when they make good yields on their investments.

Israel, then, and Palestine, now

History has an insidious way of repeating itself.

Today I read that Israel gave the green light for new settlements in the West Bank. A line from the article caught my attention: “North Korea is going on developing its nuclear capabilities, Iran is going on developing its nuclear capabilities, we have threats all over the world and all the world international community is interested with is whether my daughter builds her house next to mine,” he (Dani Dayan, leader of the West Bank settlers‘ council) told foreign reporters. “It is all based on the erroneous perception that the creation of a Palestinian state is the magical solution to the situation here.” (italics and bold face added)

I balked. I had already been watching the Israeli/Palestinian debacle unfold for some time, but had yet to say anything, until that line jolted me into writing. It is not a magical solution. But it is the start of legitimacy. If a Palestinian state is created, the strongest power brokers in the region no longer have any excuse to allude, overtly or covertly, to the idea that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Israel cannot then be blackmailed by states claiming to support ‘Palestinian brothers’. That may be an oversimplification, of course, but I digress: I want to talk about people and a place to call home. First, a little history:

Before the existence of the State of Israel in 1948 the region of Palestine had been ruled by the British as the British Mandate of Palestine. In light of the historic irreconcilability of the Jewish and Arab communities within Palestine, Jewish immigration (both due to displaced refugees during WW2 and illegal immigration after) and unpopularity of British rule with both communities, they turned the “Question of Palestine” over to the UN in 1947.

A majority of UN nations proposed partitioning the territory while some nations proposed a single federal state with Jewish and Arab constituents. Eventually the UN General Assembly voted in late November 1947 in favour of partition, with the Palestinian Jews welcoming the plan and the Palestinian Arabs rejecting it (see map of partition plan here).

On 14 May 1948 Israeli independence was declared and the (Jewish) State of Israel created. Immediately the fledgling nation was thrust into a fight for survival in its War of Independence against Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Note that then-Israel did not have the boundaries it has today. It neither encompassed the Gaza Strip to the southwest nor West Bank to the east (the reason it is called the West Bank is due to its position west of the Jordan River, which lay/lies to the east of Israel; see map of Israel in 1948 and opposing armed forces attack vectors here), which would have formed much of the Arab partition of Palestine according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

However, the West Bank essentially became a no-man’s-land seeing fighting between Jewish and Arab forces between the UN vote in late 1947 and mid 1948, with it being annexed by Jordan during the 1948 war in agreement with the Israelis in exchange for Jordan not invading the Jewish partition, or the State of Israel, proper. The Gaza Strip was annexed in that same year by Egypt.

The Palestinian Arabs lost a place to call home, once.

Israel subsequently gained control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in June 1967 during the Six Day War against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. It has held and occupied these areas since until more recent developments saw some control pass to the Palestinian Authority (see map here). During this time Israel has slowly colonised (I’m just calling a spade a spade) the West Bank and Gaza Strip with settlements and continues to do so in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 242 adopted in November 1967 following the aftermath of the Six Day War, which expressly calls for withdrawal from these territories and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and also in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention expressly prohibiting resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilian population within occupied territory.

Against 242 and the Convention are some claims such as:

1. Israel’s eastern border has never been defined by anyone,

2. The West Bank has not been part of any state (Jordanian annexation was never officially recognized) since the time of the Ottoman Empire,

3. According to the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians,

4. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza Strip were the territory of a “High Contracting Party” (parties which are signatories and have ratified a treaty, i.e. loosely, UN member states) at the time they were occupied by Israel and that therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply, based on the wording of Article 2 of the Convention:

“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”

5. Even if the Convention does apply, it was created in the context of World War II only,

6. The Convention is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement (Article 49(1) of the Convention), while the settlements are not intended to, nor have resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians,

7. The Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention, and since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated, Palestinians have accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation thus there is no basis for declaring them illegal.

Because of all this the Palestinians are losing a place to call home a second time. We can always argue on semantics, debate the supposed meaning wrung out from every single word of a lawful document and find every single loophole no matter how small it is, but at the end of the day law is about people, not about words:

In response to 1, it has, if you accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab territories to belong to two different peoples. Claiming Israel’s eastern border never having been defined conveniently brushes aside the fact that Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jewish people, in the context of the 1947 Plan.

In response to 2 and 4, the West Bank was never legally claimed by any state representing the Palestinian Arabs, but does that mean that as the only successor state to the 1947 Plan, Israel has the right to occupy all of Palestine? Technically, maybe. Morally? It conveniently forgets that the Palestinian Arabs exist as a people, even if they are not represented.

In response to 3, and 7, does no final status mean pushing the boundaries of the status quo? Does it mean Israel has the right to colonise land that does not yet have a final status – i.e. does not yet belong definitively to anyone, including Israel? The claims conveniently forget this point.

In response to 5, does this somehow diminish the authority of the Convention for other wars? It seems conveniently forgotten that the Convention was written to protect people during war.

In response to 6, 49(1) is but a mere section of the Convention. It seems yet again that the aim(s) of the rest of the Convention (that was written to protect people) has (have) been conveniently forgotten.

Right at the start I said that history has an insidious way of repeating itself. Throughout the ages the Jews have been persecuted, their land conquered and their people denied of a place to call their own. Today the same scene is replaying itself, on the same land, but the actors are different. The Jews are no longer the conquered and the denied. That was Israel, then.

And Palestine, now.

I wonder which book it was from that the principle “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” was founded. In some sick twist, it now seems that “do unto others as others have done unto you” is the principle of choice.

ואהבת לרעיך כמוך , Leviticus 19:18

Looking Pretty

I just saw excerpts of Ho Ching’s Q&A on CNA. She said, “we’re not in this to look pretty”.

But the thing is she was standing there trying to look pretty:

“You know, I think it’s like the German national football team, when you do well everybody cheers you on, but when you do badly everybody gets very angry…”

Deflect much? Just admit and apologise for the screw-up already, and outline the remedies you’re going to take clearly, since (OMG why is this happening? ->) you’re still the CEO, and maybe you won’t sound so hollow after losing more than SGD 40 billion dollars equivalent to more than 20% total portfolio… and I wonder whose pockets that money came from. Of course we’re angry, and damn right about it.

“when you do well everybody cheers you on, but when you do badly everybody gets very angry…” – i.e.: “people get angry because they tend to… it’s like that”

Are you shifting the blame for the outcry to the people?

“…that’s an indication that they love us, they want us to improve” – i.e.: “uh… it’s not so bad… we still feel the love, you know…”

NO. 40 BILLION DOLLARS IS BAD.

I wonder if the PR people who “carefully crafted” the PR statements realise that no matter which way you go about it, losing 40b is going to look bad. So stop dressing up the truth fancily already – trying to varnish something to make it look pretty (instead of prettier – there’s a subtle yet very big difference). Varnish smells, you know?

The backstory: http://www.reuters.com/article/etfNews/idUSSIN47470020090729

—–

An update to this saga here.

Mudslinging Does Not Just Happen in Politics

Check this out. From the UK’s Daily Mail Online. It is an article about a film that is, maybe, no good, and the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). I haven’t seen said film so I can’t comment, but I want to talk about the article’s mudslinging at the BBFC, using a couple of excerpts. Actually it even goes as far as slinging mud at the EU.

“They have given the film an 18 certificate. As we all know, this is meaningless… thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children.”

Whenever this invalid “argument” is used I find it stunning that people are expected to cover in advance for others’ lack of responsibility. If a parent lets a child watch an M18 film it is not the censors’ fault, but it seems passing the blame is popular, and always presented as some valid infallible argument.

“As soon as it’s released on DVD, Antichrist will harm children… But when did this principle of protecting only children arise anyway? What about harming adults?”

The ones who have harmed children are irresponsible parents and movie theatres and DVD store owners who don’t ID customers buying restricted items. Next, the “adults” mentioned shouldn’t be referred to as such if they cannot think for themselves. Or, if you found the previous sentence too harsh, if the suggested “protect adults” notion is looked at from another angle, would you, if you are an adult, like an errant journalist to bascially just assume that you are lacking in sentient capacity?

Article author Hart also invokes many instances of ad hominem – hardly what I would call logic. The article, too, is full of sensationalism at the same time as it is devoid of logic. It reads like a dramatic imbecile rant. If sensationalism was Hart’s objective, he has succeeded.

But sensationalism is worthless. (So is mudslinging.)

—–
Notes: Joseph Pulitzer and Horace Greeley would have shook their heads at this being one of the “top ten breaking news” items in a newspaper. Research the history of the common newspaper to know more about sensationalism in the context of news writing, if you don’t already know about the concept.