CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: YOUR MEDIA IS LYING TO YOU

International media coverage of the Hong Kong protests is wildly distorted, independent data researchers say.

And the result? As I write this, guerrilla groups of vandals, financed by the US (evidence below), have shut down the metro train station and the buses.  My wife and children are on the phone, unable to get to where they need to be.

A crowd of blameless Hong Kong people are stranded at the nearby bus stop, some tearful with frustration. Children are trapped on public buses: they can’t get to school and they can’t get home.

And the Western media? They have already started applauding.

SOMETHING BAD IS HAPPENING

The truth: Coverage of Hong Kong is motivated by anti-Chinese sentiment, in both right-leaning outlets like Fox News and left-leaning outlets like the New York Times, the findings from a UK group clearly show.

The result is the chaos and misery I see all around me this morning. Many of my co-workers have crucial deadlines to meet: all our livelihoods are at risk.

Who’s at fault? Skewed media coverage has been encouraging violent radicals and hobbling attempts to deal with them. Hong Kong’s careful, non-lethal ways of trying to stop the violence has received unprecedented amounts of negative coverage from Western journalists—while the documented brutal killing of hundreds of protesters all over the world has received little or no coverage or at all.

SOME NUMBERS

An October 25 search for “Hong Kong protests” over a single month produced 282 responses in the New York Times—but “Chile protests” produced just 20, reported Alan MacLeod of the Glasgow University Media Group.

“The unequal coverage is even more pronounced on Fox News, where there were 70 results for Hong Kong over the same period and four, two and three for Chile, Ecuador and Haiti respectively,” he wrote in a summary of his findings for Salon.

The huge discrepancy cannot be explained away by “news value”. Hong Kong protests have produced no direct killings, no army call-out, no coups or martial law—while other anti-government protests have been far more brutal, with hundreds of deaths in Iraq alone.

TERRIFIED RESEARCHER

“Western journalists are guilty of gross dereliction of duty,” says one Hong Kong university researcher who will not give her name because of the very real danger of her office being smashed up—an incident that she believes no Western reporter would cover.

“What are all those people at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club doing?” she asks. “Will not one reporter tell the truth about Hong Kong?”

So far, she’s right. The real story, which no Western reporter will touch, is that “the Hong Kong has won the war to maintain stability,” says Tom Guendert, a Hong Kong based commentator. “The Hong Kong dollar has not been devalued, and Kyle Bass’s campaign to scare institutional investors has failed.” Importantly, “direct police action casualties have been avoided.”

Why will no one print that?

MISLEADING THE WORLD

Looking at the hard data, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that foreign correspondents are grossly misleading the global public.

The Western media continuously conflates the violent radicals demanding to “liberate Hong Kong from China” with the actual majority residents of Hong Kong, who in truth want the exact opposite: they don’t want independence from mainland China, but want a positive relationship.

The media also conflates the Hong Kong civil service with Beijing, and Hong Kong’s imperfect but generally non-corrupt police force with China’s very different PLA.

PROOF OF FUNDING

Western news outlets automatically pour scorn on suggestions that the protesters receive funding from the United States—despite the fact that an internet search taking literally 0.02 seconds will give any interested party the truth.

US$22 million has been sent to unnamed persons for efforts to promote Western-style democracy in mainland China and Hong Kong since 2014 by the National Endowment for Democracy, as MacLeod points out.

A significant portion has gone to unnamed activists in Hong Kong: it’s right there in print to anyone who can use Google—and is honest enough to tell the truth.

BLATANT BIAS

The media bias is often stunning. The UK Guardian labels self-described pro-democracy campaigners in Ecuador as “rioters” but avoids using that word to describe Hong Kong protesters who are clearly and unmistakably filmed in the act of rioting.

Why such gross distortion?

China is seen as the enemy of the West, so anyone fighting China is painted as a hero—even when what they are really doing is firebombing the offices of Hong Kong civil servants, a gentle, largely female group of milky-tea drinkers who are often more British than the British.

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS?

The result is that the self-labelled “silent majority”, which includes a significant section of the Hong Kong public, plus the civil service, the police and so on, may actually be the real victims – but the Western media won’t cover that angle as it doesn’t fit the anti-China narrative.

“They will show far less enthusiasm for a story when the ‘wrong’ people are the villains or the victims,” says MacLeod.

“The New York Times even invented the phrase ‘aggressive nonviolence’ to describe the Hong Kong protesters’ actions, so eager was it to frame the demonstrations against China as unquestionably laudable.”

MARCH THAT NEVER WAS

A particularly egregious example is the infamous “two million people” march in Hong Kong in June.

Scientists say it never happened. All the scientific ways of measuring crowd-flow show that hundreds of thousands of people marched, but not one million, let alone two. And any reporter with an ounce of self-respect knows that “organizers’ claims” are pure fantasy.

Yet Western reporters silence their fact-checkers to present fantastic claims as fact. Why? I know some of these people. They’re not evil. They’re just extremely eager to believe the worst against people they've decided are bad guys and the best of any group which opposes them, even if some members are bigoted vandals throwing firebombs.

TRUTH CAMPAIGN

If the international media has abandoned the Hong Kong people, how can we get the real story out?

There have been lots of ideas, such as letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, or the patient countering of propaganda with real facts.

It’s difficult. As this writer has found out, any attempt to give a more nuanced picture of what’s happening in Hong Kong leads to multiple accusations of being a “paid CCP stooge”.

KEEP THE FAITH

But we mustn’t give up. I got up early and got to work before the protesters barricaded the roads.

I’ve just heard on the phone that some co-workers at the publishing company I’m working at this morning are going to walk the whole route.

Some local residents are going to meet and dismantle the barricades, especially ones trapping school buses.

That’s the local spirit. We need to stay strong. Keep smiling. If people place obstacles in our way, metaphorically or literally, we'll patiently move them. Anyone who bets against the people of Hong Kong will lose.

Peace.

From Nury Vittachi, who works at Poly University.

Stricter NRIC data collection rules to kick in from Sunday

Companies have less than a week to comply with stricter rules by Singapore's privacy watchdog governing the use, collection and disclosure of the NRIC and other national identification numbers.

In a statement yesterday, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) reminded organisations that unless required by law, from Sept 1, it will be illegal for organisations to physically hold on to an individual's NRIC and collect its full number.

This applies to birth certificate numbers, foreign identification numbers and work permit numbers as well. The commission had announced changes to the NRIC advisory guidelines last year as a result of established practices that involved the rampant use of the NRIC.

Details from the NRIC were being used in a range of situations - from people filling out lucky draw coupons and membership applications, to retailers registering customers for parking redemptions.

"NRIC numbers are a permanent and irreplaceable identifier issued by the Singapore Government primarily for public administration purposes and to facilitate transactions with the Government.

"As NRIC numbers can be used to retrieve data relating to individuals, there is a need to reduce indiscriminate or unjustified collection and negligent handling of NRIC numbers," the PDPC said in its statement.

Organisations that have collected the NRIC numbers have been encouraged to assess if they need to retain these numbers and, if not, the commission suggests they dispose of them responsibly and in compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) disposal methods.

The law already prohibits the indiscriminate collection of consumers' personal data and requires organisations to account for its use.

But privacy advocates have argued that NRIC details were still being collected, sometimes for frivolous reasons.

From Sunday, NRIC numbers or copies of the NRIC can be obtained or shared only if they are required by law, such as when subscribing to a new phone line, making a doctor's appointment or checking into a hotel.

NRIC details may also be collected when it is necessary to precisely verify an individual's identity to a high degree of accuracy.

This would include visiting pre-schools or transactions involving healthcare, financial or real estate matters.

Organisations that continue to indiscriminately collect, use or disclose NRIC numbers would be flouting the PDPA, and could incur a financial penalty of up to $1 million.

One company that has made changes to the way it uses the NRIC is security services company Prosegur Security, which employs about 1,400 security officers in Singapore.

In the past, some of its clients had asked the company to collect the NRIC - either the full number or the card itself - before allowing visitors to enter their premises.

The company now tells its clients that such requests cannot be made, and amendments have been made to its standard operating procedures (SOPs), including the way clients verify the identity of visitors.

Mr Vincent Wong, human resource manager at Prosegur Security, said: "Clients generally are also earnest about doing the right thing and are participative in implementing, amending or enforcing SOPs in line with the requirements."

Its staff have also been briefed about the dos and don'ts of data collection.

About three months ago, the company disseminated the PDPC's advisory guidelines to the sites where its staff work, to allow the officers to refer to them when they need to.

Recruitment portal JobStreet has also taken steps to get itself ready before the Sept 1 deadline.

A spokesman told The Straits Times that since June, it no longer collects the NRIC numbers of job candidates as an optional identifier on its online registration form.

Those who had previously provided the numbers were informed that the company would remove the numbers from its databases from June.

---

Who can collect NRIC numbers from Sept 1?

From Sunday, organisations will be legally barred from collecting, using or disclosing NRIC numbers or making copies of the identity card, under new and stricter rules enforced by Singapore's privacy watchdog, the Personal Data Protection Commission.

Organisations that flout the Personal Data Protection Act can incur a financial penalty of up to $1 million.

WHEN DO I NOT HAVE TO GIVE UP MY NRIC?

Unless required by law or when it is necessary to accurately identify you, you do not need to give your full national identification number. The organisation also cannot retain your card.

This includes when applying for retail memberships, signing up for contests or lucky draws, renting a bicycle, buying movie tickets online or completing survey forms - longstanding practices that use the NRIC details as identifiers.

You should also not furnish your NRIC or its details when entering the premises of a private condominium or using a computer at an Internet cafe.

WHEN MUST I RELEASE MY NRIC INFORMATION?

You have to provide the information when the law requires it. For example, when seeking medical treatment at a general practitioner clinic, which is required under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Regulations.

The information is also required under the Hotel Licensing Regulations, when you are checking into a hotel.

Subscribing to a phone line also requires you to give your NRIC details, under the Telecommunications Act. You can also be asked to give your NRIC details when the inability to identify you accurately could cause significant harm.

The details may also be needed for property transactions or healthcare matters, such as when applying for insurance and making medical claims.

MUST I SHOW MY NRIC WHEN ASKED TO VERIFY MY AGE, OR TO VERIFY MY IDENTITY?

This is allowed, when just the sight of an individual's physical NRIC and information is needed for verification purposes.

It is permitted as long as there is no intention to control or possess the physical NRIC, no personal data is retained and the NRIC is returned immediately.

DO THE NEW RULES APPLY ONLY TO THE NRIC?

The stricter rules apply also to cards with your NRIC number on them, like a driver's licence, as well as other national identification numbers like birth certificate numbers, foreign identification numbers and work permit numbers.

While passport numbers are periodically replaced, organisations should avoid collecting the full passport numbers of individuals as well, unless justified.

WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO THE NRIC FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES?

Alternatives may include organisation or user-generated IDs, tracking numbers or organisation-issued QR codes, or partial NRIC details of up to the last three numerical digits and letter.

WILL I STILL BE ASKED FOR MY NRIC DETAILS TO ACCESS GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND PREMISES?

Yes. The advisory guidelines on the NRIC do not apply to the Government.

The NRIC number is a unique identifier assigned by the Government to each Singapore resident that is often used for transactions with the Government.

As the issuing authority for the NRIC, the Government says it rightfully uses the NRIC to discharge its functions and services with citizens in a secure manner.

Venezuela, Ukraine, Hong Kong, … : Color Revolutions and Regime Change, A Modern Scourge Spawning Economic Destabilization and Civil War

And once again, the US and European mainstream media and various government and quasi government entities are supporting destabilization of the government in Hong Kong, with an August 6 meeting between US Consulate Official Julie Eadeh and Hong Kong opposition figures Martin Lee, Anson Chan (who also met with Vice-President Pence in March) and Joshua Wong of “Occupy Central” in 2014.

GlobalResearch

Is US the world policeman or dirtiest cop?

The US is still the world’s policeman – the dirtiest kind.

SCMP

US using trade war to stop China overtaking it: ex-Singapore diplomat Kishore Mahbubani

• Kishore Mahbubani says the US could have solved its trade dispute with China if it wanted to, but it is now a ‘geopolitical contest’
• China’s Belt and Road Initiative was a ‘pre-emptive strike’ against the US and current world order

SCMP

The US-China problem in the South China Sea: one man’s militarisation is another man’s self-defence

The US accuses China of militarising the South China Sea, but to Beijing, it is the Pentagon that has aggressively projected power in the region. The US also has a troubling policy of taking pre-emptive action against perceived threats

SCMP

How Huawei Could End Up Challenging Google’s Dominance

By imposing restrictions on Huawei Technologies Co., the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump may force the Chinese company to do something that no one in tech has dared to do for a long time: Challenge Google’s control of the Android universe, which earned the U.S. company a huge European fine last year.

Huawei faces two big threats from U.S. technology export restrictions. One is the loss of American components for its products, a blow it cannot parry immediately if it wants to keep making top-flight smartphones. The other is the potential withdrawal of its Android license, which would stop Huawei from preinstalling the latest Google-approved version of the operating system and some key services Western users see as necessary — above all Google’s Play Store, the biggest repository of Android apps. This particular obstacle could, under the right conditions, turn into a Huawei strength in Europe, a market that accounts for almost a third of the company’s smartphone unit sales, according to market analytics company IDC.

Last July, the European Commission fined Google 4.34 billion euros ($4.85 billion) for imposing illegal restrictions on smartphone manufacturers. In exchange for the right to preinstall the Play Store, they had to agree, among other things, not to sell devices running versions of Android not approved by Google: so-called Android forks. These operating systems are developed from the open source version of Android, which anyone can use, including Huawei if the U.S. bans it from using American technology. Amazon.com Inc.’s Fire OS is the best-known Android fork today, though there are others around.

The commission wrote that by obstructing the development of Android forks, Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc. “closed off an important channel for competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search services, which could be pre-installed on Android forks.” In its ruling, it made a strong case for forks as platforms for Google-independent innovation that, if they were allowed to spread widely, could have curbed Google’s market dominance in various areas.

Google has appealed the ruling, but it has also removed restrictions on handset makers to avoid further fines. This, however, hasn’t led to the proliferation of alternative platforms based on open-source Android: Big phone makers are locked into comfortable relationships with Google and see no need to experiment. Days after the European Union fined Google, Huawei, at the time the biggest phone manufacturer that provided an easy opportunity to install alternative Android-based operating systems on its devices, ended the program without explanation.

If Google takes away the Android license, it’ll yank Huawei out of its comfort zone. The company isn’t likely to give up the European market without a fight, after spending billions of dollars developing a customer base. Consumers in some European countries now appear to be put off Huawei by the U.S. attack, although, paradoxically, it appears to have fueled the brand’s popularity in France.

The company has said it developed its own operating system (likely an Android fork), and it’s been trying to lure developers to its app store. If the U.S. stops Huawei from preinstalling the Play Store, the Chinese manufacturer probably won’t spend much time educating consumers on how to install it on their own (the way people do now with phones bought in China). That’s not what most users expect on a new, expensive device. Instead, Huawei will want to offer developers an easy way to sell apps not just in the Google store but also in one preinstalled on Huawei devices — to “multi-home” them.

Huawei hasn’t been eager to get into an open confrontation with Google, which was a valued partner. But a breakup ordered by the U.S. government changes things. Huawei, with plenty of resources of its own (and most likely with support from the Chinese government, determined to fight back against the U.S.), could soon be investing heavily in the marketing and improvement of an Android fork. Given Huawei’s marketing potential, the effort isn’t necessarily doomed. And it could boost Asian and European developers deterred from competing in some areas — such as mapping, video services or even search — by Google’s enormous power.

Given the pushback in recent years against U.S. tech companies’ relentless data collection and the widespread mistrust of Trump’s administration in Europe, there could well be demand for a Google-free phone from a major manufacturer known for superior hardware. I know I’d be interested, and the French would probably lap it up, judging by their reaction to the U.S. threats. The EU regulators, too, might be intrigued to see evidence that perhaps the Google antitrust ruling didn’t come too late.

This is something of a utopian scenario, I know. Huawei may never need to go on the warpath against Google: The U.S. and China could strike a trade deal that would make the specter of restrictions go away. Or, if Huawei is banned from buying U.S. technology, it could find itself unable to produce marketable phones for a while. And, of course, it is a company from Communist China, making it difficult for European regulators, and even for private developers, to embrace it as a savior from the overly dominant U.S. tech companies.

Monopolies in tech don’t last forever, however. Sometimes they just need a push to start showing cracks. If the U.S. moves against Huawei, it might be unknowingly giving such a push to Google in the smartphone market.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

By Leonid Bershidsky – Bloomberg

24 May 2019

Huawei Beyond Smokescreen

The issue of Huawei first floated when the Chairman’s daughter, who is also the CFO of Huawei, was arrested in Canada. The Americans claimed that she has violated sanctions and wanted her to be extradited to US for trial.

This is not the first time Americans had extended its legal arms outside of its country’s boundary. Huawei is not an American company. Why should it be subjected to American political sanctions? It was not very clear why American government wanted to do that at the very beginning. But later on, it becomes clear that the Americans have reverted back to their dirty tricks.

This is not the first time the American government had used its political dominance to attack foreign companies to curb their growth, or even forcing them to be sold to American companies.

Toshiba was once a fast growing Japanese company but it was targeted in the 1980s, with two senior executives jailed on the charge of selling high precision machinery to Russia. Chinese ZTE was forced to the knees with political administrative means and $1 billion fine was extorted before it was let off. There were also European companies subjected to American pressures in the past.

The coordinated attack on Huawei started from a charge of “breaching American sanction on Iran” to charge of “espionage via Huawei’s hardware”.

It is no secret that Americans have been spying on the whole world, including its allies in Europe over the past decades via communication infrastructures installed using American products or technology. Snowden had actually leaked information on how NSA spies on each and every country through the use of backdoor implemented in communication hardware.

So it is not something new but simply hypocrisy on Americans’ part in playing dirty on Huawei.

Perhaps the Americans have found out that they can no longer have an easy hack on Huawei’s equipment to spy on other countries, which is why they are making so much noise.

I would not be surprised if the Chinese government emulates what the American government NSA has been doing all this while, spying on other countries through similar method. But at this very moment, there is absolutely Zero evidence provided by the Americans except the speculative insinuation put on Huawei’s Chairman, who is an ex-PRC army personnel.
This may be one of the minor reasons why Trump wants to attack or even destroy Huawei at all cost, even if it means hurting American companies which supplied over $11 billion worth of components to Huawei.

Yes, it might be the 5G technology that they are so afraid of. But this is not only about the commercial dominance of Huawei’s 5G technology.

Ultimately, it points to military supremacy. US is able to bully its way through the world for all these decades simply because of its military supremacy. It can have trillions or zillions of deficits but it doesn’t care at all.

But Huawei’s advanced 5G technology has the potential of tilting the balance of Military strength towards China. In modern warfare, more and more sensors will be used and there will be a revolutionized war communication technology to enhance battlefront monitoring and controls.

Huawei’s advancement on 5G technology or even faster hidden technology will give PLA a boost and multi-level upgrades in war theater command and management.

This is the greatest fear of USA, a potential adversary having more advanced military communication capabilities. This is why no matter how damaging it is towards its own Americans companies, Trump has to destroy Huawei.

However, I suspect that Huawei does have the Chinese government’s support for the simple reason that it has critical technological assets that could help it modernize its military.

It is not an exaggeration for Chairman Ren to say that Trump had underestimated the strength of Huawei. This is because it would most probably had secured full support from Chinese government to protect its critical technological assets.

It would be interesting to see how Huawei could turn the table around and build up its own in-house components manufacturing capability within one year. The problems of operating systems are just smokescreen to the bigger picture.

Make no mistake about it. It is Cold War II in the making.

Goh Meng Seng

A Brief Synopsis of India's China War. - 1962

Below are some salient points and facts behind the Sino-Indian border war of 1962. A good knowledge of the historical background of the disputed boundaries is essential to the understanding of the dispute.

Link

Mexico demands apology for colonial abuses, Spain says no

The 500-year-old wounds of the Spanish conquest were ripped open afresh on Monday (March 25) when Mexico's president urged Spain and the Vatican to apologise for their "abuses" - a request Madrid said it "firmly rejects."

Spain's centuries of dominance in the New World, backed by the Catholic Church, leapt from the history books to the headlines when Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador called on Spanish King Felipe VI and Pope Francis to apologise for the conquest and the rights violations committed in its aftermath.

"I have sent a letter to the king of Spain and another to the pope, calling for a full account of the abuses and urging them to apologise to the indigenous peoples (of Mexico) for the violations of what we now call their human rights," Lopez Obrador said.

He made the remarks in a video, filmed at the ruins of the indigenous city of Comalcalco and posted on Facebook and Twitter.

"There were massacres and oppression. The so-called conquest was waged with the sword and the cross. They built their churches on top of the (indigenous) temples," added the anti-establishment leftist.

"The time has come to reconcile. But let us ask forgiveness first."

Spain's rejection was immediate and blunt.

"The government of Spain deeply regrets that the letter the Mexican president sent to his Majesty the King, whose contents we firmly reject, has been made public," it said in a statement.

"The arrival, 500 years ago, of Spaniards to present Mexican territory cannot be judged in the light of contemporary considerations," it said.

"Our two brother nations have always known how to read our shared past without anger and with a constructive perspective."

300-year reign

Lopez Obrador made the remarks during a visit to the Mayan pyramids of Comalcalco, in his native Tabasco state, in southern Mexico.

He later visited the nearby city of Centla, the scene of the first battle between Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortes and the indigenous peoples of the land now known as Mexico, on March 14, 1519.

With the help of horses, swords, guns and smallpox - all unknown in the New World at the time - Cortes led an army of fewer than 1,000 men to defeat the Aztec empire, the start of 300 years of Spanish rule over Mexico.

The abuses continued until independence from Spain in 1821, and beyond, Lopez Obrador said.

"Thousands of people were murdered during this period. One culture and civilisation imposed itself on another," he said later in a speech.

"There are still open wounds. It's better to recognise that abuses were committed, and mistakes were made. It's better to ask forgiveness and seek to be brothers in a historic reconciliation."

He added that he, too, planned to offer an apology, "because the repression of indigenous peoples continued after the colonial period."

It's complicated

Mexico has a complicated relationship with its colonial past.

Its history, culture, food and the Mexican people themselves are the product of "mestizaje," the mixing of the Old and New Worlds.

According to a government study, 98 per cent of Mexicans have some combination of indigenous, European and African ancestry.

But although that mixture made modern Mexico - and gave the world the gifts of chocolate, tacos de carnitas and Day of the Dead - it is also a past tainted by violence, rape and oppression.

Lopez Obrador, 65, took office in December after a landslide election win that represented a firm break with Mexico's traditional political parties.

A folksy populist, he pulls no punches in going after traditional elites, and has sought to cast himself as a champion of Mexico's indigenous peoples.

But he had so far cultivated cordial relations with Spain and the Vatican, including during a visit to Mexico City by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez earlier this year.

Sanchez, a fellow leftist, marked the occasion by presenting the Mexican president with his grandfather Jose Obrador's Spanish birth certificate, from 1893.

Here’s the real story none of us learned in school of how Raffles ‘founded’ Singapore

Looking at it in its entirety, can we really even say he founded Singapore?

mothership

Huawei Frightens Europe's Data Protectors. America Does, Too

A foreign power with possible unbridled access to Europe’s data is causing alarm in the region. No, it’s not China. It’s the U.S.

Bloomberg

Why pick on Huawei when all advanced technologies, including those from the US, carry security risks?

SCMP

The US is waging war on Chinese hi-tech, but it can’t thwart Beijing’s ambitions on its own

Joergen Oerstroem Moeller says the global rules-based trading system is under threat as Washington seeks to conscript other countries to its economic war on Chinese technology

SCMP

The War on Huawei

The Trump administration's conflict with China has little to do with US external imbalances, closed Chinese markets, or even China’s alleged theft of intellectual property. It has everything to do with containing China by limiting its access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking services, and perhaps even US universities.

Project Syndicate