Pages

Showing posts with label Think Asian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Think Asian. Show all posts

Saturday, May 7, 2022

Is education fit for the future?

 


EDUCATION is the most controversial of subjects.

 
 One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.

Parents quarrel about the quality of education for their kids, just as societies are deeply divided on education as it defines the future.

Is the current education system fit for purpose to cope with a more complex, fractious future, fraught with possible war?

According to Stanford University’s Guide to Reimagining Higher Education, 96% of university chief academic officers think that their students are ready for the workforce, where only 11% of business leaders feel the same.

As the population and work force grow, the gap between skills demanded by employers and the education received by school leavers is widening, so much so that many are finding it hard to get the jobs that they want.

As technology accelerates in speed and complexity, the quality of education becomes more important than ever. Is it for the elites or the masses?

The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognised that the aim of education is for knowledge, but there was always a different view as to have knowledge for the individual or whether education must prepare the individual to fulfil the needs of society.

Feudal systems hardly paid attention to the masses, whereas most ancient institutes of higher learning were for elites, either for religious orders or in Chinese history, to prepare for civil or military service, but blended with self-cultivation.

Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has just produced a fascinating study on the implications of higher education for national security.

Covering the period 1950-2040, the study acknowledged that the United States attained uncontested power status, because it had the highest levels of educational attainment and manpower.

In 1950, the United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, had 45% share of world population aged 25 to 64 with completed tertiary education.

In comparison, India had 5% and China about half of that.

By 2020, the United States’ share had dropped to roughly 16%, whereas China was catching up, whilst India had just under 10%.

By 2040, depending on different estimates, China may double its share to between 15% and 20%, whereas India would have overtaken the United States with 12%, leaving the United States third with 10%.

It is a truism that education matters for economic growth and power.

Every additional year of schooling for children is estimated to add 9% to 10% increase in per capita output.

If you add in “business climate” with improvements in education, health and urbanisation, these factors explain five-sixths of differences in output per capita across countries.

Under the liberal world order, America encouraged the spread of global education, so much so that the global adult illiteracy (those without any schooling) fell from 45% in 1950 to only 13% by 2020.

This worldwide expansion in education was good for the world, but it also reduced the comparative advantage of the education and technology front-runners, particularly the United States.

The AEI study reported that the share of global adult population with at least some tertiary education increased from under 2% in 1950 to 16% today and would approach 22% by 2040.

In 1950, eight of the top 10 largest national highly educated working age labour pool was in advanced countries. By 2020, their share was half.

By 2040, this is likely to be only three out of 10.

In essence, India and China would take the lead in total highly trained manpower, especially in science and technology, with the United States “an increasingly distant third place contestant.”

The AEI study illustrates why increasingly American universities will be more selective in their future foreign student intake, especially in science and technology which may have impact on national security matters.

As late as 2017, MIT manifested global ambitions in its strategic plan, “Learning about the world, helping to solve the world’s greatest problems, and working with international collaborators who share our curiosity and commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry.”

That global vision may be cut back in light of the growing geopolitical split into military blocs. Western universities may no longer be encouraged to train foreign students into areas where they can return to compete in key technologies.

In short, geopolitical rivalry will determine the future of resources allocated to education, research and development and technology.

No country can afford liberal education in which every student is encouraged to do what he or she wants to do.

Students today want to be more engaged in the big social issues, such as climate change and social inequality.

But at the same time, they expect more experiential immersion into careers that are more self-fulfilling.

Instead, institutes of higher learning are forced by economics to provide more shorter term courses to upgrade worker skills, using new teaching methods and tools, especially artificial intelligence, virtual reality etc.

At the national level, governments will push universities into more research and development and innovation to gain national competitiveness, including R&D on defence and national security sectors.

This means that the education pipeline or supply chain will also be bifurcated like global supply chains that are being disrupted and split by geopolitics.

The conversation on what should go into the curriculum for education is only just beginning. Much of this is to do with funding.

As higher levels of education are more expensive, especially in the high technology area, whilst governments budgets are constrained, universities will turn to private sources of funding.

The more society polarises, the more likely that such funding would turn towards entrenchment of vested interests, rather than solutions to structural problems.

Education is controversial precisely because it is either a unifying social force or a divisive one.

One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.

The Soviet Union had the second largest share of educated manpower during the Cold War, but it did not save it from collapse.

Will our future education system provide leaders who are able to cope with the complexities of tomorrow?

As the poet T S Eliot asked in his poem “The Rock” in 1934, “where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?”

That question is being asked not just in universities, but by society as a whole.

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. 

Source link.

 

Related posts:

 

What ails our Malaysian universities ?

 

Malaysia's education policy must champion Meritocracy instead of Mediocrity system

 

Losing faith in reform of Malaysian education system

Sunday, December 19, 2021

We need a global summit on inequality

 




Climate concern: The sun rising behind the chimneys of a thermal power station. A recent International Monetary Fund study points out that the richest countries represent only 16% of the world population but almost 40% of CO2 emissions. — AFP   

INCOME and wealth inequality is unjust, and yet the world continues to tolerate rising injustices, the most recent being inequalities in vaccine distribution.

French political economist Thomas Piketty and his colleagues at the World Inequality Lab has just published the World Inequality Report 2022, a real goldmine for data and insights on global inequalities.

I found at least three nuggets inside that are blindingly obvious, but no one has quite tied it together so well as Piketty and his team.

First, inequality is primarily a political issue. We can all do something about it, but since politics has been captured by money, the few remain more equal than the many.

Between 1995 and 2021, the top 1% wealthiest people in the world captured 38% of the growth in global wealth, whereas the bottom 50% had a pitiful 2% share.

Similarly, the richest 10% of world population take home 52% of global income, whereas the bottom 50% earned only 8.5%.

The report showed why these inequities could not be reduced despite increases in average income and wealth per capita.

The progressive tax rates where the rich paid more than the poor, introduced in the first half of the 20th century to deal with inequality, were dismantled in the 1980s.

The neoliberal free market philosophy preached low taxes and small governments to encourage entrepreneurship, but effectively handed more income and wealth to the elite few.

Piketty’s second historical insight is that Europe and later America got rich on the back of both the Industrial Revolution and colonisation.

In 1820, between country (inter-country) inequality was only 11% of global inequality meaning that most inequality was domestic (intra-country).

But inter-country inequality rose when the West advanced with industrialisation and resource extraction from the colonies.

That peaked in 1980 when it represented 57% of global inequality.

Since then, the rise in income of China, India and other newly independent countries narrowed the gap with the West, but by 2020, domestic inequality again accounted for 68% of global inequality.

This meant that the developing countries allowed their own inequalities to worsen, even as they were narrowing the gap with the West.

In short, the rich are the same everywhere. They have more and want more.

But there is a twist to this story.

One reason why the Rest has caught up with the West is that “nations became richer, but governments have become poor.”

In essence, because the Europe, north America and Japan governments used debt to tackle slow growth since the 1980s, private wealth grew at the expense of public wealth.

Privatisation policies transferred public wealth such as utilities to the private sector, whereas public sector debt continued to increase.

The UK and US public wealth which was around 15% to 30% of total wealth before the 1980s declined to net liabilities of minus 10% to minus 20% of total wealth respectively.

Contrast this with China and Russia, where public wealth represents around 30% of national wealth, down from 70% at the end of the 1980s.

The third report insight is that inequalities and climate change are highly co-related.

Between 1850 and 2020, half (49%) of historical carbon emission was accounted by north America (27%) and Europe (22%),

China accounted for 11%, but has become the largest emitter, although per capita emission remains lower.

A recent International Monetary Fund study pointed out that “the richest countries represent only 16% of the world population but almost 40% of CO2 emissions.

The two categories of the poorest countries in the World Bank classification account for nearly 60% of the world’s population, but for less than 15% of emissions.”

The COP26 debate was all about whether China, India and other emerging markets that are increasing their carbon emissions should do more on net-zero pledges.

The entanglement between CO2 emission and income and wealth levels suggests that climate warming policies should focus more on making those responsible for carbon emissions pay more for remedial climate action.

The bottom 50% of population in Europe emits around five tonnes of carbon per person per year, with their counterpart emitting three tonnes in east Asia and 10 tonnes in north America.

But the top 10% in these regions account for 29 tonnes in Europe, 39 tonnes in Asia and 73 tonnes in North America.

Indeed, the top 1% in the United States account for 269 tonnes of carbon per person per year, compared with 139 tonnes for the top 1% in China.

The rich everywhere are the biggest carbon emitters.

This suggests that tackling climate change and social injustice are part of a total political package, cutting across nations.

It’s one thing to promise to cut carbon to net zero, it’s another to design the projects and programmes to deliver on their promises. Back home, each government will face huge resistance from vested interests that want to delay or just green-wash any action. In other words, talk more and do less.

The report has made some excellent suggestions to tackle inequality, such as progressive tax measures and a global asset register, that are bound to be controversial. But to be effective, they need global cooperation.

No single country can impose higher tax rates or tougher action without being undercut by another country.

Since everything is politics, I have to agree with inequality blogger Branko Milanovic that the recent Summit on Democracies is the wrong idea for the world, because it tried to divide the world into two opposing ideological camps.

The priority should be to work together globally to tackle climate and human inequalities that require domestic action against vested interests that are common across nations.

The next global summit should be about how to tackle inequalities.

Given such complex issues and facts raised by the Piketty and his colleagues, the least we can do is to have a democratic, transparent and constructive dialogue on how those who can afford and emit more carbon should pay more taxes to foster a more sustainable and inclusive world.

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Source link

 

Related posts

 

US Democracy Summit: An undemocratic ‘summit for democracy

 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

China releases report exposing malaises of US democracy, timely and to the point: experts

A view of the US Capitol Building. Photo: IC

 

Western media bias against China deplorable, dangerous; Anti-China RSF has more actors than audience in its play against China

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

The seismic shift in global finance

 

Why the global financial landscape is undergoing a seismic shift

  • Regulators are struggling to keep up with fintech’s rapid growth and the impact of big data, even as intense geopolitical rivalries mean accidents could easily escalate into crises

 
AUGUST 15, 2021 marks the 50th anniversary of United States President Richard Nixon delinking the US dollar from gold. Instead of a crisis, the ensuing half century marked the pre-eminence of the US financial system to global dominance.

In 2017, US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin commissioned four major studies on the US financial system that reviewed its efficiency, resilience, innovation and regulation. These surveys highlighted the US dominance in all four areas of banking, capital markets, asset management and financial technology.

To quote the reports proclaimed : “The US banking system is the strongest in the world”... “The US capital markets are the largest, deepest, and most vibrant in the world..(that) include the US$29 trillion (RM119 trillion) equity market, the US$14 trillion (RM57.5 trillion) market for US Treasury securities, the US$8.5 trillion (RM35 trillion) corporate bond market, and US$200 trillion (notional amount or RM820 trillion) derivatives market.”

According to the reports,“Nine of the top 10 largest global asset managers are headquartered in the United States.” In the area of financial technology, “US firms accounted for nearly half of the US$117bil (RM480bil) in cumulative global investments from 2010 to 2017.”

Under-pinning the US financial system’s success is of course the US dollar’s dominant currency pricing role. The dollar accounted for 88% in paired foreign exchange currency trading in 2019 and 59% of official foreign exchange holdings in 2020. It is widely used in trade invoicing in manufacturing but less so in services trade. As a major International Monetary Fund study has shown, this pricing role impacts on emerging market economy (EME) exchange rate policies, as their devaluation would have only limited positive impact on their exports, but amplifies their import contraction.

Furthermore, because EME debt is largely denominated in dollars, any dollar appreciation would have an overall contractionary impact on EME liquidity and growth. This is why US interest rate increases are feared not just by the US Treasury, but also almost all EME economies.

Several factors combined to create the recent seismic shift in the global financial landscape. 

First, financial technology has eroded the dominant share of the banking system. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) 2020 report on non-bank financial institutions (NBFI) revealed that as of end-2019, they accounted for 49.5% of global financial assets of $404 trillion, compared with 38.5% for the banks. Indeed, total NBFI lending now exceed bank lending, partly because of tighter bank regulations and higher bank capital and liquidity costs.

` Second, financial technology has enabled new arrivals in the financial sector comprising not new fintech startups, but also Big Tech platforms that are using Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, apps and their dominance of cloud computing to provide more convenient, speedy and customer-oriented finance for individuals and businesses. This month, a major BIS study on the implications of fintech and digitisation on financial market structure showed how Big Tech has muscled into traditional banking services, especially in payment services, lending and even asset management.

Taking the growth of NBFIs and Big Tech together, the traditional bank regulators and supervisors find that they regulate less and less of the financial system, but central banks are responsible for overall financial stability. Regulating the complex financial eco-system is like trying to tie down a huge elephant by a bunch of specialists each trapped in their own silos. And politically, no one wants to give a super-regulator power to rule them all.

Third, the financial landscape entered new minefields because of intense geopolitical rivalry. If global supply chains are going to be decoupled by different standards, and we arrive at a Splinternet of different technology standards, how should finance respond? As the US applies pressure on Chinese companies and individuals through new sanctions and legislation, financial institutions and companies struggle to deal with shifting goal posts and game changes. 

 

A woman and a child walk past the People’s Bank of China building in Beijing on March 4. China’s central bank, like others around the world, is grappling with how to regulate the fintech industry. Photo: Bloomberg

The Ant Finance and Didi events are more a reflection of regulatory concerns whether large domestic Big Data platforms should be subject to foreign legislation with national security implications. Will India, for example, continue to allow foreign Big Tech to own all their client data?

Fourth, the regulatory trend towards “open financial data” in which banks would open up their client databases to allow new players to access customer accounts and data will provide new products and services. But this means also severe concerns on client privacy and data security. No country has yet figured out how to manage competition fairly in the fintech world when five firms (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle) dominate 70% of cloud-related infrastructure services.

Fifth, blockchain technology, cyber-currencies and central bank digital currencies are now increasingly coming on-stream, making possible payments and transactions that rely less on official currencies and also outside the purview of regulation. In short, the official regulators are responsible for system stability, but may not have access to what is really going on in blockchain space. That is an accident waiting to happen.


 
https://youtu.be/oukokqq1s_o

In addition to more than 600,000 COVID-19 deaths, growth in the US is based on a strong stimulus package of excessive money-printing. China's growth is more solid: Editor-in-Chief Hu Xijin

All these suggest that the global financial system has grown faster, more complex and entangled than any single nation to manage on its own. If the largest financial systems are caught in increasingly acrimonious geopolitical rivalry, what are the risks of financial accidents that can easily escalate to financial crises? In the 2008 global financial crisis, the G20 stood together to execute a whole range of responses. This time round, there is no unity as the US continues to apply financial sanctions against her enemies and rivals, amounting to 4,283 cases as of January 2021, of which 246 and eight respectively were against Chinese and Hong Kong entities.

The bubble in fintech valuation that has fueled rising stock markets and investments in technology is fundamentally driven by central bank loose monetary policy. Central bank assets have grown faster on an average of 8.4% per annum between 2013-2018, than banks (3.8%) or NBFIs (5.9%) to reach 7.5% of global financial assets. Does this mean that financial markets can assume that central banks will continue to underwrite their prosperity?

As inflation rears its head, central banks will have to reverse their loose monetary stance, thus putting the global financial system under stress. The global financial system has structural and regulatory cracks, but they can only be fixed by having some political understanding amongst the big players. Without this, expect a messy outcome.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

 Recommended Video


 

Source link

 

Related:


Top stories

Five factors behind seismic shift in global financial landscape
South China Morning Post·

US$8 trillion and counting | The Star


Condivergence: Termites of the economy | KLSE Screener

 

Related posts:

 

Webinar: The rise of ‘Govcoins’ and what’s next for crypto


 

Break free of US dollar hegemony: What’s next?

 

 

Global de-dollarisation fast underway; US Printed More Money in One Month Than in Two Centuries, US$ is fast becoming Banana Currency

Saturday, July 3, 2021

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY

  https://youtu.be/oS5QqS9C_xw

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West. What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy? (PIC: Chinese President Xi Jinping waves as he attends a gala in connection with the anniversary - AP)

 "Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force".

China Does Not Recognize The Rule-Based International Order imposed historically by Conquest, Colonisation and Force !


 https://youtu.be/_ThU1vvW0A4

China has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries and never obstructed their development. It will never accept any country interfering in China's internal affairs and obstructing its development. Today's China has long been different from the China of 100 years ago. No one and no force should underestimate the Chinese people's firm will and strong ability to defend national sovereignty, security, and development interests.

WHY is Marxism thriving in China and not in Marx’s place of birth? Why is Buddhism more practiced in East Asia than in India? Why has Islam more followers outside Saudi Arabia?

Ideas and religion spread through globalisation, but it was really their localisation that created more believers and followers.

What succeeded was not globalisation, but glocalisation, the internalisation of universal ideas and beliefs by the many, and not just the few.

Few Westerners see the irony of a supposedly closed China celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when communism was born but essentially rejected in the West.

What was it about Marx that resonated with Chinese civilisation that prided itself with its own ancient and enduring philosophy?

London School of Economics Emeritus Professor Megnai Desai, writing on “Marx’s Revenge”, made the shrewd observation that the Chinese Revolution in the 20th century was very different from the French and American Revolutions in the 18th century.

The French Revolution was a domestic rebellion against the monarchy and the landed gentry, whilst the American Revolution was rebellion against British foreign domination

Both created republics and preached equality, liberty and freedom, but both went on to create empires, one by conquering lands from the native Indians and Mexico, and the other through Napoleon’s rampage in Europe.

The Chinese Revolution was different because it was simultaneously a struggle against foreign invasion (Japanese and earlier Eight Nations Alliance) as well as the Nationalist government that favoured the capitalist and landed classes.

The CCP won because it represented the rural peasantry, rather than adopting the Comintern strategy of starting the revolution from the cities. In short, the CCP localised universal Communism with Chinese characteristics. It was practical rather than ideological.

By the time of the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Chinese thinkers struggled with what would replace the old order.

The country fell into warlordism. The Nationalist Party under Sun Yat-sen struggled to balance the conservative wing that represented the landlords and capitalists, and the left wing influenced by Communism and socialism.

Chinese revolutionaries followed closely the Russian Revolution in 1917, because it was then the most recent model of social transformation. The Chinese elite understood that the rebuilding of China from the collapse of the old order was a monumental task. The country was backward and the uneducated masses were unprepared for modernity, vulnerable to foreign conquest.

Even though they felt the burden of history, they also understood that there was no parallel in history on the scale of Chinese transformation.

The Chinese Left took to Marxian thinking because Marx gave both a historical and political economy perspective on how capitalism would evolve, as well as a philosophical tool in terms of Hegelian dialectics.

Marx used the profound insights of the Prussian philosopher Hegel that transformations come from contradictions of opposites, in which change will not happen in a smooth line, but through revolution or discontinuity.

Marx’s discovery of dialectic materialism – in everything, the contradiction and interaction between opposites lead to the destruction of the old and emergence of the new – was music to the ears of those who sought a path out for the New China.

Furthermore, the fundamental ideas of dialectics were very similar to the Chinese yin-yang philosophy of the I Ching and Dao Dejing. As Lenin put it, “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things. Development is the struggle of opposites.”

Having theory is one thing, but putting these ideas into practice is another. We can only appreciate China’s miraculous transformation from a backward economy to the second largest economy in the world by understanding that this was done through essentially three dictums: “seek truth from facts”, crossing the river by feeling the stones” and “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

In other words, make fact-based decisions, always try or test under uncertainty, and above all, be practical and have an open mind. Change is a process between conflicting contradictions. There is no absolute black and white.

Historian Ray Huang, one of the finest sinologists of his generation and a former Nationalist soldier, wrote in the Preface to his classic “China: A Macro-History”: “Chinese history differs from the history of other peoples and other parts of the world because of an important factor: its vast multitudes.

In the imperial period as well as in the very recent past, practical problems had to be translated into abstract notions in order to be disseminated.

In turn, at the local level the message had once again to be rendered into everyday language.”

It is the reduction of very complicated policies into simple language that the Chinese people had to understand and own that enabled them to buy into the transformation, despite the huge sacrifices at the individual and community levels. The people’s eyes are clearer than those of the elites.

The US-China rivalry has done the world a favour by contrasting very fundamental worldviews. When the West preaches a value and rules-based order, what is meant is that freedom, democracy and individual rights are absolute – essentially a zero-sum “my way or no way.” Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force.

When China, Russia, India or any other country deviates or disagrees with that, then they must be contained, confronted or sanctioned. Localisation or being different is almost seen as deviant rather than a celebration of diversity.

Civilisations reach their highest levels through tolerance and openness. When they become inward-looking, fundamentalist and mono-thinking, fragility and decay sets in.

The world is simultaneously becoming more global in inter-connectivity, even as regionalisation, fragmentation and localisation speeds up.

Glocalisation, the simultaneous contradiction between global and local, is to be welcomed, rather than feared.

The future will always be open, uncertain and contradictory. Such diversity is the nature of humanity.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own

Source link

 

Footage of a brutal gang attack on Asian students |Daily Mail ...

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9751931/Footage-brutal-gang-attack-Asian-students.html

 The group attacks the students

One student is thrown to the ground

The much larger group attacks the three Asian students outside an Inala shopping centre (pictured) as one girl is pulled to the ground by her hair

 

RELATED POSTS:

 

World main countries 2021 Q1 GDP Growth Infographic: Wu Tiantong/GT Xi Jinping: Chinese people will never allow foreign bullying, oppres..

 

https://youtu.be/j7Ubz8CYXhE Ambassador Chen Xu, permanent representative of China to the United Nations office in Geneva and other inter...

 

 

Saturday, May 22, 2021

The colour blind virus ; Tighter MCO 3.0: 80% of govt staff, 40% of private sector to work from home

 

A healthcare worker holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine arranged at the University Hospital in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia, on Tuesday, March 2,2021. The first phase of the vaccine roll-out that will run through April involves about 500,000 frontliners comprising health-care, defense and security personnel, as well as teachers with co-morbidities, according to the government. Photographer: Samsul Said/Bloomberg

IS the coronavirus racist?

Of course not. The Covid-19 and its variants do not discriminate between race, creed or borders. They simply infect everyone indiscriminately, so the only defence is vaccines and social distancing.

But the handling of the pandemic has become intensely political along racial, class and national lines. To debate whether it should be called a China virus or an Indian variant is racist by implication. What matters urgently is how each individual, community or nation handles the pandemic. To distribute to the rich and powerful first before the poor and weak is discriminatory, but that is exactly what has happened in many countries.

The virus transmits through people. The epidemiologists suggest that minimising people travel and contacts would slow the transmission.

Those who care more about money object to shutting down the economy. Asians reacted more quickly by adopting masks and staying at home.

The West cared more about individualism and objected to masks, allowing the pandemic to get out of control.

But money and vaccines have begun to bring matters under control, except that if the coronavirus and its variants continue to spread in countries which cannot afford vaccines or can’t get enough supplies, no one is safe.

Thus, a microscopic virus has opened up the Pandora’s Box of almost all social divisions that were ignored and unaddressed. It is clear that science and technology, as well as competent organisation, plus mass cooperation would be the way to solve the pandemic.

But these three factors require trust that everyone should be protected justly.

The record so far shows that those governments which preach democracy, equality and rules-based order may be practising something rather different.

Why is it that in the United States, Pacific Islander, Latino and Black Americans have double the Covid-19 death rate than White and Asian Americans?

Israel is leading in the world vaccination rollout, and yet Palestinians have been slow to get vaccines. The UN Human Rights body has called the Israeli differential treatment of Palestinians “morally and legally unacceptable”.

Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since the 1967 war, and even in the Holy Month, physically raided the Al Aqsa Mosque, sparking off the current conflict that has raged on in the middle of the pandemic.

This is not an equal fight. More than 200 Palestinians have been killed, including 64 children, versus 12 dead in Israel. More than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been rendered homeless and Israelis have knocked out the only lab in the territory that processes covid tests.

An Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli Parliament has openly called the Israel action in Jerusalem as “ethnic cleansing”. The Israeli government can ignore world opinion because of the US’ strong backing.

The humanitarian crisis in Palestine is beyond a tragedy. But the Israel-Palestinian crisis shows how science and technology play a role in turning a David to a Goliath, switching the roles from victims of the Holocaust to become perpetrators of Occupation by might alone.

As geopolitical futurist George Friedman writes about “Gaza: Morality and Reality”, the moral question is extremely complex because both sides see themselves as victims.

In his geopolitical realist view, as long as Israel holds the greater military superiority, with the backing of the strongest military power of all – the United States – the conflict will not be resolved by anyone else.

This point is fully understood by the Israelis, who were scattered and not particularly powerful as a wandering people until 1947. But it was their brains and deep application of science and technology that overcame the Palestinian and Arab numerical superiority.

There are 1-2-3 options for the Israel-Palestine situation. If Israel-occupied territory were to be governed as one country, the demographics would favour the Palestinians with higher birth rates, so this solution was ruled out.

Logic suggests that perhaps a two-country solution of a separate Palestine and Israel state would be possible. The rest of the world supports this option, but the Palestinians are divided into the Fatah faction controlling the West Bank and the Hamas controlling Gaza. This creates a three-state possibility. Indeed, the greater the division between its enemies and their supporters, the more secure Israel’s position. This is classic “divide and rule” domination exercised by imperial colonials.

The Egyptian economist Samir Amin summed up this perennial Arab dilemma, commenting on the 2011 Arab Spring.

If it succeeds, then the Arab world will break out of the imperialist centre’s control. If it fails, then the Arab world will remain in “its current status as a submissive periphery, prohibiting its elevation to the rank of an active participant in shaping the world”.

Samir’s critique of Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation saw a capitalist centre comprising America, Europe and Japan, controlling a periphery of the rest.

This is achieved through five monopolies over technology, financial control, monopoly access to natural resources, media and communications, and weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis understood these perfectly and exploited them to achieve success and survival.

Thus, Israeli devotion to science and technology, military equipment, media and communications and their lobbying power playing guilt on the Eurocentric countries, ensure their dominance over the Palestinian and Arab opponents.

This is why faith or ideology alone will not control the pandemic, because it is through science and organisational power that domination continues over the weak and oppressed.

The Arab world may have physical control over much of the fossil-fuel natural resources, but as long as they remain technologically backward and divided, they will always be victims.

So, the coronavirus is not racist.

Guns do not kill people, people kill or dominate other people.

Friedman is right. Might decides geopolitical reality. For him and his ilk, morality is for the victim to complain and the victor to preach.

Those who do not learn from history will remain its victims.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

RELATED NEWS

 

It’s time to help the Palestinians, says Hisham

 
 
RELATED POSTS:
 

 

The colour blind virus ; Tighter MCO 3.0: 80% of govt staff, 40% of private sector to work from home

 

A healthcare worker holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine arranged at the University Hospital in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia, on Tuesday, March 2,2021. The first phase of the vaccine roll-out that will run through April involves about 500,000 frontliners comprising health-care, defense and security personnel, as well as teachers with co-morbidities, according to the government. Photographer: Samsul Said/Bloomberg

IS the coronavirus racist?

Of course not. The Covid-19 and its variants do not discriminate between race, creed or borders. They simply infect everyone indiscriminately, so the only defence is vaccines and social distancing.

But the handling of the pandemic has become intensely political along racial, class and national lines. To debate whether it should be called a China virus or an Indian variant is racist by implication. What matters urgently is how each individual, community or nation handles the pandemic. To distribute to the rich and powerful first before the poor and weak is discriminatory, but that is exactly what has happened in many countries.

The virus transmits through people. The epidemiologists suggest that minimising people travel and contacts would slow the transmission.

Those who care more about money object to shutting down the economy. Asians reacted more quickly by adopting masks and staying at home.

The West cared more about individualism and objected to masks, allowing the pandemic to get out of control.

But money and vaccines have begun to bring matters under control, except that if the coronavirus and its variants continue to spread in countries which cannot afford vaccines or can’t get enough supplies, no one is safe.

Thus, a microscopic virus has opened up the Pandora’s Box of almost all social divisions that were ignored and unaddressed. It is clear that science and technology, as well as competent organisation, plus mass cooperation would be the way to solve the pandemic.

But these three factors require trust that everyone should be protected justly.

The record so far shows that those governments which preach democracy, equality and rules-based order may be practising something rather different.

Why is it that in the United States, Pacific Islander, Latino and Black Americans have double the Covid-19 death rate than White and Asian Americans?

Israel is leading in the world vaccination rollout, and yet Palestinians have been slow to get vaccines. The UN Human Rights body has called the Israeli differential treatment of Palestinians “morally and legally unacceptable”.

Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territory since the 1967 war, and even in the Holy Month, physically raided the Al Aqsa Mosque, sparking off the current conflict that has raged on in the middle of the pandemic.

This is not an equal fight. More than 200 Palestinians have been killed, including 64 children, versus 12 dead in Israel. More than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been rendered homeless and Israelis have knocked out the only lab in the territory that processes covid tests.

An Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli Parliament has openly called the Israel action in Jerusalem as “ethnic cleansing”. The Israeli government can ignore world opinion because of the US’ strong backing.

The humanitarian crisis in Palestine is beyond a tragedy. But the Israel-Palestinian crisis shows how science and technology play a role in turning a David to a Goliath, switching the roles from victims of the Holocaust to become perpetrators of Occupation by might alone.

As geopolitical futurist George Friedman writes about “Gaza: Morality and Reality”, the moral question is extremely complex because both sides see themselves as victims.

In his geopolitical realist view, as long as Israel holds the greater military superiority, with the backing of the strongest military power of all – the United States – the conflict will not be resolved by anyone else.

This point is fully understood by the Israelis, who were scattered and not particularly powerful as a wandering people until 1947. But it was their brains and deep application of science and technology that overcame the Palestinian and Arab numerical superiority.

There are 1-2-3 options for the Israel-Palestine situation. If Israel-occupied territory were to be governed as one country, the demographics would favour the Palestinians with higher birth rates, so this solution was ruled out.

Logic suggests that perhaps a two-country solution of a separate Palestine and Israel state would be possible. The rest of the world supports this option, but the Palestinians are divided into the Fatah faction controlling the West Bank and the Hamas controlling Gaza. This creates a three-state possibility. Indeed, the greater the division between its enemies and their supporters, the more secure Israel’s position. This is classic “divide and rule” domination exercised by imperial colonials.

The Egyptian economist Samir Amin summed up this perennial Arab dilemma, commenting on the 2011 Arab Spring.

If it succeeds, then the Arab world will break out of the imperialist centre’s control. If it fails, then the Arab world will remain in “its current status as a submissive periphery, prohibiting its elevation to the rank of an active participant in shaping the world”.

Samir’s critique of Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation saw a capitalist centre comprising America, Europe and Japan, controlling a periphery of the rest.

This is achieved through five monopolies over technology, financial control, monopoly access to natural resources, media and communications, and weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis understood these perfectly and exploited them to achieve success and survival.

Thus, Israeli devotion to science and technology, military equipment, media and communications and their lobbying power playing guilt on the Eurocentric countries, ensure their dominance over the Palestinian and Arab opponents.

This is why faith or ideology alone will not control the pandemic, because it is through science and organisational power that domination continues over the weak and oppressed.

The Arab world may have physical control over much of the fossil-fuel natural resources, but as long as they remain technologically backward and divided, they will always be victims.

So, the coronavirus is not racist.

Guns do not kill people, people kill or dominate other people.

Friedman is right. Might decides geopolitical reality. For him and his ilk, morality is for the victim to complain and the victor to preach.

Those who do not learn from history will remain its victims.

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

RELATED NEWS

 

It’s time to help the Palestinians, says Hisham

 
 
RELATED POSTS: