Blockchain endorsement: Xi said China will increase investment in blockchain technology after chairing a study session last week on developing the industry, state-owned Xinhua reported.— AP https://youtu.be/hfNcct7ZfbE
https://youtu.be/KoDD2Yk0bjE
Shenzhen tech index surges 5.3%, the most in eight months
Investors urge companies to develop blockchain businesses
BEIJING: Chinese investors snapped up every blockchain-related stock in sight after President Xi Jinping said Beijing wants to speed up development of the technology.
The gains were widespread yesterday, with Insigma Technology Co and Sinodata Co among more than 60 tech shares surging by the daily limit in Shanghai and Shenzhen.
The excitement coincided with a 26% rally in Bitcoin, and also boosted stocks with more tenuous connections to blockchain, like baby-food producer Beingmate Co and selfie-app developer Meitu Inc.
Xi said China will increase investment in blockchain technology after chairing a study session last week on developing the industry, state-owned Xinhua reported late last Friday.
The market reaction shows how far an endorsement from Xi can go in China, where high-level officials yesterday began their first major policy meeting since early 2018.
“Most of these companies, especially those that are just beginning to state their connection with blockchain today, are trying to take advantage of the hype, ” said Li Shiyu, fund manager at Guangdong Xiaoyu Investment Management Co. “It shows how much excitement can be triggered by something stressed as a priority by the top man himself.”
The Shenzhen Information Technology Index closed 5.3% higher yesterday, its biggest advance in eight months.
Hundsun Technologies Inc, Easysight Supply Chain Management Co, YGSOFT Inc and dozens more companies with officially registered blockchain businesses rose by the 10% limit.
In Hong Kong, traders singled out Meitu due to its plans for an encrypted user-identification system.
The shares surged as much as 30%. Pantronics Holdings Ltd - which earlier this month said it will change its name to “Huobi Technology”, a reference to a digital currency exchange - rallied as much as 67%.
American depositary receipts of Chinese blockchain companies also surged last Friday.
Investors pressured other firms to jump on the blockchain hype, using an online Q&A platform to submit thousands of questions on their plans to use the technology.
“Please proactively make expansion plans in blockchain to jump on state policies - doing so would be the best reward to investors, ” urged one shareholder of development-store operator Hunan Friendship & Apollo Commercial Co. — Bloomberg
Balanced views: The print house of the daily
newspaper Le Monde in France. When print media and television dominated
the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give a
balanced view to enable the reader to judge what is correct. — AFP
We live in an information age, or more likely, a disinformation age.
Growing up in a world that worships technology and knowledge, we have now entered a phase when we no longer are able to trust what information we receive is fake news or not. Worse, we don’t know whether the provider of the information is trustworthy or not.
Fake news has many definitions. Basically, fake news are manufactured with an intent to mislead, damage someone or to attract attention to a cause, and gain either financially, politically or higher media attention. Such information could be outright sensational, partial, incomplete, provocative, false or fabricated, with some journalists even paying for leaks or gossips. Today’s fake news also include tampered photographs and videos, or encouraging people to “act” in front of the cameras.
Up until the 1970s, when print media and television dominated the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give balanced views, setting out different sides of the argument to enable the reader to judge what is correct. Newspapers and television channels were rich enough to finance investigative journalism in uncovering the “truth”.
But with the arrival of digital information, these traditional channels lost advertising revenue to social media, so the quality of journalism deteriorated, and in order to attract attention, newspaper and television content became more and more sensational, as well as more biased to one side.
The battle over readership also affected social media, where the value (advertising revenue) of the media outlets depends on their ability to attract viewers and readers.
How important is fake news? When you click “fake news” in Google search, you get 1.48 billion results, versus 380 million for “Jesus Christ”. Trump gets 2 billion, which goes to show how successful he is in social media.
Is fake news damaging and should it be regulated?
Canadian think-tank Centre for International Governance and Innovation (CIGI) conducted an online survey in 25 countries on Internet Security and Trust and found that Facebook was the most commonly cited source of fake news, with 77% of Facebook users saying they had personally seen fake news there, followed by 62% of Twitter users and 74% of social media users in general.
The vast majority think that fake news is made worse by the Internet, with negative impact on their economy and worsened polarisation of views.
Significantly, one-third (35%) pointed to the United States as the country most responsible for the disruptive effect of fake news in their country, trailed significantly by Russia (12%) and China (9%).
There are clearly lots of bad online trolls & social media platforms who act to spread fake news, but it is very difficult to agree on who should regulate fake news and decide what is fake or not. Some people believe in self-policing by the social media platforms, but others want governments to be involved, but are also wary of censorship.
My own view is the apparently spontaneous protests in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Santiago, France, Indonesia and in the Middle East are clearly associated with the rapid spread of social media, including the tools to protest, organise and riot.
What is particularly disturbing is the huge divide of opinions, including violent action to stop the other party from presenting their points of view.
The opposing view is often labelled fake news with even the courts being questioned if they rule against the prevalent views.
Is free speech turbo-charged by social media promoting hate and divisions that increasingly verge on violence and social breakdown?
Australian philosopher Tim Dean has recently questioned whether free speech has failed us?
As he rightly points out, “Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth.”
The real problem is that if we do not have facts, we cannot have rational debate on what is truth.
The rule of law works on the principle that if there is dispute in society, it is resolved civilly either through the courts or through the political process. But once violence is involved, the rule of law breaks down.
As Professor Dean says, “free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism.”
If however, one side blocks out the opposing view through intimidation, insults, threats, violent action and the wilful spread of misinformation, then civil discourse disappears, as does the rule of law.
This is clearly the age not of information but of anger. As a result of financial capitalism, huge inequalities have been allowed to fester, breaking down rational discourse, engendering distrust of the establishment and old order, and pushing hate and divisions.
Should we allow social media to turbo-charge this process, not of healing but polarisation?
Singapore takes step to regulate fake news
The Singaporean government has taken the bold step of regulating fake news through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), which came into effect this month. Under the act, the Singapore government can take action on false information on the Internet, either ordering that it be taken down, corrected or order technology companies to block accounts that are spreading untruths.
A wise friend told me that we are actually living in a fractured generational divide. The old wants to maintain the old order of stability. The young thinks that this is rigged against them and want to change the system that they will inherit. But something is seriously wrong when school children think that it is right to throw petrol bombs and that it is cool to beat up policemen and anyone that they think stand in their way.
For even reputable channels such as the BBC to start glorifying such action, one wonders whether fake news has truly won.
Balanced views: The print house of the daily newspaper Le Monde in France. When print media and television dominated the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give a balanced view to enable the reader to judge what is correct. — AFP
We live in an information age, or more likely, a disinformation age.
Growing up in a world that worships technology and knowledge, we have now entered a phase when we no longer are able to trust what information we receive is fake news or not. Worse, we don’t know whether the provider of the information is trustworthy or not.
Fake news has many definitions. Basically, fake news are manufactured with an intent to mislead, damage someone or to attract attention to a cause, and gain either financially, politically or higher media attention. Such information could be outright sensational, partial, incomplete, provocative, false or fabricated, with some journalists even paying for leaks or gossips. Today’s fake news also include tampered photographs and videos, or encouraging people to “act” in front of the cameras.
Up until the 1970s, when print media and television dominated the distribution of information, media could be trusted to give balanced views, setting out different sides of the argument to enable the reader to judge what is correct. Newspapers and television channels were rich enough to finance investigative journalism in uncovering the “truth”.
But with the arrival of digital information, these traditional channels lost advertising revenue to social media, so the quality of journalism deteriorated, and in order to attract attention, newspaper and television content became more and more sensational, as well as more biased to one side.
The battle over readership also affected social media, where the value (advertising revenue) of the media outlets depends on their ability to attract viewers and readers.
How important is fake news? When you click “fake news” in Google search, you get 1.48 billion results, versus 380 million for “Jesus Christ”. Trump gets 2 billion, which goes to show how successful he is in social media.
Is fake news damaging and should it be regulated?
Canadian think-tank Centre for International Governance and Innovation (CIGI) conducted an online survey in 25 countries on Internet Security and Trust and found that Facebook was the most commonly cited source of fake news, with 77% of Facebook users saying they had personally seen fake news there, followed by 62% of Twitter users and 74% of social media users in general.
The vast majority think that fake news is made worse by the Internet, with negative impact on their economy and worsened polarisation of views.
Significantly, one-third (35%) pointed to the United States as the country most responsible for the disruptive effect of fake news in their country, trailed significantly by Russia (12%) and China (9%).
There are clearly lots of bad online trolls & social media platforms who act to spread fake news, but it is very difficult to agree on who should regulate fake news and decide what is fake or not. Some people believe in self-policing by the social media platforms, but others want governments to be involved, but are also wary of censorship.
My own view is the apparently spontaneous protests in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Santiago, France, Indonesia and in the Middle East are clearly associated with the rapid spread of social media, including the tools to protest, organise and riot.
What is particularly disturbing is the huge divide of opinions, including violent action to stop the other party from presenting their points of view.
The opposing view is often labelled fake news with even the courts being questioned if they rule against the prevalent views.
Is free speech turbo-charged by social media promoting hate and divisions that increasingly verge on violence and social breakdown?
Australian philosopher Tim Dean has recently questioned whether free speech has failed us?
As he rightly points out, “Free speech is not an absolute good; it is not an end unto itself. Free speech is an instrumental good, one that promotes a higher good: seeking the truth.”
The real problem is that if we do not have facts, we cannot have rational debate on what is truth.
The rule of law works on the principle that if there is dispute in society, it is resolved civilly either through the courts or through the political process. But once violence is involved, the rule of law breaks down.
As Professor Dean says, “free speech only fulfils its truth-seeking function when all agents are speaking in good faith: when they all agree that the truth is the goal of the conversation, that the facts matter, that there are certain standards of evidence and argumentation that are admissible, that speakers have a duty to be open to criticism.”
If however, one side blocks out the opposing view through intimidation, insults, threats, violent action and the wilful spread of misinformation, then civil discourse disappears, as does the rule of law.
This is clearly the age not of information but of anger. As a result of financial capitalism, huge inequalities have been allowed to fester, breaking down rational discourse, engendering distrust of the establishment and old order, and pushing hate and divisions.
Should we allow social media to turbo-charge this process, not of healing but polarisation?
Singapore takes step to regulate fake news
The Singaporean government has taken the bold step of regulating fake news through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma), which came into effect this month. Under the act, the Singapore government can take action on false information on the Internet, either ordering that it be taken down, corrected or order technology companies to block accounts that are spreading untruths.
A wise friend told me that we are actually living in a fractured generational divide. The old wants to maintain the old order of stability. The young thinks that this is rigged against them and want to change the system that they will inherit. But something is seriously wrong when school children think that it is right to throw petrol bombs and that it is cool to beat up policemen and anyone that they think stand in their way.
For even reputable channels such as the BBC to start glorifying such action, one wonders whether fake news has truly won.
GEORGE TOWN, Oct 25 — The Home Ministry was hasty in banning former DAP member Hew Kuan Yau’s Belt and Road Initiative for Win-Winism comic as communist propaganda, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said today.
“The authorities need to look at the real intentions behind the comic and look at it in detail before banning it,” the Penang DAP chief said in a press conference today.
He said the authorities initially wanted to invite historians to scrutinise the comic book but banned it as communist propaganda before this could be done.
Chow suggested there was ulterior motives in the swift ban.
“They should have asked experts to review the comic and get their views before banning it,” he said.
Chow said authorities should consider that Hew wanted to introduce China as an alternative to the US as a global superpower.
He noted that aside from curating for the Asia Comic Cultural Museum, Hew had also been the chief executive officer of the Malaysia China Business Council.
Chow claimed China was misunderstood politically and Hew meant only to highlight the country’s economic success.
He further claimed that China has thousands of self-made billionaires who made their fortunes through socialism despite being a superficially communist state.
“It was his intention to give an alternative introduction to China regarding its economic development,” he said.
The Home Ministry officially banned the comic as it was deemed to be inappropriate as it promotes “communism and socialism” as well as spreading confusing facts” on its struggle here in the country.
When asked about the state government’s financial support for the Asia Comic Cultural Museum, Chow said the museum itself was not banned.
He also said the museum did not belong to the state government, which only supported it by paying for its rental.
“The museum was set up in 2016 and chose to set up in ICT Mall at Level Two of Komtar during a time when the state government was taking steps to rejuvenate Komtar,” he said.
He said at the time, the state government was bringing in businesses to Komtar including The Top, ICT Mall and Tech Dome, and the state decided to support the museum when it chose to move there.
“It is a tourism product that is unique in Malaysia and even Asia, it is a comic museum that promotes creativity and animation where various events were held by famous comic artists there,” he said.
He said this was the reason why the state decided to collaborate with the museum by paying for their rental but stated that the state did not fund the exhibits or infrastructure in the museum.
“We only support in terms of rental and the rental goes to Penang Development Corporation, this is the only link between the state and the museum,” he said.
He said the state has an agreement with the museum to support it until December 2020.
The issue of the state’s support for the museum was discussed at the state exco meeting this morning, he added. But is it really that dangerous?
Titled Belt & Road Initiative for Win-Winism, the comic book was a collaboration between a curator from the Asian Comic Cultural Museum Hew Kuan Yau and Malaysian comic artist, Tomato.
Unless you've been living under a coconut shell, you would've probably heard of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
It's a strategy by the economic powerhouse to take over the world. Business wise that is, through investments and development in a whopping 152 countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.
Malaysia has had some investments flowing in from the country through the development of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL).
A super problem.
The curator of the museum, Hew, also known as Superman Hew, is a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which forms part of the current Malaysian government.
Hew has been known for his vocal pro-China views. Although he no longer holds leadership positions in the party, he is still very much active as a member.
For Malay-Muslim hardliners, DAP is seen as a pro-Chinese party who is out to get them. The comic issue blew up because former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak took to social media to quiz if the comic was a form of propaganda.
mej PM ke-7 turut digunakan sebagai bahan promosi untuk penjualan dalam talian komik propaganda DAP.
Najib also uploaded several images among which featured current Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad showcasing the comic to Chinese president, Xi Jinping.
Chinese propaganda?
China's economy has surpassed America's — and that's OK China is fast growing, economically.
The comic was not sold in news stands or bookstores unlike others. Instead, it was apparently distributed in several schools.
What's more, these books were sent to school libraries for free. This prompted Malaysian Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik to ban the comic books in schools.
Critics of the ruling government claimed that the comic was used as a propaganda tool to brainwash the younger generation. The opposition's call to debate the comic was also recently dismissed.
This led the Malaysian Home Ministry to announce a total ban of the comic on the grounds that it could “endanger public order and security” and “distort the mind of the public”.
But should it have been banned? The cover of the comic depicts Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Chinese premier Xi Jinping. IMAGE: The Edge Markets
Not really as Malaysians have the freedom to read the comic book, according to renowned local cartoonist Zunar.
“Until today, I haven’t read the whole content of the comic. Personally, I may or may not agree with the content, but I am strongly against the banning of the comic,” he said in a statement to Free Malaysia Today.
Zunar, who has had his own cartoons banned during Najib's rule, said he agree that distributing the comic in schools was uncalled for. But Malaysians are capable of making their own decisions.
“The principle is simple: ‘Cartoons and comics are a matter of interpretation. If you do not agree with the content, no problem. But do not use your interpretation as a law to ban it. Don’t like? Don’t read!”
Hew and others are currently being investigated by the police in their involvement of producing the comic book and distributing some 2,500 copies in schools.
GEORGE TOWN, Oct 25 — The Home Ministry was hasty in banning former DAP member Hew Kuan Yau’s Belt and Road Initiative for Win-Winism comic as communist propaganda, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said today.
“The authorities need to look at the real intentions behind the comic and look at it in detail before banning it,” the Penang DAP chief said in a press conference today.
He said the authorities initially wanted to invite historians to scrutinise the comic book but banned it as communist propaganda before this could be done.
Chow suggested there was ulterior motives in the swift ban.
“They should have asked experts to review the comic and get their views before banning it,” he said.
Chow said authorities should consider that Hew wanted to introduce China as an alternative to the US as a global superpower.
He noted that aside from curating for the Asia Comic Cultural Museum, Hew had also been the chief executive officer of the Malaysia China Business Council.
Chow claimed China was misunderstood politically and Hew meant only to highlight the country’s economic success.
He further claimed that China has thousands of self-made billionaires who made their fortunes through socialism despite being a superficially communist state.
“It was his intention to give an alternative introduction to China regarding its economic development,” he said.
The Home Ministry officially banned the comic as it was deemed to be inappropriate as it promotes “communism and socialism” as well as spreading confusing facts” on its struggle here in the country.
When asked about the state government’s financial support for the Asia Comic Cultural Museum, Chow said the museum itself was not banned.
He also said the museum did not belong to the state government, which only supported it by paying for its rental.
“The museum was set up in 2016 and chose to set up in ICT Mall at Level Two of Komtar during a time when the state government was taking steps to rejuvenate Komtar,” he said.
He said at the time, the state government was bringing in businesses to Komtar including The Top, ICT Mall and Tech Dome, and the state decided to support the museum when it chose to move there.
“It is a tourism product that is unique in Malaysia and even Asia, it is a comic museum that promotes creativity and animation where various events were held by famous comic artists there,” he said.
He said this was the reason why the state decided to collaborate with the museum by paying for their rental but stated that the state did not fund the exhibits or infrastructure in the museum.
“We only support in terms of rental and the rental goes to Penang Development Corporation, this is the only link between the state and the museum,” he said.
He said the state has an agreement with the museum to support it until December 2020.
The issue of the state’s support for the museum was discussed at the state exco meeting this morning, he added. But is it really that dangerous?
Titled Belt & Road Initiative for Win-Winism, the comic book was a collaboration between a curator from the Asian Comic Cultural Museum Hew Kuan Yau and Malaysian comic artist, Tomato.
Unless you've been living under a coconut shell, you would've probably heard of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
It's a strategy by the economic powerhouse to take over the world. Business wise that is, through investments and development in a whopping 152 countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.
Malaysia has had some investments flowing in from the country through the development of the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL).
A super problem.
The curator of the museum, Hew, also known as Superman Hew, is a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which forms part of the current Malaysian government.
Hew has been known for his vocal pro-China views. Although he no longer holds leadership positions in the party, he is still very much active as a member.
For Malay-Muslim hardliners, DAP is seen as a pro-Chinese party who is out to get them. The comic issue blew up because former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak took to social media to quiz if the comic was a form of propaganda.
mej PM ke-7 turut digunakan sebagai bahan promosi untuk penjualan dalam talian komik propaganda DAP.
Najib also uploaded several images among which featured current Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad showcasing the comic to Chinese president, Xi Jinping.
Chinese propaganda?
China's economy has surpassed America's — and that's OK
China is fast growing, economically.
The comic was not sold in news stands or bookstores unlike others. Instead, it was apparently distributed in several schools.
What's more, these books were sent to school libraries for free. This prompted Malaysian Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik to ban the comic books in schools.
Critics of the ruling government claimed that the comic was used as a propaganda tool to brainwash the younger generation. The opposition's call to debate the comic was also recently dismissed.
This led the Malaysian Home Ministry to announce a total ban of the comic on the grounds that it could “endanger public order and security” and “distort the mind of the public”.
But should it have been banned?
The cover of the comic depicts Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Chinese premier Xi Jinping. IMAGE: The Edge Markets
Not really as Malaysians have the freedom to read the comic book, according to renowned local cartoonist Zunar.
“Until today, I haven’t read the whole content of the comic. Personally, I may or may not agree with the content, but I am strongly against the banning of the comic,” he said in a statement to Free Malaysia Today.
Zunar, who has had his own cartoons banned during Najib's rule, said he agree that distributing the comic in schools was uncalled for. But Malaysians are capable of making their own decisions.
“The principle is simple: ‘Cartoons and comics are a matter of interpretation. If you do not agree with the content, no problem. But do not use your interpretation as a law to ban it. Don’t like? Don’t read!”
Hew and others are currently being investigated by the police in their involvement of producing the comic book and distributing some 2,500 copies in schools.
