Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said on Sunday that it would be a historic and strategic mistake to insist on taking China as a threat and adversary, or even as an enemy.
Chinese Defence Minister on Taiwan, Nuke, Hypersonic, India, South China Sea and Vietnam!
Taiwan Independence Is a Dead-end! The Chinese Army Will Fight to the End!
Shangri-La Dialogue: Chinese military official calls US Defense Secretary's speech a "confrontation"
China will fight to the very end to stop Taiwan independence: Defence minister | Shangri-La Dialogue
China will "fight to the very end" to stop Taiwan from declaring independence, Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe said in a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue on Sunday (Jun 12).
"We will fight at all cost and we will fight to the very end. This is the only choice for China," General Wei said.
His speech came a day after US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said China was becoming "more coercive and aggressive" in its approach to its territorial claims in the region.
On Sunday, General Wei said Beijing firmly rejects the US' "smearing accusations and even threats" against China.
Global affairs should be handled through consultation by all stakeholders instead of being dictated by just one country or a small group of countries, he said, adding: "No one or no group of countries should impose its will on others or bully others under the guise of multilateralism."
General Wei said the United States' Indo-Pacific strategy is an attempt to build an exclusive small group in the name of a free and open Pacific to "hijack countries in the region and target one specific country". It is a strategy to "create conflict and confrontation to contain and encircle others", he said.
Chinese delegation says Indo-Pacific Strategy ‘fanning confrontation’ as US defense chief made ‘most barefaced’ Shangri-La speech attacking China
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks at the Shangri-La Dialogue summit in Singapore on June 11, 2022. Photo:AFP
After Ukraine, US-led NATO wants to turn Asia Pacific into a new powder keg. Illustration: Carlos Latuff
US' Indo-Pacific Strategy is aimed at maintaining US hegemony, creating divisions and fanning confrontation, the Chinese delegation said, refuting US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's speech at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday as Austin took advantage of the stage to propagandize US' Indo-Pacific Strategy and to point finger at China.
Zhang Zhenzhong, deputy chief of the Joint Staff Department in the Central Military Commission, told reporters on Saturday at the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, that the Indo-Pacific Strategy is designed to trap the Asia-Pacific region into a geopolitical game and confrontation as it tries to form a small circle by roping in some countries to incite against others. It seriously impacts the ASEAN-centered regional cooperation architecture and seriously harms the overall and long-term interests of countries in the region, he added.
"The US has already turned the Middle East and Europe into a mess, does it want to mess up Asia-Pacific next?" Zhang asked, adding that this is absolutely not allowed.
Zhang said the US' strategy is designed to destroy peace. The mainstream voice of Asia-Pacific countries is peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, but the US, in contrast, advocates competition between major powers and creates military confrontation, sending warplanes to showcase its military might in the South China Sea, launching military drills with allies, which all created tensions in the region. In conclusion, Zhang said that strategy served US' own interests against the common will of the regional countries, and stressed that for these reasons it must not succeed.
Austin on Saturday gave an hour-long speech themed "Next Steps for the United States' Indo-Pacific Strategy," in which he called the strategy "our priority theater of operations" and "at the heart of American grand strategy."
He also openly criticized China for being "coersive and aggressive."
Austin specifically raised the Taiwan question. "The stakes are especially stark in the Taiwan Strait," he said, adding that US' policy on Taiwan was to remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo. "Our policy hasn't changed. But unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be true for the PRC," Austin noted.
Austin's rhetoric can be translated as the US opposes China's reunification, Song Zhongping, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times.
With this is mind, Song said that Pentagon and the White House are attempting to internationalize and complicate the Taiwan question, which is a matter of China's domestic affairs.
This mentality has been refuted by China in multiple occasions, including during the face-to-face meeting between China's State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Austin in Singapore on Friday.
There is only one China, and Taiwan is a sacred, inalienable part of China's territory, Wei told Austin, noting that if anyone dares to separate Taiwan island from China, the Chinese military will not hesitate to fight, and will resolutely crush any "Taiwan independence" attempts at all cost to firmly safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On Saturday, Zhang also responded to Austin's hype over Taiwan question. Taiwan question is China's domestic affairs, the one-China principle is the political foundation of China-US ties, on which successive US governments have made clear commitments. President Joe Biden also stated that he does not support "Taiwan independence," but the US' words are obviously not matched by its deeds, and Washington has kept playing the Taiwan card, severely obscuring and hollowing out the one-China policy, Zhang added.
Zhang said that the Taiwan question can most likely lead China-US ties to conflict and confrontation. If not handled properly, it will have a subversive impact on the relationship between the two countries. There is only one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory, and the government of the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing the whole China. This is the only correct understanding of "one China." The reunification of China is the aspiration of Chinese people, and the national rejuvenation is unstoppable. The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) will stand ready to defend the country's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity at all costs.
Hyping PLA's intercepts
"We've seen an alarming increase in the number of unsafe aerial intercepts and confrontations at sea by PLA aircraft and vessels," Austin said in his speech.
In response to the remarks, Zhang said at the media briefing that the incident occurred near the maritime and airspace of China's Xisha and Nansha islands, not in the adjacent sea and airspace of US allies. The actions taken by the Chinese military are necessary measures to deal with the provocations, and are reasonable, safe and professional.
Prior to the Shangri-La Dialogue, China has already denounced Australian and Canadian "disinformation" over jet encounters. The two countries, however, turning a blind eye to the warnings from the Chinese side, kept carrying out close-in reconnaissance and provocative activities by surveillance planes in East and South China Seas. "This is a dangerous act against China's national security and the safety of Chinese and Canadian front-line personnel," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said at a Regular Press Conference on June 6.
These days, there has been analysis that the reason why Canada and Australia have not stopped hyping up the case is to create topics for the ongoing dialogue over Asian security, taking "China threat" theory to a new level.
He Lei, lieutenant general and former vice president of the PLA Academy of Military Sciences, who is attending the Shangri-La Dialogue, told Global Times that Austin's accusations against PLA's aircraft interception obviously aimed at endorsing Canada and Australia, reinforcing US-led small circles. Austin talks about "common vision" in Indo-Pacific region, but what Washington has shown is its clear-targeted and exclusive behaviors, He added.
Most barefaced accusations
Austin also hyped up territorial disputes in the Indo-Pacific region, naming East and South China Sea issues, and border disputes with India. "Indo-Pacific countries shouldn't face political intimidation, economic coercion, or harassment," Austin said. "We'll do our part to manage these tensions responsibly," he added.
Lieutenant General He said Austin's speech is the most blatant and most comprehensive slander against China compared to previous US defense chiefs' remarks at the summit, as this is the first time that a Pentagon chief raised Taiwan question, the South China Sea, the East China Sea issue, and China-India border dispute all at the same time.
Zhao Xiaozhuo, a research fellow at the Academy of Military Sciences of the PLA, told the Global Times that US real intention is to boost its alliance system, mobilizing its allies to maintain the US' versions of rules-based international order, shaping China's peripheral environment, piling enough pressure on China and eventually realize the containment of China's emergence.
Observers say Austin's speech mirrors that the US opposes everything China does to safeguard its own national security and interests. And it is largely due to incitement of outside forces, especially the US and its allies, contradictions and disputes in Indo-Pacific region come to where it is today.
By hyping up tensions and so-called China threat, the US is trying to drive a wedge between China and regional countries, while kidnapping more countries to its side to coordinate with its Indo-Pacific Strategy. And the US could paint itself as "entitled" to play the role as an arbitrator of the region, far away from its own soil, and take Asian affairs under its control, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times.
However, most Asian countries do not want to take a side in major power games. During the 2019 Shangri-La Dialogue, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised concerns, "Unfortunately, when the lines start to get drawn, everybody asks: Are you my friend or not my friend? And that makes it difficult for the small countries."
On the Taiwan question, the majority of regional countries refuse to dance to the US tune, as they are well aware that the US is an outsider, and has no right to intervene in China's domestic affairs, Wei said.
Hegemonic mentality
During the speech Austin brought up the so-called rules-based international order to cover US intentions. He took the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example. "The Ukraine crisis poses some urgent questions for us all... And I am here because the rules-based international order matters just as much in the Indo-Pacific as it does in Europe," he said.
This is an arrogant, hegemonic mentality, Wei told Global Times. Wei said the so-called rules are not at all fair and square rules which are accepted by the international community, but a US-dominated one, in which the US is the one and only boss and other has to listen to it.
The Ukraine crisis is a proof that US-led rules have caused great harm to US allies and Europe as a whole. Not to mention the emerging energy and food crisis, increasing European countries are losing their diplomatic independence and autonomy, experts said.
During the ongoing Summit of the Americas, questions toward US-led rules-based orders are surfacing. It signals that be it Indo-Pacific regions or wider range of the international community, hypes of the US over so-called tensions will find fewer countries to join in the chorus, Wei said.
Although the US has this intention to shape events, and it has some followers like Japan, Australia and those who are far from the region like the UK and Canada, it's plan won't be realized, said Lü Xiang, an expert on international relations and US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
"Only the countries with enough power and strength, as well as the support from the most regional countries, are able to shape the strategic environment in a specific region. In the Asia-Pacific region, the US is not such a country, but China is," he said.
Although Austin outlined some ambitious plans in his speech, but it's questionable to all regional countries that to what extent the US can make its plan come true, experts said.
The countries named by Austin, Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam all have stable and friendly ties with China. Even if there are some differences or disputes, they prefer to solve the problems with China rather than be blindly used by the US to pay for its costly confrontation with China, said analysts.
On Sunday, Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe delivered a keynote speech at
the Shangri-La Dialogue, elaborating "China's vision of regional order." He once again stated China's solemn position on the Taiwan question:
China will definitely realize its reunification, that peaceful reunification is the greatest wish of the Chinese people and that if anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China, it will not hesitate to fight and will fight at all costs.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Friday. Before
the curtain goes up, Japanese media reports have already sent a signal –
Kishida has come with ill intentions. .
Having developed its capabilities for over five decades, China's nuclear force has seen impressive progress, with new weapons and
the equipment displayed at the National Day military parade in 2019 all commissioned to the Chinese armed forces, said State Councilor and
Defense Minister General Wei Fenghe on Sunday.
Policemen carry out their duties for the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on June 10, 2022. (Photo by Then Chih Wey/Xinhua)\
Important topics on the agenda of the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue include China's vision on regional order, geopolitical competition control, and climate and maritime security.
SINGAPORE, June 11 (Xinhua) -- The 19th Shangri-La Dialogue, hosted by International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), opened here Friday evening after a two-year COVID-19 pandemic hiatus.
Leading the Chinese delegation to the dialogue, Chinese State Councilor and Minister of National Defense Wei Fenghe will address a plenary session on Sunday.
He is expected to introduce China's policy, principles and actions on safeguarding true multilateralism, regional peace and stability, and building a shared future for humanity.
Wei, on the sidelines of the dialogue, are to meet heads of other delegations on international and regional situation, as well as bilateral cooperation on defense and security.
Important topics on the agenda of the dialogue include China's vision on regional order, geopolitical competition control, and climate and maritime security.
Since its launch in 2002 by the British think tank IISS with the support of the Singaporean government, the Shangri-La Dialogue, officially known as the Asia Security Summit, has been held annually except for 2020 and 2021.
■
Asean, global leaders discuss regional security after two years suspension - Delayed dialogue finally underway
Security check: A vehicle being screened before it enters Shangri-La Hotel while the dialogue gets underway in
Singapore. — Reuters
THE 19th Shangri-La Dialogue began here after a two-year suspension due to the Covid-19 pandemic, focusing mainly on
security in the Asia-Pacific region and viable solutions, including the China-proposed Global Security Initiative (GSI).
The three-day summit will hold seven plenary sessions, two ministerial roundtable meetings and three simultaneous special sessions for delegates from more than 40 countries to exchange views on regional and global security issues.
Senior defence ministers from South-East Asia and the wider Asia region, Europe, North America and the Middle East are also expected to attend and speak at the Dialogue.
According to the agenda, Chinese State Councillor and Minister of National Defence Wei Fenghe will address a plenary session and is expected to introduce China’s policy, principles and actions on safeguarding true multilateralism, regional peace and stability, and building a shared future for humanity.
A highlight of the summit is China’s GSI, seen as another global public good that contributes Chinese solutions and wisdom to address global security challenges.
Analysts said the initiative’s implementation will attract enormous attention at the Shangri-La Dialogue.
“We look forward to welcoming Wei Fenghe to the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue and to hearing his views at this critical time for the regional and global security order,” said James Crabtree, executive director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies-Asia.
Mahmud Ali, associate fellow of the Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya, said China’s GSI can be interpreted as a step toward developing “a community with a shared future”.
The GSI views humanity as an indivisible, singular and united body sharing a single home planet, whose security affects every individual and society and therefore must be defended and advanced collectively, he said.
The expert believed that the vision has expanded the dimension of security from its “narrowly-defined political-military parameters” to “focus on the shared nature of planetary existence, dilute the emphases on divergences, and enable collaborative approaches to tackling trans-border challenges”.
Other topics for discussion include managing geopolitical competition in a multipolar region, the Myanmar situation, climate security and maritime security.
Meanwhile, analysts also cautioned that the United States may use Asia’s top security meeting this week to further pitch its Indo-Pacific Strategy, during which US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin will make a speech titled “Next Steps for the United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy.”
Senior Colonel Zhang Chi, an associate professor at the National Defence University of China, told Xinhua that the United States has spared no effort in implementing its Indo-Pacific Strategy to isolate China, divide Asian countries and undermine the central role of Asean in the region.
Additionally, Washington is trying to stoke tensions in the region by stirring up sensitive security issues involving Taiwan and the South China Sea to establish a “Nato for the Asia-Pacific” to encircle China, he added.
“Its purpose is to contain China’s
development, coerce or induce countries in the region to take sides with either China or the United States,” Zhang noted, adding that it will
“destroy regional solidarity and harmony and cause split, or even conflicts”. — Xinhua
China draws security red line to US at defense ministers’ longer-than-expected first meeting
Chinese and US defense chiefs hold their first face-to-face meeting in Singapore on June 10, 2022. Photo: Li Xiaowei
The Chinese military won't hesitate to fight anyone who dares to separate the island of Taiwan from China, China's State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe told US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during their first meeting in Singapore at the International Institute for Strategic Studies' (IISS) 19th Shangri-La Dialogue on Friday.
With the purpose to use Taiwan island and topics on the South China Sea to hype "China threat," the US seeks to build an iron curtain between China and other Asian countries and to implement its "Indo-Pacific Strategy" by rallying allies, analysts said, noting that China is drawing a bottom line by reiterating its firm stance on the Taiwan question.
After being canceled for two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the IISS 19th Shangri-La Dialogue is taking place in Singapore from Friday to Sunday. The talks between Wei and Austin on Friday were the first meeting between Chinese and US defense ministers since Austin took office in January 2021.
Topics on the island of Taiwan, South China Sea, and the Ukraine crisis had been discussed at the defense ministers' meeting.
Two Su-35 fighter jets and a H-6K bomber fly in formation on May 11, 2018. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) air force conducted patrol training over China's island of Taiwan on Friday. Su-35 fighter jets flew over the Bashi Channel in formation with the H-6Ks for the first time, which marks a new breakthrough in island patrol patterns, said Shen Jinke, spokesperson for the PLA air force.Photo:China Military
Two Su-35 fighter jets and a H-6K bomber fly in formation on May 11, 2018. Photo:China Military
There is only one China, and Taiwan is a sacred, inalienable part of China's territory, Wei told Austin, noting that if anyone dares to separate Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will not hesitate to fight, and will resolutely crush any "Taiwan independence" attempts at all cost to firmly safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity, senior Colonel Wu Qian, a spokesperson at China's Ministry of National Defense, said at a press conference after the meeting..
Austin reiterated to Wei that the US remains committed to its longstanding one-China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three US-China Joint Communiqués, and the Six Assurances. However, he also "reaffirmed" opposition to "unilateral changes to the status quo," according to a press release from the US Department of Defense.
The Chinese defense minister's remarks stressed China's bottom line for the US as Washington has ramped up efforts to link the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the Taiwan question and create tensions in the region, analysts said. They lashed out at the US for taking "a sausage cutting" strategy to hollow out its one-China policy gradually and intensify the situation at the Taiwan Straits.
Analysts said the US is attempting to shift its EU allies' focus to the Asia-Pacific region and also consolidate its alliance in Asia.
Japan is the one that closely follows the US in using the current Russia-Ukraine crisis to hype the Chinese mainland's "threat" to the island of Taiwan. apanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida used the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example to oppose "unilateral changes" to the status quo by force and unveil a plan to raise Japan's defense budget
The US and its allies have stepped up efforts to promote the implementation of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" this year, as it is trying to build an iron curtain between China and others in the Asia-Pacific region, Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times on Friday.
Yang said that the biggest difference in this year's Shangri-La Dialogue is that the Asia-Pacific region is now facing an unprecedented strategic instability. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has spilled over to the world. NATO is going global, and Western countries have deliberately added fuel to the fire by linking Ukraine with Taiwan, which are irrelevant.
The US had built QUAD, AUKUS, and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, but China decided to confidently face them or integrate into them, Yang said, pointing out that China's choice to send its top defense official this year at this sensitive time shows China's confidence and strategic focus, as well as China's strategic sincerity of pushing the Asia-Pacific to integration and cooperation standing at the crossroads.
Frank exchanges
Wei and Austin's meeting on Friday is of significance to implementing the important consensus between the two countries' top leaders and pushing forward the development of the two countries' military ties, said Senior Colonel Wu, noting the conversation was a frank, positive and constructive strategic communication.
Both sides agreed that the two militaries should carefully implement the key consensus reached by the two countries' top leaders, keep frequent communication and manage risks and crises, Wu noted.
The meeting between Chinese and US defense ministers is an exchange of views at this historic moment, as China pushes the region toward integration and cooperation and away from separation and Cold War, Yang said.
The significance of the meeting is that it proved the two countries' high-level conversation is sustainable. Even if the two sides crossed swords with words, being able to exchange views in a frank manner means both sides are willing to implement the consensus reached by the two countries' top leaders, Yang said.
The conversation between the Chinese and US defense ministers has a positive meaning to the deepening of strategic communication, the exploration in the construction of a "guardrail" for China-US relations, as well as the management of risk, Cao Yanzhong, a research fellow at the Academy of Military Sciences of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), told the Global Times on Friday.
When it comes to the "guardrail" for China-US relations the US wants to build, China has already drawn three bottom lines the US should not cross during the two countries' meetings in Anchorage and Tianjin. The US should keep its promises, stop making provocations on the Taiwan question, stop expanding and enhancing military alliances and partnerships in its attempt to "shape security environment of China," and stop trade sanctions and technology blockades, and take real actions to stabilize China-US relations and promote peace, Cao said.
However, as the US insists on defining the bilateral relations with major power competition, there are two options for such competition to evolve: it can escalate to conflict, or it can pave the way for cooperation, Zhang Yingli, former professor at the International College of Defense Studies at the PLA's National Defense University, told the Global Times on Friday.
The US military frequently carries out close-in reconnaissance and make provocations on China, and China's frontline troops have garnered rich experience and skills as they deal with them. This means Chinese troops can carry out their duties in safeguarding national sovereignty very professionally and avoid possible accidents that could lead to crises from happening as much as possible, Zhang said.
Analysts noted the US should also immediately stop arms sales to and military cooperation with the island of Taiwan, stop the highly frequent close-in reconnaissance on China as well as stop stirring up regional confrontation and security tensions in the Indo-Pacific region.
US' Indo-Pacific Strategy is aimed at maintaining US hegemony,
creating divisions and fanning confrontation, the Chinese delegation
said, refuting US ...
The Chinese military delegation engaged in a series of
dialogue and meetings with the US and other Asian countries including
South Korea and Singapore, as well as the leader of Singapore, during
the ongoing Shangri-La Dialogue, which successfully made clear China's
stance on safeguarding regional peace and its determination to defend
itself against all offensive attempts that could harm China's
sovereignty and national interests.
The Shangri-La Dialogue focuses on military security agenda, the
most sensitive area in relations between countries. This
US-Western-dominated forum has left a deep impression on people that it
has been targeting China. China sent its defense minister to ...
Lax enforcement, resistance to change, and an unwillingness to adopt new ideas are the root causes of the continuous data leaks plaguing the country for several years now, says a highly-placed source.
The source told The Star that the Personal Data Protection Department (PDPD), an agency under the Communications and Multimedia Ministry created to uphold data protection, is not living up to its charter because of the above factors.
It has also failed to exercise its powers to curb data leaks “time and time again”.
The source said data leaks do not solely hinge on the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA), as popularly believed.
“The primary responsibility of this department is to oversee the processing of personal data of individuals involved in commercial transactions by data users (to ensure) that it is not misused by the parties concerned.
“A data user is like a telco with which we register. It might appoint a data processor, a third party, which is presently not covered by the Act.
“However, with the new amendment soon, this third party will be covered.
“When there is a data leak, everyone immediately points to Cybersecurity Malaysia (CSM), but most don’t realise that they don’t have the legislative authority compared to the PDPD,” the source added.
The department was set up in 2011 immediately after Parliament passed the PDPA 2010 or Act 709.
CSM, which has the infrastructure and technical expertise to handle such matters, has no enforcement powers.“The director-general of PDPD is also the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, which based on the law, can delegate power to CSM officers to execute the PDPA on its behalf.
“PDPD also has an adequate budget to appoint experts or officers to enforce the PDPA on a contract basis, but that was also not done.“To top it off, the current enforcement officers inside the department are mostly seconded from the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry, so how do you expect these officers to carry out enforcement when they don’t have the necessary skills set?” the source added.
Compared with Singapore, Malaysia may have passed a data protection act first, but the difference in execution and enforcement has caused the country to lag behind.
The PDPD has also seemingly failed to collect the expected revenue based on audits conducted by the National Audit Department (NAD) in the past few years.
According to the NAD, RM468.88mil could have been collected and channelled to the government’s coffers had enforcement been conducted strictly.
Today, 13 sectors must register as “data users” with the department.
“We are heading towards a digital society, and I foresee more data leaks occurring, but the responsible party has not given its utmost priority to handling these issues.
“Supposedly, these data breaches are under the purview of this department but were handed over to the police due to the lack of expertise by the said department’s officers.
“The police are supposed to be solving crime and they have a lot on their plate right now.
“This department can help the police in an integrated manner, it even has the power to arrest individuals, but no one is doing it,” the source said.
He also said that Malaysia meets all the requirements of a world-class entity but lacks implementation of systems and laws.
He added that this happens when you have “territorial, old-school people who are afraid of change and resist anything good” in the civil service.
“Looking at Singapore, which also has similar laws, we need to ask why we are in this situation,” the source said.
Malaysia has been subjected to several data leaks over the past years, with the most recent one related to the International Trade and Industry Ministry’s Public-Private Covid-19 Industrial Immunisation Programme (Pikas).
In mid-May, a data leak was reported by local tech portal Amanz, where a 160GB-sized database with personal details of 22 million Malaysians belonging to the National Registration Department (NRD) was being sold for US$10,000 (RM43,950) on the dark web.
Human's gut virus composition is as unique as a fingerprint: Study
What is the gut microbiome?
How the food you eat affects your gut - Shilpa Ravella
How the food you eat affects your brain - Mia Nacamulli
Lee’s work titled “The gut virome in two indigenous populations from Malaysia” has been published in the prestigious Nature publication, Scientific Reports.
“The sole purpose of a virus’s life is to multiply, but the irony is that it cannot multiply on its own.”
VIRUSES have been in our lives and newsfeeds almost incessantly in the last two years. We have been double-jabbed and masked for much of this time in an effort to avoid the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As we have learnt, these steps can help limit the spread of Covid-19 and help us avoid infection.
But can we avoid viruses entirely? The simple answer is no.
The sole purpose of a virus’s life is to multiply, but the irony is that it cannot multiply on its own.
Instead, viruses must rely on the cellular machinery from more advanced forms of life – bacteria, plants or animals.
How many viruses in total are there in the world at any time? An estimated ten nonillion (1031) is the figure that has been bandied about – a number so enormous that we cannot truly appreciate what it means.
There are so many types of viruses occupying so many different hosts and ecosystems that we have no idea of how many categories of viruses there are.
Humans carry an astronomical number of viruses all the time. These viruses do not kill us because their targets are the billions of bacteria that reside in our bodies, principally in the gut.
A recent paper from Chuen Zhang Lee, an Honours student at Monash University Malaysia, reports progress in identifying bacterial viruses in our guts by using human faeces as the starting material. Lee used faecal matter from two Malaysian Orang Asli groups, the Jehai and the Jakun, to show that the viruses they contain are different from viruses in more frequently studied groups, such as Europeans or Chinese.
Lee enriched the viruses in the faeces (as an indicator, of what is actually in the gut) away from all the yucky material, bacterial cells and human cells and extracted the genetic material from this virus enriched material.
The viral DNA was then sequenced at the Monash University Malaysia Genomics Facility using a technique that allows one to read long stretches of DNA.
Muhammad Zarul Hanifah, who works at the Genomics Facility, assisted Lee in analysing his data.
Using this method, Lee recognised approximately half the DNA as coming from known viruses. Based on the viruses he found, he could identify what some of the sample-givers had consumed and their lifestyle and environment.He also identified some of the bacteria in our guts these viruses could attack and therefore, get a partial picture of what types of bacteria could be in our guts.
These results start to build up a picture of how our gut health is determined, which can significantly determine our overall health. It is clear that viruses may also have a role in determining gut health – a complex topic.
Lee was supervised by a group of researchers including Prof Maude Phipps from the Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dr Jeremy Barr from Monash University School of Biological Sciences and Prof Qasim Ayub, Prof Sunil Lal and Prof Sadequr Rahman from the School of Science.
Lee’s work titled “The gut virome in two indigenous populations from Malaysia” has been published in the prestigious Nature publication, Scientific Reports.
Viruses are clearly ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ right now, and are likely to remain that way for a long time. We look forward to furthering discoveries on viruses and insights into how they can be used to our benefit.
To know more about the programmes offered by the School of Science, Monash University Malaysia, visit www.monash.edu. my/science. Alternatively, visit www.monash.edu.my for more information.
If you really need to do online bank transactions in your hotel room or any public space, use your own mobile data or a VPN.
Eight things you should not do while travelling abroad.
WATCH your wallet, don’t buy fake designer goods and skip the ice cubes if you’re in the tropics – most people are aware of these “issues” when going abroad.
But there are more travel taboos than you may know. Bear these eight tips in mind on what not to do in order to be safe, and enjoy your trip.
1. Trusting the hotel safe
You may be used to stowing your passport, money, tickets and other valuable items in the hotel room safe, to avoid losing them when you are out and about, or getting robbed.
How safe are hotel safes, though? Not particularly – some very old models can be opened if the power supply is cut. Other safes can be opened if they are returned to their factory setting. Then there are those that spring open if you punch the lid.
Safes in hotel rooms often present little obstacle for thieves as they are only mounted in the wardrobe or on the wall with screws so they can easily be removed from the site, a German consumer advice centre warned in 2019.
It is safer to use the safe at hotel reception, where you can drop off your valuables. You’ll get a receipt and your items will be fully insured – unlike if you use the room safe.
2. Making phone calls or downloading a video onboard a ship
If you’re on a ferry, say from Germany to Sweden or Norway in Europe, you might not think twice about reaching for your smartphone, after roaming charges in the European Union and some other countries were dropped back in 2017.
But that only applies to landbased networks. As passengers would not have a mobile phone connection at sea, major ferries often have an onboard mobile phone network, connected to a satellite network.
Sadly these onboard networks are very expensive and the costs are not capped at a certain level. A brief call in Europe costs between €3 (RM14) and €7 (RM33) per minute.
You can also expect to pay up to €2.50 (RM12) per 100KB of data – and bear in mind that a brief Whatsapp video of less than a minute has a volume of around 1MB to 3MB. This means that playing it back could cost €25 (RM117) to €75 (RM352).
The cost of letting the kids watch a Youtube film would be eye-watering, so you are safest if you switch the phone to flight mode until you reach dry land.
3. Packing everything in your check-in bag
Another piece of vital travel advice is to put your necessities in your hand luggage. In 2019, airlines worldwide lost around 25.4 million luggage items, or just over 5.5 suitcases per thousand passengers, according to IT service provider Sita.
That is not necessarily a cause for concern, as 99.5% of all missing luggage eventually turn up, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). But if you want to avoid being among the remaining 0.5%, make sure your bag doesn’t have loose straps dangling off it, and ensure your suitcase is not excessively worn.
A further issue to bear in mind is the minimum connecting time at a transfer airport. If you have less than the minimum specified, time might get tight and your suitcase will probably only reach your destination on the airline’s next flight at the earliest, to be sent onwards by taxi or courier.
So if you want to avoid being stranded without fresh underwear and a toothbrush, carry the bare minimum in your hand luggage.
4. Being unprepared in case of an emergency
Have you ever checked out where the hotel’s emergency exit is? No matter how good the sprinkler system, you want to know the way out if something catches fire, particularly if you’re on an upper storey as fire brigade ladders only reach up to the seventh or eighth floor.
While we’re at it, make sure you know what emergency number to dial in the country you’re in – and whether it is worth calling there at all. Just over 70 countries (two-thirds of them in Europe) have a nationwide emergency service that’s always available. Elsewhere, you need to make your own way to the nearest hospital.
5. Skipping a leg of a flight
It seems odd that a flight ticket from Oslo (Norway) to New York via Berlin (Germany) costs less than a ticket from Berlin to New York, without the first leg. You might wonder, do I really have to board the plane in Oslo?
Yes, you do.
If you skip a leg of the journey on your ticket, the airline may charge you the difference compared to the regular route price. Legally, that may be a grey area, but it could be an expensive headache afterwards.
6. Being unaware of local laws
Most travellers make an effort to be sure they abide by local laws but sometimes that requires some extra research. Be aware that if you are in Thailand for example, you don’t want to place your foot on a banknote, as there’s a picture of the king on it, so you could get into trouble.
Meanwhile in Buddhist countries, some people don’t like to see tourists posing playfully by Buddha statues. If you’re in the native islands of the Maldives, that aren’t part of tourist resorts, bikinis are banned.
In Bhutan, you may not smoke in public. And if you are in Singapore, you may not transport the musty-smelling durian fruit on the train. (In Malaysia, you can’t bring durian into any hotel premises.)
Taking pictures using drones may cause you problems in several places – special permits are required in many countries, while the practise is banned completely in Morocco, Iran, Kenya and Egypt, for example. Flying a drone without the right paperwork close to a military zone could land you in jail.
7. Being careless with your medication
There are pills for everything from tension to fear of flying but think twice about whether to pack them when travelling.
Many countries have strict drug laws such as the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia and many others, so while a drug might be commonplace in Europe, for example, even a small quantity could land you in jail abroad. Check embassy websites before you travel and a letter from your doctor confirming that the medication is necessary is also advisable.
8. Checking your bank balance at the hotel
It’s a bad idea to do online banking at the hotel particularly if the Wifi is not password-protected. You might wind up in the wrong network, if you see something like “Guest” on the list of free networks and assume that is the one for you. It could be a scam set up close to the hotel and if you are unlucky, thieves can find your email log-ins and bank passwords, track all your activities, install malware or redirect the connection to phishing sites.
Beware of similar issues at airports and in restaurants. For safer browsing, you can also use your own mobile data or VPN tunnel software.
WHEN US President Joe Biden asked the United States Intelligence Community (IC) to determine the origin of Covid-19, its conclusion was remarkably understated but nonetheless shocking. In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) emerged from a laboratory.
But even more shocking for Americans and the world is an additional point on which the IC remained mum: If the virus did indeed result from laboratory research and experimentation, it was almost certainly created with US biotechnology and know-how that had been made available to researchers in China.
To learn the complete truth about the origins of Covid-19, we need a full, independent investigation not only into the outbreak in Wuhan, China, but also into the relevant US scientific research, international outreach, and technology licensing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
We recently called for such an investigation in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some might dismiss our reasons for doing so as a “conspiracy theory.” But let us be crystal clear: If the virus did emerge from a laboratory, it almost surely did so accidentally in the normal course of research, possibly going undetected via asymptomatic infection.
It is of course also still possible that the virus had a natural origin. The bottom line is that nobody knows. That is why it is so important to investigate all the relevant information contained in databases available in the US.
Missed opportunities
Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, the US government has pointed an accusatory finger at China. But while it is true that the first observed Covid-19 cases were in Wuhan, the full story of the outbreak could involve America’s role in researching coronaviruses and in sharing its biotechnology with others around the world, including China.
US scientists who work with SARS-like coronaviruses regularly create and test dangerous novel variants with the aim of developing drugs and vaccines against them. Such “gain-of-function” research has been conducted for decades, but it has always been controversial, owing to concerns that it could result in an accidental outbreak, or that the techniques and technologies for creating new viruses could end up in the wrong hands. It is reasonable to ask whether SARS-CoV-2 owes its remarkable infectivity to this broader research effort.
Unfortunately, US authorities have sought to suppress this very question. Early in the epidemic, a small group of virologists queried by the US National Institutes of Health told the NIH leadership that SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from laboratory research, noting that the virus has unusual features that virologists in the US have been using in experiments for years – often with support from the NIH.
How do we know what NIH officials were told, and when? Because we now have publicly available information released by the NIH in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We know that on Feb 1, 2020, the NIH held a conference call with a group of top virologists to discuss the possible origin of the virus. On that call, several of the researchers pointed out that laboratory manipulation of the virus was not only possible, but according to some, even likely. At that point, the NIH should have called for an urgent independent investigation. Instead, the NIH has sought to dismiss and discredit this line of inquiry.Heads in the sand
Within days of the Feb 1 call, a group of virologists, including some who were on it, prepared the first draft of a paper on the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The final draft was published a month later, in March 2020. Despite the initial observations on Feb 1 that the virus showed signs of possible laboratory manipulation, the March paper concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that it had emerged from nature.
The authors claimed that the virus could not possibly have come from a laboratory because “the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” Yet the single footnote (number 20) backing up that key claim refers to a paper from 2014, which means that the authors’ supposedly “irrefutable evidence” was at least five years out of date.
Owing to their refusal to support an independent investigation of the lab-leak hypothesis, the NIH and other US federal government agencies have been subjected to a wave of FOIA requests from a range of organisations, including US Right to Know and The Intercept. These FOIA disclosures, as well as internet searches and “whistleblower” leaks, have revealed some startling information.
Consider, for example, a March 2018 grant proposal submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) and researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the University of North Carolina (UNC). On page 11, the applicants explain in detail how they intend to alter the genetic code of bat coronaviruses to insert precisely the feature that is the most unusual part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Although DARPA did not approve this grant, the work may have proceeded anyway. We just don’t know. But, thanks to another FOIA request, we do know that this group carried out similar gain-of-function experiments on another coronavirus, the one that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
In yet other cases, FOIA disclosures have been heavily redacted, including a remarkable effort to obscure 290 pages of documents going back to February 2020, including the Strategic Plan for Covid-19 Research drafted that April by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Such extensive redactions deeply undermine public trust in science, and have only served to invite additional urgent questions from researchers and independent investigators.
In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) emerged from a laboratory. – AFP
The facts of the case
Here are ten things that we do know.
First, the SARS-CoV-2 genome is distinguished by a particular 12-nucleotide sequence (the genetic code) that serves to increase its infectivity. The specific amino acid sequence directed by this insertion has been much discussed and is known as a furin cleavage site (FCS).
Second, the FCS has been a target of cutting-edge research since 2006, following the original SARS outbreak of 2003-04. Scientists have long understood that the FCS holds the key to these viruses’ infectivity and pathophysiology.
Third, SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus in the family of SARS-like viruses (sarbecoviruses) known to have an FCS. Interestingly, the specific form of the FCS that is present in SARS-CoV-2 (eight amino acids encoded by 24 nucleotides) is shared with a human sodium channel that has been studied in US labs.
Fourth, the FCS was already so well known as a driver of transmissibility and virulence that a group of US scientists submitted a proposal to the US government in 2018 to study the effect of inserting an FCS into SARS-like viruses found in bats. Although the dangers of this kind of work have been highlighted for some time, these bat viruses were somehow considered to be in a lower-risk category. This exempted them from NIH gain-of-function guidelines, thereby enabling NIH-funded experiments to be carried out at the inadequate BSL-2 safety level.
Fifth, the NIH was a strong supporter of such gain-of-function research, much of which was performed using US-developed biotechnology and executed within an NIH-funded three-way partnership between the EHA, the WIV, and UNC.
Sixth, in 2018, a leading US scientist pursuing this research argued that laboratory manipulation was vital for drug and vaccine discovery, but that increased regulation could stymie progress. Many within the virology community continue to resist sensible calls for enhanced regulation of the most high-risk virus manipulation, including the establishment of a national regulatory body independent of the NIH.
Seventh, the virus was very likely circulating a lot earlier than the standard narrative that dates awareness of the outbreak to late December 2019. We still do not know when parts of the US government became aware of the outbreak, but some scientists were aware of the outbreak as of mid-December.
Eighth, the NIH knew as early as Feb 1, 2020, that the virus could have emerged as a consequence of NIH-funded laboratory research, but it did not disclose that fundamental fact to the public or to the US Congress.
Ninth, extensive sampling by Chinese authorities of animals in Wuhan wet markets and in the wild has found not a single wild animal harboring the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Despite this, there is no indication that the NIH has requested the laboratory records of US agencies, academic centers, and biotech companies involved in researching and manipulating SARS-like coronaviruses.
Tenth, the IC has not explained why at least some of the US intelligence agencies do in fact believe that a laboratory release was either the most likely or at least a possible origin of the virus.
Time for transparency
Given the questions that remain unanswered, we are calling on the US government to conduct a bipartisan investigation. We may never understand the origin of SARS-CoV-2 without opening the books of the relevant federal agencies (including the NIH and the Department of Defense), the laboratories they support, academic institutions that store and archive viral sequence data, and biotechnology companies.
A key objective of the investigation would be to shed light on a basic question: Did US researchers undertake research or help their Chinese counterparts to undertake research to insert an FCS into a SARS-like virus, thereby playing a possible role in the creation of novel pathogens like the one that led to the current pandemic?
Investigations into Covid-19’s origins should no longer be secretive ventures led by the IC. The process must be transparent, with all relevant information being released publicly for use by independent scientific researchers. It seems clear to us that there has been a concerted effort to suppress information regarding the earliest events in the outbreak, and to hinder the search for additional evidence that is clearly available within the US. We suggest that a panel of independent researchers in relevant disciplines be created and granted access to all pertinent data in order to advise the US Congress and the public.
There is a good chance that we can learn more about the origins of this virus without waiting on China or any other country, simply by looking in the US. We believe such an inquiry is long overdue. – Project Syndicate
Neil L. Harrison is a professor at Columbia University. Jeffrey D. Sachs, university professor at Columbia University, is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. This article was first published on Project Syndicate.
Chinese nuclear force development impressive; new weapons commissioned: Defense Minister
The Star
Overdue inquiry: There is a good chance that we can learn more about the
origins of this virus simply by looking in the US, say the writers. –
123rf.com
