Facebook paparazzi

People should exercise a little consideration and common sense when uploading photos of others. 

I RECENTLY saw some extremely unflattering photos of a friend on Facebook.

One photo shows her at a party with a drink in one hand and a cocktail sausage on a stick in the other. Her mouth is half open as she guides the sausage towards it, and her eyes have a wild, glazed look about them. The caption reads, “Come to Mama!” In another photo, she’s drinking her wine with one eye closed and the other rolling upwards, as she hovers around the half empty platter of sausages. In yet another photo, she’s sitting on a sofa with her blouse unflatteringly bunched up over her stomach, giving the impression that she’s just about to give birth – possibly to a giant sausage.

If you didn’t know this woman, you’d probably mistake her for a humongous wine-glugging sausage scoffer.

Damage

In reality, she’s a moderate drinker of average weight who only ate one sausage that night. But the damage has already been done. The Facebook friends of the woman who posted the photos, many of whom probably don’t know my friend all that well, will have already formed an opinion of my friend just by looking at those photos.

Like who cares what strangers might think about us? Some of you might be saying just about now. And you do have a point, to a certain extent. But what if you’re going for a job interview and the person responsible for hiring you doesn’t know you but remembers seeing you in a Facebook photo stuffing your face and looking as if you like to lubricate yourself way too much? And what if the job you’re after entails operating heavy, dangerous machinery; or dispensing potent medication; or anything to do with air traffic control? Jobs that require a clear head at all times.

All I can say is that you’re screwed. You might as well burn your interview clothes, delete the carefully worded résumé and drown your sorrows in a bottle of chardonnay.

In the same way that celebrities are wary of the paparazzi, who take great pleasure in snapping them falling out of bars and nightclubs in the wee hours of the morning in a dishevelled state, or going to the grocery store for a loaf of bread without any make-up, regular, everyday people now need to be extra careful when someone whips out a camera or an iPhone at a social function.

I have nothing against my photo being taken and subsequently being posted on Facebook, but I wish that people would exercise some consideration and common sense when uploading photos of others.

We all know Facebook is full of narcissistic, egocentric, self-absorbed photographers. We see evidence of their activities in newsfeeds every day. For example, I’ve seen photos of a certain young woman (who shall remain nameless) buying a pair of shoes, photos of her feet in the new shoes, photos of her wearing a dress with her new shoes, photos of her dancing at a party with her new shoes, and photos of her delicately eating sausages and consuming alcohol with her new shoes.

What she doesn’t show you are the photos of her wincing in her bunion-forming shoes after two minutes dancing, photos of her in her new shoes throwing up in the toilet bowl, and photos of her with just one new shoe on, passed out on her bedroom floor …

Such people are usually very careful when it comes to selecting photos that show them in a good light, but when it comes to others, they don’t always accord them the same respect.

Offending photo

Whenever I want to upload a photo that includes other people onto Facebook, I ask myself if those people would be happy seeing themselves as they are depicted. And if the answer is no, I simply delete it. I know it’s easy to remove your tag from a Facebook photo, but the photo still remains online for all to see.

Of course, you could write to your Facebook friend and ask him or her to remove an offending photo. But that would make you sound a bit like a narcissistic, egocentric, self-absorbed twat. And makes you a possible future target for such photographers, who might claim that they’re only having a bit of harmless fun. And besides, where’s your sense of humour?

It would be enough to make you choke on your sausage.

BUT THEN AGAIN
By MARY SCHNEIDER

Related posts:
Laws of attraction
Pretty woman picture all it takes for Netizens to reveal all
FB postings became street fight!

N. Korea under restraint by China

China knows when to mount pressure on the DPRK and tell its ally what to do for the sake of its Asian neighbours’ interests in the region, say Chinese political analysts.

North Korea nuclear weapons could hit ....

TALKS that China has lost its influence on North Korea have emerged again as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is reported to be ready to launch a missiles attack on the Korean Peninsula.

The standard calm reaction and seemingly lack of action against DPRK by China have been the reasons why the international community feels that the China factor in the DPRK administration is fading.

But, China is not a country that one should underestimate. China knows when to mount pressure on DPRK and tell its ally what to do for the sake of its Asian neighbours’ interests in the region, said Chinese political analysts.

Historically, China and DPRK established solid strategic relations and partnership when the former entered the Korean War in support of DPRK in 1950.

During the war between 1950 and 1953, China sent as many as three million volunteer soldiers to assist the DPRK forces fight the Americans and South Koreans in the name of United Nations on the peninsula.

About 180,000 Chinese soldiers, including Mao Zedong’s son Mao Anying, were killed.

Since the end of the war, China and DPRK have continued their cooperation in security and defence issues. But in recent years, China has turned more of a peacemaker instead when tension occurs between North and South Korea.

In the Takung Pao newspaper’s editorial, veteran political analyst and The International Chinese Newsweekly correspondent Ji Shuoming said DPRK intentionally flexed its muscles to wage war in retaliation of a recent joint South Korea-United States military exercise.

He said the tension on the peninsula had been escalating with the North Koreans telling ambassadors, diplomats and tourists in South Korea to evacuate, as their forces were prepared to launch their missiles.

“At the UN Security Council meeting (in March), in a rare decision, China voted in favour of new sanctions on North Korea in view of its nuclear weapon tests. This has somehow caused North Korea’s hostility against China.

“North Korea is going too far by dragging itself to the edge of a war. The US, South Korea and Japan hope that China will restrain North Korea but some people say China has not been able to restrain North Korea anymore.

The Chinese leaders and the Chinese Communist Party-run newspaper recently sent out a clear message to North Korea, and this shows that China still has a degree of influence over North Korea,” he said.

Ji said that in past conflicts, China would talk about brotherhood and defend North Korea and this had made its ally a spoiled kid and had made it difficult to fundamentally solve the problem.

Today, China has chosen a more international approach. When North Korea goes against the international regulations, China will firmly safeguard the international interests. But this does not mean that China has lost its influence and it’s just that it is assessing the pros and cons of the influence, Ji added.

Nankai University International Relations Department Associate Prof Yang Lei was quoted by Global Times as saying that in the past, North Korea employed the approach of causing tension and then implying the possibility of dialogue and negotiation after achieving its target.

“North Korea continuously escalates its offensive rhetoric to draw the attention of the international community. It hopes that surrounding countries can get involved and provide a way to ease the situation,” he said.

He said China was adjusting its policy on North Korea according to the changing US and South Korean policies on North Korea but China could still continue to impose necessary sanctions on North Korea to make its ally aware of the importance of outside help and the strategic Chinese support.

“Such pressure should push North Korea to ease relations with South Korea.

“Then the next step for China is to persuade North Korea and South Korea to hold dialogue and offer North Korea a way out,” he said.

In its editorial, China Daily said the situation on the peninsula was dangerous and any miscalculation by any party might prove disastrous to the region.

The newspaper said Pyongyang might have adequate reasons to demonstrate its security concerns that was entitled to enhance its national defence and develop its science and technology, but it had no excuse either to defy the UN resolution requiring it to drop its nuclear programme.

“The tactic (employed by North Norea) is dangerous ... As a close neighbour of the two Koreas, China will not allow troublemaking at its doorstep.

“The message is loud and clear that it opposes any move to resolve the dispute by force,” it said.

MADE IN CHINA By CHOW HOW BAN

Related posts:
North Korea likely launch nuclear missiles: China warns troublemakers at her doorsteps
China sends peace message   
Why North Korea conducts nuclear test?

Looming danger on contrast and competition of economic models

The successful East Asian model of ‘state-driven capitalism’ is being threatened by TPPA proposals.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement.

MANY articles and books have been published on the contrast and competition between the present Western and the Asian-style economic models.

Western countries are said to have the free-market model based on competition among private firms, with the government taking a hands-off approach.

East Asian countries are branded as practising “state capitalism” in which the government plays a major role in helping the local private sector and the state also fully or partially owns many enterprises.

The Western countries are increasingly attacking the Asian model, claiming that state-owned companies or state-aided commercial firms have an unfair advantage vis-à-vis foreign firms competing with them.

In our region, countries with a substantial role of the state include China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore. Of course, in Japan and South Korea, their domestic firms grew to become world-beaters with the systematic backing of their governments.

For these countries, the so-called state capitalism (or in the case of socialist countries, market-oriented socialism) have worked well through industrial development and relatively high and sustained economic growth.

Some Western countries have been trying to curb or even eventually eliminate the Asian model of state-owned or state-aided capitalism.

This is largely hypocritical because the America, European and Japanese agricultural sectors are highly subsidised and protected; many of their farms could not survive without massive state aid and high import tariffs.

Many of their banks and industrial firms are also subsidised in various ways, including through multi-billion dollar bailouts in the wake of the recent financial crises.

This has not stopped these countries from attacking the Asian model. The latest attempt to curb this model is through the negotiations in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a trade and investment treaty involving the United States, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Peru, Chile, Australia and New Zealand.

The TPPA contains an important section on State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), championed by the United States and Australia.

The TPPA drafts are secret, so the text of the SOE section is not known. However, it can be anticipated that the section will contain disciplines to curb and shape the behaviour of three types of SOEs.

The recently concluded US bilateral FTAs contain a competition chapter that deals with two types of SOEs. For example, the US-Peru FTA has disciplines on designated monopolies and state enterprises, and it is likely that the United States will propose something similar in the TPPA.

That FTA says that government monopolies shall act solely in accordance with commercial considerations, including with regard to price, quality, availability, transportation, when buying or selling the monopoly goods or services.

They shall provide non-discriminatory treatment to investments, goods and services of other TPPA members. And they shall not use their monopoly position to engage in anti-competitive practices through its dealings with its parents, subsidiaries or other enterprises with common ownership in a non-monopolised market that adversely affect the investments of other countries.

State enterprises shall similarly provide non-discriminatory treatment in the sale of goods or services to investments of other countries.

More importantly, the United States and Australia are proposing a third type of SOE to be subject to disciplines. According to press reports, Australia has also introduced the principle of “competitive neutrality” to discipline the SOEs.

How this principle will apply can be anticipated from the Australian government’s competitive neutrality guidelines.

This is based on the concept of a “government-owned business”. The state-owned business enterprise which competes with private companies may obtain advantages, impeding the ability of the private sector to compete on equal terms.

According to the Australian guidelines, these advantages include exemptions from taxes; cheaper debt financing (because of the low-risk classification or government guarantees); absence of need to make a commercial rate of return; and exemption from regulatory constraints or costs.

To offset these advantages, the Australian guidelines cover how government businesses should pay taxes in full; pay back to the central government the difference in their loan costs vis-à-vis private sector loan costs; pay licence fees equivalent to the central government; and ensure they obtain a commercial rate of return.

It is likely therefore that the draft of the TPPA will have disciplines along the lines above on a third category of SOEs, government-linked business entities involved in commercial activities that compete with the private sector.

The proposed disciplines could be along the line that “advantages” enjoyed by government-linked businesses such as those mentioned in the Australian guidelines be disallowed.

The implications for Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore would be serious because their national economies are characterised by important roles of state-owned enterprises or government-linked companies.

The countries would have to move away from their successful development model and economic structure.

Moreover, SOEs have many functions including providing social services to the public, ensuring that poor and vulnerable groups are given special consideration.

This often means that SOEs cannot operate on solely commercial grounds; and that several of them depend on government subsidies and assistance, and there are also cross-subsidies in that the profitable aspect of an SOE may finance non-profitable (but socially important) activities. There is a danger that the TPPA section on SOEs will prevent or hinder the socially useful functions of SOEs.

The TPPA negotiations are still going on, and a text on the SOEs section is not yet final, so there is scope for different views to be expressed.

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

Related posts:

The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free? 
US launches financial attacks against its allies! 

New economic thinking

LAST weekend, over 400 top economists, thought leaders, three Nobel Laureates and participants gathered in Hong Kong for the fourth Annual Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) conference, co-hosted by the Fung Global Institute, entitled “Changing of the Guard?”



So what was new?

In the opening session, Dr Victor Fung, founding chairman of Fung Global Institute, quoted Henry Kissinger as saying, “Americans think that for every problem, there is an ideal solution. The Chinese, and Indians and other Asians think there may be multiple solutions that open up multiple options.”

That quote summed up the difference between mainstream economic theory being taught in most universities and the need to build up a new curriculum that teaches the student to realise that there is no flawless equilibrium in an imperfect world and that there is no “first-best solution”.

Instead, what is important is to teach the aspiring economist to ask the right questions, and to question what it is that we are missing in our analysis. It is important to remember that theory is not reality, it is only a conceptualisation of reality.

Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, one of the leading thinkers on open societies and free markets, explained why the practice of mainstream economics is flawed. In 1977, he said, “A whole generation of economists have been teaching that government has the power in the short run by increasing the quantity of money rapidly to relieve all kinds of economic evils, especially to reduce unemployment.

Unfortunately this is true so far as the short run is concerned. The fact is that such expansions of the quantity of money, which seems to have a short-run beneficial effect, become in the long run the cause of a much greater unemployment. But what politician can possibly care about long-run effects if in the short run he buys support?”

Sounds familiar on present day quantitative easing?

In his 1974 Nobel Laureate Lecture entitled “The Pretense of Knowledge”, Hayek showed healthy scepticism: “This failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error.”

Hayek understood what is today recognised as quantitative model myopia. What cannot be easily measured quantitatively can be ignored. Then it is a small step to assume that what can be ignored does not exist. But it is precisely what cannot be measured and cannot be seen the “Black Swan” effect that can kill you.

In other words, economists must deal with the real world of asymmetry information, that there exists Knightian uncertainty, named after University of Chicago economist Frank Knight, what we call today unknown unknowns.

Unknown unknowns arise not just from accidents of Mother Nature, but from the unpredictability of human behaviour, such as market disorder, which is clearly complex and ever-changing.

If unknown unknowns are common in real life, then a lot of the economic models that appear to give us precise answers may be wrong. In other words, for every question, there is no unique answer and the solutions are “indeterminate”.

George Soros, who helped found INET, explained his theory of reflexivity based on the complex interaction between what he called the cognitive function (human conception of reality) and the manipulative function (the attempt by man to change reality).

His theory of reflexivity in markets differs from mainstream general equilibrium theory in one fundamental aspect. General equilibrium models assume that market systems are self-equilibrating, going back to stable state. Borrowing from engineering systems theory, we now know that this is a situation of negative feedback a system that gets disturbed fluctuates smaller and smaller till it returns to stable state.

The trouble with nature and markets is that positive feedback can also happen. The fluctuations get larger and larger until the system breaks down. Nineteenth century Scottish scientist James Maxwell discovered that steam engines can explode if there is no governor (or automatic valve) to control the steam building up.

At about the same time, English bankers learnt that banks can go into panic regularly without the creation of a central bank to regulate the system. Markets therefore need a third party the state to be the system “governor”. Free market believers think that the market will take care of itself. John Maynard Keynes was the first to recognise that when free markets get into a liquidity trap, the state must step in to stimulate expenditure and get the economy out of its collective depression.

In the 21st century, we have evolved beyond Keynes and free market ideology. Belief in unfettered markets has created a world awash with liquidity and leverage, but the capacity of advanced country governments to intervene Keynesian style has been constrained by their huge debt burden.

Larry Summers has pointed out that Keynes invented not a General Theory, but a Special Theory for governments to intervene to get out of the liquidity trap. The fact that we are still struggling with the liquidity trap means that economists are searching for new solutions, such as borrowing from psychology to explain economic behaviour.

The INET conference introduced the thinking of French literary philosopher, Rene Girard, and his theory of memetic desire, to explain how social behaviour more often than not get into unsustainable positive feedback situations, either excessive optimism or pessimism. How do you get out of such situations? Girard introduced the concept of sacrifice. We will have to wait for the next conference to explore this new angle.

Intuitively, all life is a contradiction. The sum of all private greed is not a public good. It does not add up. Someone has to sacrifice, either the public or a leader.

Schumpeter's great insight about capitalism is that there is creative destruction. He only restated the old Asian philosophy that change is both creative and destructive. But out of change comes new life.

In sum, contradictions are creative. What is new is often old, but what is old can be new.

 
Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of Fung Global Institute.

China sends peace message

The Boao Forum reiterates the need for regional stability for Asia to continue to enjoy economic prospects.



THE Boao Forum for Asia, which concluded in the small town of Boao on southern China’s Hainan island, has reached an important consensus from Asia.

Major Asian leaders want every country in the continent to ensure regional stability so that Asia will continue to enjoy its fast-paced economic prosperity.

Speaking at the opening of the forum, which was running for its 12th year, Chinese President Xi Jinping was the first to make clear his stand – China will not wage a war unless its enemy severely threatened its sovereignty.

He said that China would continue to resolve any differences and disputes it has with its Asian counterparts amicably while expanding cooperation in the continent.

“On the basis of maintaining the sovereignty and safety of our territories, we will work hard to maintain good relations with our neighbours as well as overall peace and stability in our region,” he said.

Xi said China is a peace-loving nation whose people have deep and painful memories of the war and revolt era.

He said China and its Asian neighbours relied on each other as China could not develop in isolation from the rest of Asia and the world, while the world could not enjoy prosperity and stability without China.

“Over the past decade, trade among Asian nations jumped from US$800bil (RM2.4 trillion) to US$3 trillion (RM9 trillion). Trade between Asian nations and other countries increased from US$1.5 trillion (RM4.6 trillion) to US$4.8 trillion (RM14.6 trillion).

“That means trade in Asia is open. Regional and global cooperation goes hand in hand and does not go against each other. Everyone benefits from such cooperation.”

Myanmarese President U Thein Sein said that his government would place great emphasis on collaboration, transparency, accountability and inclusiveness in its political, economic and social reform processes.

He said in spite of the increasing global challenges, uncertainties and high risks, all Asian nations should be able to remain successful in the continent by upholding regional political, social and economic stability continuously.

Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev said in order to boost the efficiency of cooperation, all Asian nations need to work together, coordinate with each other more and have a common action agenda.

He said they should explore their decision-making mechanism, accommodate the position of all countries and be more open to the outside world because no country could stay immune from the global impact.

Sultan of Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said Asean has a role to play in promoting peace and collaboration.

Brunei’s Asean Chairmanship theme of “Our People, Our Future Together” this year reflects the vision of the Asean founders who believed open conflict would endanger the development prospect of its members.

Thus, they would be committed to refrain from the use of force.

“As the world becomes more and more connected, Asia’s success will contribute to a greater good in the global arena. We all share a collective responsibility in shaping a successful future.

“We are about to face competing political and economic interests and this will pose a threat to our resolve for partnership and harmony,” he said.

Indian Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said Asia was one of the fastest growing continents in recent years but rapid growth would not occur if each country does its own thing in isolation.

“Good economics and robust growth are only attainable when there is understanding with each other.

“I am delighted to hear what the Chinese President was saying about how we need to have more peace and prosperity for us to grow.

“The global economic recovery can take 10 or 20 years, depending on how focused we are in Asia,” he said.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard pointed out that what North Korea and South Korea were doing on the Korean Peninsula by provoking each other was the last thing Asia wanted to see.

“There, any aggression is a threat to the interest of every country in the region.

“For this reason, I do welcome the growing cooperation of all regional governments to prevent conflict on the Korean peninsula and to counter North Korean aggression.

“That cooperation is also a sign of what would be needed in future as we face other security challenges.

“Asia must be a region of sustainable security in which habits of cooperation are the norm,” she said.

Besides the latest tension on the Korean peninsula, Asia faces other security threats, especially the Kashmir conflict, Gaza Strip tension and counter-claims of islands and sea borders by China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indo-China.

For the sake of regional stability and integration, to start off with, the forum’s vice-chairman Zeng Peiyan proposed for more infrastructures to be built to connect Asian nations together.

“There are two main things we need to work on.

“Firstly, we should establish exchanges and cooperation between each Asian economy on planning and building infrastructures such as electricity, railway, road and telecommunication.

“Secondly, we need to find a solution to the huge financing gaps in infrastructure development in Asia.

“Between 2010 and 2020, Asia will need some US$8 trillion (RM24 trillion) or more to fund infrastructure projects to sustain the current levels of economic growth.

“It will be good that each nation sets up an investment fund which specialises in providing financing services for the construction of such infrastructures,” said Zeng.

Made in China
By CHOW HOW BAN

Related posts:

North Korea likely launch nuclear missiles: China warns troublemakers at her doorsteps!

Boao Forum for Asia opens in China 

China, Brunei to foster ties 

North Korea likely launch nuclear missiles: China warns troublemakers at her doorsteps!

On April 6, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed severe concern over the current tense situation on the Korean Peninsula to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over the phone, and said Beijing "does not allow troublemaking at the doorsteps of China."

In wake of the rising tensions on the Korea Peninsula, for the regional peace and stability and to safeguard China's national interest, it is necessary to address relevant sides over the issue:

To DPRK: do not misjudge the situation

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has many reasons to strengthen the arms and technology, and there are legitimate concerns of their own national security, but there is no reason to violate the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to engage in nuclear testing and launch missile using ballistic missile technology, which cannot shirk its responsibility in upgrading tensions on the peninsula last year.

The DPRK has its own special circumstances, political needs, policy choices and political language style, which is its internal affairs and the outside world has no right to interfere in. But if its choice and words intensifies the Korean Peninsula tensions and affects peace and stability in the region, it becomes the international issues. The situation’s development on the peninsula will not necessarily go according to the ideas and expectations of the DPRK.

To the United States: do not add fuel to the flames

Even with the United Nations Security Council’s resolution on the Korean Peninsula issue, and has legitimate concerns over the nuclear non-proliferation and security issues, unilateral sanctions from the United States against the DPRK which are beyond the UN resolutions would be counterproductive and will add pressure to the situation.

For decades, sanctions, pressure, isolation against the DPRK initiated by the United States is one of the root causes of conflicts on the peninsula. Since the 1990s, U.S. government policy toward the DPRK has swung between engagement and isolation, making the DPRK doubtful of the sincerity of the United States, and giving an excuse to the DPRK in violation of the agreement.

The United States, as the superpower whose comprehensive national and military strength is far stronger than the DPRK's, is in a strong position; therefore, any strong move will only increase tension on the peninsula.



To South Korea: do not miss the focus

With the "protective umbrella" provided by the U.S., South Korea’s security is still fragile. Due to the geographical location and military deployment, South Korea would become the biggest victim if any conflicts and wars break out on the peninsula.

The south and north peninsula have had a period of increased contacts and exchanges, and South Korea's new government has repeatedly expressed its willingness to implement policy toward the DPRK which are different from the Lee Myung-bak government.

Being one of the major parties of the Korean Peninsula issue, South Korea should play the role to cool down the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, rather than pushed by the DPRK or the United States.

To Japan: do not fish in troubled water

Every time North Korea test-fired a satellite or missile, Japan will deploy so-called "interception" in a big way. This is largely a move of Japan taking the opportunity to adjust and increase in arms.

During the process of the Six-Party Talks in the past, Japan sometimes played the role to hold back the process by entangling in some particular issues. This short-sighted strategy and using the pretext of the DPRK "threat" to develop armaments and adjust security strategy will only increase complicated factors in the regional situation.

Warfare and chaos on the Korean Peninsula does not meet the interests of any party. The war caused by trouble will have impact on regional peace and stability, endangering regional cooperation and win-win situation, hurting any party that causes trouble.

Although the situation on the peninsula has not come to the point when conflicts can be triggered at any moment, it has brought harm to regional peace and stability.

Not allowing troublemaking at the doorsteps of China means to stop the vicious circle of tension on the peninsula, to prevent any party from stirring up trouble, to oppose creating tension on purpose, and to say no to render the use of force to resolve the problem. Words and deeds that intensify the tensions on the Korean Peninsula should be condemned and opposed.

Not allowing troublemaking at the doorsteps of China is not China's "Monroe Doctrine". China does not seek spheres of influence. China intends to maintain regional peace and stability on the Peninsula, and determine its own position and actions in accordance with the Peninsula situation on its own merits. At present, it is not without hope to maintain peace and stability on the peninsula.

The pressing matter of the moment is that all parties should calm down and restrain, move to ease the tension as soon as possible to create the conditions for the situation to change.

Related post:
Why North Korea conducts nuclear test?

Why do some youngers resort to extreme violence?

Child serial killers”, “Kids murdering their parents” – these are the headlines we are increasingly seeing in the news.

Last month, a 19-year-old Japanese teenager allegedly killed and dismembered his mother because he did not like her apparently, and also because he wanted to know more about dissection.

It’s shocking that a teen who is still considered a minor under Japanese law would resort to murder for something as mundane as “not liking his mum”. I’m sure we have all disliked our parents at some point of our lives but letting that be the reason to do away with someone who gave birth to you in cold blood is absurd.

Two other recent cases of alleged parental murder and harm were sparked by computer use and gaming.

The first, reported in China Daily (chinadaily.com.cn), happened in Ziyang, Sichuan province. The 14-year-old boy is said to have mixed farm chemicals into the family’s cooking oil, which led to his parents, elder brother and sister-in-law suffering stomach problems and vomiting. The boy later confessed to his crime and said he was upset over his mother banning him from playing computer games.

Another 18-year-old boy – from Yuen Long village in Hong Kong – was arrested on suspicion of stabbing his father to death and wounding his mother. According to a source at the scene, a fight had broken out when his father tried to stop him from playing video games.

Why has it become so “normal” for teens to solve problems with violence?

In New Mexico in the United States, 15-year-old Nehemiah Griego allegedly shot his parents and three younger siblings in January. The incident left the public wondering how a sweet, home-schooled teen described as a doting older brother – who has no history of violence or anti-social behaviour – could commit such an act.

According to a New York Daily News report (nydailynews.com), Griego appeared “unemotional” when confessing to the murders but turned animated when discussing his favourite violent video games.

Could it be, then, that overexposure to blatant violence in the video games caused him to “go rogue” and violently kill his family?

It’s not unreasonable to assume that repeated exposure to violence on television and in games might have an impact on youth development. It is true that exposure to violent media results in desensitisation to violence. Furthermore, media violence rarely shows the consequences of violence.

However, the media-violence link isn’t as simple as a headline would have us believe. The teens’ personality is a major factor in determining whether screen aggression will lead to aggression in the real world. A recent article in the Review Of General Psychology journal asserts that exposure to violent media has a much greater impact on those who are more emotionally reactive and less agreeable, careful and disciplined than their peers.

In addition, teens who are isolated and have few connections to healthy adults and a lack of identity and purpose (what one of the researchers, J. Kevin Cameron, calls “empty vessels”) are at higher risk of identifying with perpetrators of violence in television and video games, and might therefore be more likely to engage in violent behaviour.

This conclusion seems more plausible than the notion that violent media invariably leads to an increase in violent behaviour.

Therefore, it makes sense to limit exposure to media violence, but it is not realistic to completely shield our teens from it. Parents should be aware of the TV programmes, movies and video games consumed by their teens. Talking to teens about the things that they see on the screen is also important.

However, I believe the bottom line is to build a strong relationship with our teens. It is this meaningful connection with our teens that will enable them to empathise with others and make sense of what they watch on screen.

If you notice your teens exhibiting signs of anti-social behaviour or a sudden change in their lifestyle and behavioural patterns, find a way to talk to them so it won’t reach a point where they just “snap”.

On the other hand, we, as parents, must recognise that we may not always have all the answers. Whenever we are in doubt, we should seek professional help, so that situations do not turn too “dangerous”.


TEENS & TWEENS
By CHARIS PATRICK

Charis Patrick is a trainer and family life educator who is married with four children. Email her at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related posts:
Video games turned casinos gambling in Penang
Get rid of illegal casinos gambling now !
Reading opens up minds