TR EMERITUS

The outsize US Military will always be a "first option" for US international relations, and until that is addressed, there will be more pointless wars, I mean "interventions." Since 1898, US interventions have been justified with 'democracy defense' and military spending accounts for almost half of its' discretionary spending. It happened in Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti and Dominican Republic. It horrifically developed in Chile, Argentina and Vietnam. And it finally happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have never paid attention to the real conditions on the ground and how the population they intervene are impacted by the intervention. Arrogance is what have motivated the US to commit the same mistakes all over again. And finally the world can see its craziness. Afghanistan is the remnant of the arrogance of the 20th century. Let it be the last one. Disengaging from Afghanistan was never going to be easy where religious fanatics eg: Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, hiding in the rugged countryside re-emerge to try to control the country and drag its people back to a medieval caliphate. It is a fractious country; an amalgamation of tribal lords and tribal prefectures. No one 'fights for' the country; they 'fight with' a tribal lord. Fighters switch sides at the drop of a hat, based on which side offers the best opportunity for safety, gain, security. Just because the Taliban "won" today, it doesn't mean they will rule tomorrow. [LINK] After President Biden condemned the terrorist attack and vowed to hunt down those responsible, the U.S. military carried out a drone strike on an Islamic State target in Afghanistan, the first retaliatory action following an attack at Kabul airport that killed 13 American service members and at least 170 other people. Taliban's recent takeover will also encourage Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic extremists worldwide. It'll, in turn, inflame religious extremism among other religious groups, many of whom are now having political connections in the USA, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, India, France, Germany, Australia/NZ, and Asean, etc. Right now, even in their victory, the Taliban are extremely weak. If they want to govern the country effectively, they'll need all the financial, technical, and institutional means that define a functioning state. So their leaders are trying to blunt all hostility by putting out a face of moderation, goodwill and inclusivity through their statements. But let's note that the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic organization, could find a quiet and an easy theological justification for their use in its dealings with those opposed to it during its times of weakness and vulnerability. In orthodox Islam, all deceptive conduct by the believers that protects the faithful and weakens the enemy is a service to Allah and is thus a pious undertaking. It's called taqiyaah in Arabic. They still ascribes to Sunni Islamic fundamentalism and government through Shariah or Islamic law and nothing liberal about them for their use of media technology for PR purposes. One of the Taliban pronouncements of the past week was the admonition that women should stay inside for a few weeks because their youngest fighters still hadn’t been educated on how to treat women. Shouldn’t humane treatment of women, men, girls and boys be fundamental in a civilized society? If the Taliban haven’t already undertaken this lesson, if they don’t have control over the most basic actions of their own people, how do they expect to govern an entire country? A major source of money for Taliban is hefty donations from Gulf countries and many Muslims from across the world including western world (despite of strict international financial regulations.) These Taliban today are sitting on the throne of Kabul with complete help and complicity of Pakistan. America should have come into senses at the time when they found Bin Laden living under the protection of Pakistan military. They gave billions of dollars to Pakistan as economic aid but unfortunately it went mostly into the pockets of army officers or was spent on developing nuclear bombs. This was mostly due to intense rivalry between India and Pakistan on Kashmir dispute. Now Pakistan do not need America as it has new friends China and Taliban government in Afghanistan which can be used against India to seize Kashmir. Let us see how the new game is played by Pakistan. Pak- taliban rise is a global headache now! As for India, it has seen the worst times thru when Pakistan and Taliban were together in 1996-2001 - Airplane hijackings, terror bombings. [LINK] The United States—and its allies—have politically, socially, financially and militarily prepared Afghanistan to stand on its own. Much of the $2.6+ trillion spent by unaware Americans has lined the pockets of suppliers of arms, backers of the suppliers, and supporters of the suppliers. And let's not pretend that it is not a problem, a big problem with far-reaching implications. The answer is actually very simple. Wars are a big businesses for US. Interest groups are from Democrats and Republicans parties and get support from both sides. I always believed that the so-called "war against terror" was an absurd propaganda exercise to help line the pockets of the military-industrial complex. What could be better than perpetual war? US now spend more on defense than the next 30 countries combined. Something is wrong with this picture. While instead China spends about a 1/3 of what US spend on the military, it is building super railroads, investing in artificial intelligence and advanced communications systems. Americans are in deep trouble and we can trace it back to the elites who dominate in D.C. Sadly, the military-industrial complex was and still is, a very hungry beast that needs constant feeding. Its tentacles reach deep into many facets of American society and business. If your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Maybe our real problem starts with how our Govt. choose to spend our tax dollars. What's the old saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Singapore's toolkit has just one blunt tool. No wonder we only have one way to solve every problem we see.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of America has issued a statement on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat covid. The key points from the FDA statement, as mentioned in this news report are. 1. It is to be used primarily for horses and cows 2. The test results are not sufficiently convincing for the authority to authorize its use for treatment of covid in humans. 3. The best protection against covid is the vaccine 4. It may be harmful for humans and has side effects 5. There are better drugs to treat covid 6. There may be insufficient supply for animal use, if it is used by humans. I find the reasons given by FDA to be not convincing. Here are my reasons: 1. Ivermectin has been used by humans for a few decades, and has been found to be safe. 2. The side effects listed by FDA do not appear to be serious. Most drugs have side effects anyway. 3. The FDA do not provide any evidence to show that it is harmful to treat covid patients. 4. Ivermectin is inexpensive. 5. The production of this drug can be increased significantly to meet demand. 6. The better drugs used for treating covid are very expensive. 7. There is a shortage of vaccines around the world. It is clear to me that the health authority should conduct a more conclusive study on the use of ivermectin. Even if it is less effective than other drugs, it can be used under certain situations. For example, ivermectin can be used in poorer countries who are not able to afford the expensive vaccines or do not have access to its supply. It can also be used to treat covid patients in countries which cannot afford the more costly drugs. Singapore can try the use of ivermectin for infected people with mild conditions who are advised to quarantine at home. These patients may not be given any other drugs. If they are prescribed with ivermectin, it may be helpful (as shown by several clinical studies). Ivermectin is taken orally by the patient. Some people suspect that there may be vested interest, e.g. of the large pharmaceutical companies, to stop the use of a cheaper alternative to their expensive drugs. We need to deal with their suspicion in a convincing way. I hope that the health authority in some countries, perhaps Singapore, can act independently of the FDA and carry out their own study on the use of ivermectin. They should consider not only the effective of various forms of treatment, but also the cost.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

The High Court on Friday (20 Aug) reserved its judgment once again on an appeal by Mr Koh Rong Gui who is seeking a Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) for 4 charges in relation to taking videos which insulted the modesty of women between November 2016 and April 2017 At the heart of the dispute was whether certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code that prevents the court from reviewing or questioning the findings of the MTO psychiatrist in determining whether an MTO should be imposed on an offender, is an impermissible violation of the court’s powers under the Constitution. The trial judge found Mr Koh guilty of the four charges in July 2019 and declined to call for an MTO suitability report, sentencing him to 12 weeks’ imprisonment. On appeal, Mr Koh, who was represented by lawyer Mr M Ravi, confirmed that he was no longer pursuing his appeal against the conviction and he would be only asking for the sentence of 12 weeks’ imprisonment to be replaced with an MTO. Learn more Mr Koh also applied, and was allowed to introduce psychiatric reports by Dr Munidasa Winslow and Dr Ken Ung Eng Khean as fresh evidence on appeal in order to persuade the court to impose an MTO. The Prosecution then had argued that an MTO suitability report should not be called as a previous IMH psychiatrist had already stated that there was no connection between Mr Koh’s psychiatric conditions and his offences. In February 2021, Justice Aedit Abdullah called for an MTO suitability report on Mr Koh. On the same day, the medical reports of Dr Winslow and Dr Ung were sent to the Institute of Mental Health for the purposes of preparing the MTO suitability report. In April 2021, the MTO psychiatrist issued her report stating that although Mr Koh suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Hoarding Disorder, which are susceptible to treatment, and that Mr Koh was suitable for treatment, but that “there was no contributory factor between his psychiatric conditions and the commission of the offences”. However, the appointed psychiatrist did not state that the medical reports of Dr Winslow and/or Dr Ung had been taken into consideration in her report. Mr Ravi then submitted that certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, which effectively prevents the court from questioning the findings of the appointed psychiatrist in the MTO suitability, is an intrusion and violation of the judicial power under the Singapore Constitution and should be declared void. In this regard, Mr Ravi had referred to Parlimentary debates on the Criminal Justice Reform Bill 2018 where Member of Parliament (Bukit Batok) Mr Murali Pillai had raised his concerns about the “incongruity” in the courts being “constrained by the sole professional judgement of the [MTO] psychiatrist” on whether an MTO should be imposed on accused persons. The same provisions were also said to be a violation of the right to equality and equal protection of the law under the Constitution as the MTO psychiatrist’s report, being non-questionable by accused persons, is treated in a different manner from other medical expert evidence in the context of defence to any criminal charge or as a mitigating factor during sentencing, is treated in a different manner and could not be questioned by accused persons. He also argued that the MTO psychiatrist’s report had not complied with the mandatory legal requirement that before any MTO suitability report was prepared, the MTO psychiatrist must take into consideration any report prepared by “psychiatrists engaged by the offender”, which in this case refers to the medical reports of Dr Winslow and Dr Ung. In response to Justice Abdullah’s queries on the MTO’s psychiatrist non-compliance with the mandatory legal requirement at the hearing, Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Zu Zhao had argued that the matter could be referred back to the MTO psychiatrist who could then clarify whether she maintains the same position after taking into consideration the reports of Dr Winslow and Dr Ung. Mr Ravi disagreed with the Prosecution’s position, arguing that this approach engages principles of natural justice and it would lead to an “apprehension of bias”.   * Editorial by The Online Citizen.      Read More →