China was quick on the defensive today when Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail found documents that China was offering weapons and ammunition worth at least $200 million to Colonel Moammar Gadhafi in late July which also violated United Nations sanctions.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu sought to deflect attention Monday by saying that while Chinese companies had approached Gadhafi's side, she stressed no transactions were ever made.
However Omar Hariri, chief of the Libyan transitional council's military committee saw the documents and believes they explain brand-new weapons the rebels encountered in the field.
"I'm almost certain that these guns arrived and were used against our people," he said.
The Globe and Mail reporter found the memo in the trash in a neighbourhood known as Bab Akkarah, where several of Gadhafi's most loyal supporters have ostentatious homes.
The memo documents a trip by Gadhafi's security officials made from Tripoli to Beijing on July 16. In the Chinese capital they met officials from three state-owned weapons manufacturers: China North Industries Corp (Norinco), the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corp (CPMIC), and China XinXing Import & Export Corp.
The companies not only offered their entire stockpile of weapons and ammunition, but added if they needed more, they would manufacture them. They also added that the weapons should be transferred through a third country to avoid detection.
If that's not proof enough that China was trying to back Gadhafi, I don't know what is.
And what about China's constant refrain of not interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries?
This time it definitely backed the wrong side and the transitional government will bear this in mind when it eventually comes to power.
China likes dealing with autocratic leaders like former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Gadhafi because they have much in common. But Beijing has put its bets on the wrong horses.
As the Arab Spring continues to sustain and spread through the Middle East, Beijing will have to assess things much more carefully with fewer despots on its side.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Sunday, 4 September 2011
Lack of Benefits in Over Parenting
Children in Hong Kong, particularly the ones of A-type parents don't have much of a childhood.
When they are three years old the children are already prepped for pre-school entrance tests which entail not only identifying objects on flashcards but also be able to say their name, and talk about their hobbies.
Hobbies? At three years of age?
I recall one parent saying that during the interview, her daughter was asked her name and she replied, "bee bee" or "baby".
And from then onwards the parents ferry their children here and there for tutorials, classes for dance, music, sports and art in the hopes all these extracurricular activities will give their brood a leg up in the world.
However on the show Freakonomics, economist Bruce Sacerdote found that over parenting doesn't have much of an affect on children and in fact doesn't help much in their financial future. He discovered that while parents could have a moderate affect on your income in your early 20s, they basically have zero influence for the rest of your life.
Zero!
But what about over parenting when it comes to academic success? Economists Steven Levitt and Roland Fryer took national data of children from birth to grade school in the United States and crunched the numbers. Levitt concludes it doesn't matter how many activities your kids do whether they go to museums. There is no evidence that the parental choices of obsessive parents can be correlated with academic success. "When it comes to happiness of kids that kind of cultural cramming is negatively correlated with happiness," Levitt says.
Negatively correlated to happiness!
So let that be a lesson folks. While it's good to encourage your child to learn whatever interests them, there isn't much value in forcing them to play piano or go to a museum.
Sometimes it's better just to let kids be kids.
Now if only the rest of the Hong Kong population and school system would realize this too.
When they are three years old the children are already prepped for pre-school entrance tests which entail not only identifying objects on flashcards but also be able to say their name, and talk about their hobbies.
Hobbies? At three years of age?
I recall one parent saying that during the interview, her daughter was asked her name and she replied, "bee bee" or "baby".
And from then onwards the parents ferry their children here and there for tutorials, classes for dance, music, sports and art in the hopes all these extracurricular activities will give their brood a leg up in the world.
However on the show Freakonomics, economist Bruce Sacerdote found that over parenting doesn't have much of an affect on children and in fact doesn't help much in their financial future. He discovered that while parents could have a moderate affect on your income in your early 20s, they basically have zero influence for the rest of your life.
Zero!
But what about over parenting when it comes to academic success? Economists Steven Levitt and Roland Fryer took national data of children from birth to grade school in the United States and crunched the numbers. Levitt concludes it doesn't matter how many activities your kids do whether they go to museums. There is no evidence that the parental choices of obsessive parents can be correlated with academic success. "When it comes to happiness of kids that kind of cultural cramming is negatively correlated with happiness," Levitt says.
Negatively correlated to happiness!
So let that be a lesson folks. While it's good to encourage your child to learn whatever interests them, there isn't much value in forcing them to play piano or go to a museum.
Sometimes it's better just to let kids be kids.
Now if only the rest of the Hong Kong population and school system would realize this too.
Saturday, 3 September 2011
More Concerns about National Education
There are more doubts as to how Hong Kong will implement the controversial national education course in all schools within two years.
As expected many teachers raised objections during the four-month consultation period that ended earlier this week.
The plan calls for all primary and secondary students in Hong Kong to include national education as a study subject though it has not been clarified as to what exactly the students should be learning and how.
Those for it in the pro-Beijing camp have criticized the city's education system for years saying there is not enough effort made to instill a sense of national identity in students, fearing they will be ostracized by the rest of the country. And those opposed are concerned about the true meaning behind national education, that it could be used for "brain-washing" purposes. There are also concerns of extra workloads for both teachers and students.
This proposal has been one of Donald Tsang's key objectives as Chief Executive, though he steps down next year. He is eager to show Beijing that he is heeding its suggestion that Hong Kong children learn more about Chinese culture (whatever that means).
The Federation of Education Workers which has 13,000 members says the plan should be a pilot scheme first before introducing to all schools, and that only one-third of schools should be involved in the first year.
Federation chairman Wong Kwan-yu said the government's time frame of two years was "unfeasible" and said that as many as 50 percent of teachers taking part in the survey opposed the proposal.
The organization's concerns are a political blow for Tsang, as it traditionally supports the government. The federation is the second-largest teachers' group in Hong Kong, after the Professional Teachers' Union which has already objected to the government's plan.
An advisory body is looking at the comments from the consultation process and will meet on September 15.
Meanwhile Hong Kong Association of Heads of Secondary Schools chairman Yuen Pong-yiu made a cryptic comment. He said the government should make sure students could think independently and critically.
Is he hinting he wants Hong Kong's children to be able to figure out what is propaganda and what isn't when they take this national education course?
As expected many teachers raised objections during the four-month consultation period that ended earlier this week.
The plan calls for all primary and secondary students in Hong Kong to include national education as a study subject though it has not been clarified as to what exactly the students should be learning and how.
Those for it in the pro-Beijing camp have criticized the city's education system for years saying there is not enough effort made to instill a sense of national identity in students, fearing they will be ostracized by the rest of the country. And those opposed are concerned about the true meaning behind national education, that it could be used for "brain-washing" purposes. There are also concerns of extra workloads for both teachers and students.
This proposal has been one of Donald Tsang's key objectives as Chief Executive, though he steps down next year. He is eager to show Beijing that he is heeding its suggestion that Hong Kong children learn more about Chinese culture (whatever that means).
The Federation of Education Workers which has 13,000 members says the plan should be a pilot scheme first before introducing to all schools, and that only one-third of schools should be involved in the first year.
Federation chairman Wong Kwan-yu said the government's time frame of two years was "unfeasible" and said that as many as 50 percent of teachers taking part in the survey opposed the proposal.
The organization's concerns are a political blow for Tsang, as it traditionally supports the government. The federation is the second-largest teachers' group in Hong Kong, after the Professional Teachers' Union which has already objected to the government's plan.
An advisory body is looking at the comments from the consultation process and will meet on September 15.
Meanwhile Hong Kong Association of Heads of Secondary Schools chairman Yuen Pong-yiu made a cryptic comment. He said the government should make sure students could think independently and critically.
Is he hinting he wants Hong Kong's children to be able to figure out what is propaganda and what isn't when they take this national education course?
Friday, 2 September 2011
Short Form English HK Style
 |
| GLA magazine... what does that mean? |
There's a story that trendy fashion label French Connection got its cool name FCUK when in 1997 the Hong Kong office sent a fax saying FCHK to FCUK. After that the name stuck for obvious shock reasons which is why the name is now emblazoned on T-shirts and results in second looks.
The actress Maggie Q whose real name is Margaret Denise Quigley, made her big break in Hong Kong thanks to Jackie Chan seeing her in Gen-Y Cops and got her cast in Manhattan Midnight and Rush Hour 2. Her name was shortened to Q because no one in Hong Kong apart from those who had studied overseas could pronounce her name.
And now we have this magazine called GLA, short for Glamorous. It's originally a Japanese magazine called Glamorous, but probably the Hong Kong marketers of the magazine thought the adjective was too much of a mouthful for locals to pronounce and shortened it to GLA.
How much lazier are they going to get? They're already calling Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen "CE" -- heck even his license plate says that too.
But do we have to shorten every single word just to make it easier for people?
Pretty soon English is just going to be a string of letters that make no sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)