TR EMERITUS

Dear readers, As some of you may have encountered, our site has been intermittently inacessible for the last 4 weeks or so for reasons beyond our control. We apologize again for the inconvenience and distress caused as we realized that Temasek Review has become a daily morning "breakfast" for many Singaporeans. We have already spent quite a lot of money upgrading our server from a VPS to a VPS with extra RAM to a dedicated server and on top of a firewall. It has been a very frustrating period for us. Every second our site goes down, we lost one precious reader. Our system administrator has been bombarded with our calls almost 24 hours a day even in the middle of the night during the weekends. We thank him for his invaluable assistance and dedication to Temasek Review. Please rest assured we are doing whatever we can to minimize another occurrence. Should Temasek Review be down again for whatever reasons, here's what you should do: 1. Try accessing our site via a proxy like www.vtunnel.com or www.proxify.com. If it is accessible, it is probably a temporary ISP issue which will be resolved in a few hours. 2. If you can't even access our site via proxy, it means that either our entire server is down or it is under attack. We will publish all our articles temporarily on our wordpress blog: www.temasekreview.wordpress.com The site will probably take up to 12 hours or more to be revived in such a scenario. What that doesn't kill you will make you stronger. To those out there who still harbor any thoughts of sabotaging our site, let it be clear that no matter what you take, we will be back. As a sidenote, please do not panic if you happen to see the home page of wayangparty next Monday when you key in our domain name. We are reviving wayangparty.com and some nameserver issues may crop up in the process.   ADMINISTRATOR  Read More →

EDITORS' NOTE: The below article was posted by a reader to show why it is impossible for IP spoofing to be used to "grab" content from our site in this instance. [Read our latest rebuttal to Mr Geoffrey Pereira's second article on 13 November 2009 here] Now lets down to the technicalities involved and examine the evidence before us: TR Claims that: 1. TR’s server logs indicated that an IP address from SPH was grabbing or reading (NOT attacking) contents from the site on the material time and date stated in the initial article. 2. The ’source IP address’ inside the packets was reverse traced back to one that belongs to SPH and verified with http://whois.domaintools.com/203.116.231.234 SPH’s Defense: 1. IP spoofing is a common tactic used in a DOS attack and in this case, the IP alleging to be from SPH is spoofed. Without considering which idiot in the world would want to spoof ONLY ONE IP address to grab TR’s site and incriminate SPH, let's get down to the technical aspects of IP spoofing. IP spoofing in this instance is technically OUT OF THE QUESTION and NOT APPLICABLE. Reason being: a. The history of the "HTML GET messages" reveal that website contents are being retrieved in sequential and structured fashion consistent with the websites’ site map. Basically, it means that the source computer knows which information to retrieve next, hence, it is aware of the URL links inside the TR web pages, and therefore receives the information direct from the TR website. In IP spoofing, the attacker does not receive information from the attacked website because all ’source IP addresses’ have been spoofed. b. From information gathered from the hosting provider, their hardware firewall uses Reactive Address Blocking. RAB allows the firewall to track an address as it traverses the network and subsequently associate that address across any number of violations. One of the most useful functions of RAB is that it allows for monitoring of sanity violations, which is when an IP address breaks a strict conformity standard such as trying to spoof an IP address or modify packet flags. This makes sure that all packets coming from or going through the network conform to strict TCP/IP standards. Additionally, the firewall is enabled with SynCookie support which plainly put, the server will send out a ’syn-cookie’ when the syn backlog for a socket becomes overflowed, as in the case of a sudden surge in traffic and multiple simultaneous connects. The cookie is used to interrupt the flow of sync transmissions with a hashed sequence number that must be correlated with the sending host (source computer). If the sending host does not validate against the hash then the tcp hand-shake is terminated. In short, any spoofed packets will be dropped and terminated since a spoofed packet would not be able to validate the hash. So the IP addresses you alleged to be spoofed would be long terminated BEFORE it even reaches the server, no possibility of it being logged by the server. 2. Neither did anyone in SPH try to “grab” TR material in a way that would load its server; nor did any SPH staffer launch any attack on the server. Having dispel the suggestion that the IP was spoofed, the fashion by which contents are being accessed is consistent with search robots or a web grabber – ie – a website is archived so that a string search can be made. While this is perfectly legal, some software uses multiple sockets when downloading content, and CAN potentially hog resources from the web server and slow other user’s access. It WILL HOG the server’s resources but in this incident, it didn’t because the software firewall on the server itself banned the offending IP address minutes into the action after the IP address exceeded 60 connects per minute, the threshold set by the system administrator. Technically, if the server were to be not protected by firewall and had been configured poorly, a multiple of requests in excess of 60 connects per minute WOULD HAVE brought the server down and that would technically be classified as an attack. Bottomline is, SPH will have to come up with a better explanation than a blanket denial to pin the blame on spoofed IP.  Read More →

张元元事件发生后，引来了传统媒体对新加坡民间的批评声浪。各种评论几乎都集中在谴责新加坡人“狭隘”。其中，联合早报记者明永昌评论道：“民间要求海外人才摒弃他们对原籍地的热爱，“融入”本地社会的诉求，是否符合实际或许需要作一番检讨。”（联合早报，12-10-2009） 严孟达副总编辑也写道：“新国人士向以“融入”为准绳，求诸新来乍到之移民，以致不口操新式英语不足示其融入，不数典忘宗不足示其融入，不日日作融入状，不足示其融入。融入二字几成紧箍咒，新之移民颇受折腾。”（联合早报，17-10-2009，言论版）             但新加坡的民间真的如此“狭隘”，心里如此的容不下移民的到来吗？             对我们这些独立后成长的一代来说，移民一直是我们生活的一部分。我从小学到大学的同学里头，就有许多来自马来西亚的同学。求学过程中受过来自马来西亚的老师和教授的指导。工作中也和来自马来西亚的同事共同奋斗。新加坡第一代政府领导人如杜进才和拉惹勒南都来自于马来西亚。现任卫生部长许文远，国会议员李美花，同样是来自于马来西亚。就连前总统蒂梵那，在新加坡独立的时候还继续担任马来西亚的联邦众议员。             对于这些来自异国的同学，同事，政府和民间领导人，新加坡民间从来都没有表达过反弹的情绪。记忆中也没有什么“新移民”，“老移民”的说法，也根本没有所谓“融入”的问题。             对于外来移民影响了本地人的就业机会的疑虑，政府也一再的保证引入的只会是高素质的人才。客工和学生都无法成为永久居民。当时，每天都有大量的马来西亚客工和学生，白天从长堤彼岸越过海峡到新加坡工作，求学，晚上回去。一直到他们在新加坡站稳了脚跟，建立了事业，才会得到永久居民的机会。 可以这么说，这样的来自马来西亚的移民在成为永久居民之前就已经在新加坡生活和学习过相当长的时间，和新加坡人可以说是水乳交融的学习和生活在一起。 说新加坡人“狭隘”，反对移民，从何说起？             但从90年代中期开始，政府宽松的移民政策引入了大量的来自中国的移民。不但数量大，而且给予永久居民的速度也相对快了许多。而许多在这个过程中得到永久居民的新移民有许多也很快的成功申请到了公民的身份，成为新加坡公民的一员。 以张元元作为一个案例来看，她的学历只是职业专科学校（相等于新加坡的ITE），唯一的工作经历就是学前幼儿的华文老师。可是就凭这样的资历，她在短短的两年内就申请到了永久居民。照新加坡的国籍法，成为永久居民的两年后就可以申请公民。也就是说，一个没有学历没有事业没有特殊技能的张元元，可以在短短的4年内就成为新加坡公民，享有和本土公民一模一样的权利和机会。 同时，大量客工被引进到各行各业，也让新加坡人发现不但是劳工密集的行业里头需要客工，连超市的收银员，餐馆的服务员，都变成了和我们不一样的外国人。 很多新加坡人几乎是一觉醒来，才忽然发现周围多了这么多“和我们不一样的人”。有的网民甚至用“来自中国的侵略”来形容这大量涌入的移民和客工。 虽然政府可以用各种数据来说明引入外国移民和客工对于经济的好处。但一直没有说明的是 – 引入这大量的移民和劳工，新加坡社会整体上要付出什么代价？以新加坡这么小的人口基数，有能力在这么短的时间“消化”这些外来人口吗？ 到最后，到底是“他们”融入了“我们”，还是“我们”变成了“他们”？ 前常任秘书严崇涛投书海峡时报的文章，就很清楚的说明了这种担忧。他写道：“我不愿意杞人忧天，但我的一个不断重复的梦靥就是我们会变成自己土地上的外人”（海峡时报，24-9-2009，《Lest we become strangers in our own land》）。他担忧新加坡只会变成国际人才的垫脚石，也担心身为移民的家长会建议在新加坡出生的儿子在足龄时离开新加坡以逃避国民服役的责任。（We risk having them use us as a stepping stone. Foreign fathers may advise their sons born in Singapore to leave when they reach the national service age of 18.） 年前，李显龙在接受媒体访问的时候就清楚的提到，我们要尽可能的整合和融入新移民到新加坡社会（assimilate and integrate) 但一年过去了，这个融入的过程看起来不是更近，而是更远。新移民里头有人认为“融入”根本是个“伪命题”，有人认为只要“融合”，不需要“融入”。有人认为“只要守法交税就是融入”，也有人认为“融入”没有标准，谈何融入？ 更有那种认为本土新加坡人只是“先来的人”，是“老移民”，其实和新移民没有什么两样。既然大家都是移民，根本没有必要谈什么“融入”。甚至还有人认为新加坡的文化根基太浅，也没有资格“融入”他们的说法。 这种趋势的继续，只能让本土新加坡人和新移民之间的隔阂越来越大。以新加坡这样的小国，能够承担的起这样的状况吗？ 新加坡人走过了种族冲突的过去，和英文社群和华语社群之间的猜忌。一直到今天都还在小心翼翼的维持着这个不同的语文，种族和宗教之间的敏感。 但随着英文的普及和国民认同的加强，这个民族和宗教之间断层可以说是已经逐渐的弥合。新加坡人走过了那种因为彼此语文不同而老死不相往来的过去，独立后新一代的新加坡人基本上都可以跨越种族的差异无障碍的沟通和生活。 但来了这么多的外来人口，名义上变成了“我们”的一分子，但实际上却保持了“他们”的对于原籍国的热爱和国家认同。有张元元那样，以亮出新加坡的永久居民身份证来说明“报效祖国是她的最大心愿”的新移民，也有已经入籍了新加坡却还是认为自己“永远是中国人”的李叶明。（访新加坡新移民“随笔南洋”网创办者 李叶明(2008-12-24 13:19:41)， 新浪网）。 这些言论和行为，难道不会引起本土新加坡人的疑虑吗？ 去年李显龙总理在接受汤姆森-路透集团主办的对话会中就说过，融入就是“让他们（新移民）逐渐接受新加坡人的价值观和态度，也让他们的下一代在新加坡出生，成为土生土长的新加坡人。” （总理公署网站 － PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG’S DIALOGUE AT THOMSON REUTERS NEWSMAKER EVENT ON 6 MAY 2008） 可是在这许多的讨论中，这个“新加坡人的态度和价值观“似乎已经变成了一个不断在演变的变量。随着大量的新移民成为新公民，自然他们也可以利用他们手中的一票要求改变新加坡社会原有的生态，价值观和态度。 会不会到了某一天，新加坡人再也不需要强调单一的，排他的国家认同，再也不需要强调永久居民第二代加入国民服役的必要，再也不需要强调“华人”和“中国人”的不同？ 未来的“我们”到底是谁？我已经无法想象。   Andy Liew  Read More →