Share This

Sunday 10 April 2022

Check on US biological labs worldwide

Photo/Agencies] 
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202203/10/WS622942dfa310cdd39bc8b92f.html

The mystery of 336 US bio-labs worldwide   

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has led to some unexpected discoveries. Russian media outlets recently reported that the Pentagon had commissioned more than 30 biological laboratories in Ukraine, where large quantities of dangerous viruses were stored.

The United States supposedly depends on these laboratories to implement its biological warfare research. And these are only a handful, or less than 10 percent of the 336 biological laboratories the US reportedly controls in 30 countries around the world.

No wonder the US was desperately pushing for "origin-tracing" studies for the COVID-19 outbreak at Chinese laboratories. Maybe because they have laboratories spread around the world, they are aware of the high risks of viruses leaking and triggering pandemics. They assumed similar risks from Chinese laboratories, but that is stretching it too far.

It is the US that's ill, but it is forcing China to take the pill. And that's precisely why the US has failed to bring COVID-19 under control on its shores. Instead of acknowledging the problem it is busy blaming others.

It is now also clear why the US has, for four decades, tried to prevent the Biological Weapons Convention from establishing a checking mechanism. Of the 182 signatories to the convention, the US is the only one that pulled out of negotiations for such a mechanism in 2001. It is clear that by doing so the US wants to protect the secrets of its 336 biological labs worldwide.

Latest reports say that the US embassy in Ukraine hurriedly deleted information related to the biological labs there. But they cannot wash away the fact about the existence of such laboratories around the world. It is time the US published information about these biological laboratories, including what kind of viruses are stored there, what "research" is going on and what harm they pose to people in these countries and around the world. The world should demand answers.

The mystery of 336 US bio-labs worldwide 

US' dirty records of using, developing bio, chemical weapons. Graphic: Zhao Jun/GT

Besides Fort Detrick at home, US military has 336 biolabs in 30 countries including Ukraine

;

 ` 

The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone. It should give a full account of its biological military activities at home and abroad and subject itself to multilateral verification.
 https://twitter.com/i/status/1501185437901082629
 1.5M views
0:50 / 1:02
9:17 PM · Mar 8, 2022Twitter Web App https://twitter.com/i/status/1501185437901082629






&

Personnel at work in the biosafety level-4 laboratory at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in 2002. [Photo/Agencies]

An envoy called on the international community to assess documents on US military biological activities, which were published by the Russian government, to alleviate the “great concern” of the international community.

“The Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us that as a crucial matter of international peace and security, biological security has no borders and involves the shared interests of humanity,” Dai Bing, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said during the UN Security Council Arria Formula Meeting on biological security, hosted by Russia.

“Thus, any information on the biological military activity should trigger heightened concern and attention of the international community to avoid irreparable harm,” Dai said.

He stressed that “China welcomes the international community to assess the discovered documents within appropriate frameworks including the BWC (Biological Weapons Convention) and the UN, and hear the clarifications from the relevant country in a fair and impartial manner”.

He said the relevant country should “take a responsible approach and offer timely and comprehensive clarifications on its biological activities to remove the doubts of the international community”.

“Further enhancement of the transparency on its global biological activities is also needed,” he added.

China has suffered from biological weapons during World War II, Dai said, and hence “consistently stands for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons”.

Dai said China “firmly opposes the development, stockpiling or use of biological and chemical weapons by any country under any circumstances and urges countries that have not done so to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles as soon as possible”.

“All States parties should comply with the objectives and principles of the BWC in good faith,” he said.

Sunday will mark the 50th anniversary of the opening for signature of the BWC, he noted.

“The current dynamics on biological security highlight the urgent need to relaunch negotiations on a verification protocol under the BWC and establish a professional, impartial and independent multilateral verification mechanism based on that,” Dai said. 

 Dai said such a mechanism is a necessary but "long-absent instrument to eliminate potential biological weapons threats and enhance the authority and effectiveness of the BWC, and its establishment must not be thwarted by any certain member state".— China Daily/ANN

 Source link

US shuns UN meeting on biological security to 'cover up guilt conscience'

 

Russia has called for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss purported US-backed biological weapons programs in Ukraine.Photo:VCG

 

When Russia, China and other countries expressed their concerns over US biological activities in countries including Ukraine at a UN Security Council meeting on Wednesday, the US did not show up, which in some Chinese experts' eyes, was out of the US' "guilty conscience" over the issue.

At the UN Security Council Arria Formula Meeting on Biological Security on Wednesday, Igor Kirillov, chief of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, said Washington is creating biological laboratories in different countries and connecting them to a unified system. In territories bordering Russia and China alone, about 60 facilities have been modernized since 2005 with funding from the US military, he said. Kirillov noted that the US has spent more than $5 billion on military biological programs since 2005.

The Ukrainian network of laboratories is designed to conduct research and monitor the biological situation consisting of 30 facilities in 14 populated locations, Kirillov said, noting especially valuable materials from Ukrainian biological laboratories were exported to the US in early February, and the rest should be destroyed, TASS reported.

Dai Bing, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, said at the meeting that China firmly opposes the development, stockpiling or use of biological and chemical weapons by any country under any circumstances, and the Russian Federation has published a number of documents related to the biological military activities of the US, which has caused great concern from the international community.

China welcomes the international community to assess the discovered documents within appropriate frameworks including the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the UN, and hear the clarifications from the relevant country in a fair and impartial manner. The relevant country should take a responsible approach and offer timely and comprehensive clarifications on its biological activities to remove the doubts of the international community, Dai said.

According to the TASS report, diplomats from Brazil, Venezuela, Belarus and other countries also spoke at the meeting, but US and UK representatives did not show up.

"This is evidence of their real attitude to this problem--the fact that they have something to hide and do not want to answer the uncomfortable questions posed today," Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyansky said, TASS reported.

Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times that the US did not attend the meeting out of "guilty conscience," and the US did not want to make public its biological activities but covered its hidden agenda with "commercial secrets."

The US kept setting up biological laboratories around rival countries with the goal of developing targeted viral weapons against those countries, Song said.

The US insists on developing weapons of mass destruction to seek hegemony, which is a gross violation of the BWC and an assault on human civilization, he said.

Wang Yiwei, director of the institute of international affairs at the Renmin University of China, told the Global Times that the US attacks voices from Russia as disinformation and attempts to use its resources to shut off Russia's voices, and amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US believes that Russia was trying to use the biological lab issue to rewrite the story of its military operation in Ukraine.

No matter it's for stirring up a color revolution or conducting biological activities in Ukraine, the US' purpose is to create confrontations and division to slow down its decline, Wang said.

Facing growing concerns, the responses from Washington have made the international community more concerned. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said the US has "biological research facilities" in Ukraine. But the US Department of State said Russia's claims of US bio-weapons activities in Ukraine were "outright lies."

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the US should share comprehensive information on bio-labs in Ukraine.

During this week's Preparatory Committee for the Ninth Review Conference of the BWC, the US cited "revisionist history" to describe the international community's criticism over its opposition to the establishment of a verification mechanism of the BWC, Zhao Lijian, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said at Thursday's media briefing, noting that the US' remarks are "shocking."

He said what the US wants is to arbitrarily accuse others of violating the convention and demand verification with "the presumption of guilt", while refusing to accept any supervision and verification of its own compliance.

This lies at the heart of the US' sole opposition to a verification mechanism, Zhao said. 

Source link.  

RELATED ARTICLES
 

 

US’ exclusive opposition to the biological weapons verification regime an egregious act of seeking global hegemony

Military personnel stand guard outside the USAMRIID at Fort Detrick on September 26, 2002. Photo: AFP

Editor's Note:

The US has ignited a war between Russia and Ukraine for its own selfish interests, the flames of war have also unveiled a darker side of the US' secret biological experimentation activities around the world.. Although the US government has repeatedly claimed that it is not developing biological weapons, numerous facts show that this claim is hardly convincing.

Biological weapons have always been an extremely sensitive topic in the international military and political arena. However, the US first pushed for the conclusion of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and then exclusively opposed the establishment of a multilateral verification mechanism for the convention for more than 20 years. Observers and experts reached by the Global Times noted that hidden behind this flip-flopping stance is the US' elaborate calculations of international and domestic realities, which is another nefarious attempt to seek global hegemony under its narrow view of security.

US says 'No' to BWC verification

As the world frowns at the three recognized weapons of mass destruction - nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons, the US is happy to have so many of them.

It is well known that the US possesses nuclear weapons with the capacity to destroy the world multiple times. In the case of chemical weapons, "The US is the sole possessor state party of chemical weapons," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian at a regular press conference on March 10. At the same time, the US is the only country that has so far opposed the establishment of a biological weapons verification mechanism.

As the cornerstone of international biological arms control, the BWC was opened for signature in 1972 and entered into force in 1975, with more than 180 states parties. It is the first international convention of the international community to ban an entire category of weapons of mass destruction, and together with the Geneva Protocol and UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), constituting the basic arrangement of the international biological arms control system.

The lack of monitoring, verification and punishment for compliance by states parties to the convention has led to widespread international recognition of the need for a protocol that includes a verification mechanism. After years of negotiations, the draft Biological Weapons Convention Compliance Protocol, which integrates the positions of all parties, was formed.

However, in 2001, the states parties to the Convention suddenly discovered that years of effort had been in vain as "a new US administration with a demonstrated antipathy to arms treaties is about to block the final step," said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, co-founder of American Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons.

At that time, the administration of then US president George W. Bush alleged that the US rejected the draft verification protocol because it had numerous problems and serious errors. Subsequently, at successive review meetings, the US clearly expressed its opposition to restarting the relevant negotiations.

The US was one of the countries that initially pushed for the BWC. Influenced by international and domestic political, scientific and cultural factors, US biological weapons policy is a strategic approach based on precise calculation and a fragile balance based on realism, said Wang Xiaoli, biological expert of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.

With the development of the times, especially the changes in biotechnology, this strategic orientation and fragile balance can easily collapse, Wang told the Global Times.

Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya shows pictures during the UN Security Council meeting discussing US biological warfare labs in Ukraine, on March 11, 2022. Photo: IC

Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya shows pictures during the UN Security Council meeting discussing US biological warfare labs in Ukraine, on March 11, 2022. Photo: IC

US harvests labs & scientists after Soviet dissolution

After the Cold War ended, the US harvested a large number of bio-labs and scientists from the former Soviet Union with the excuse of "preventing bio weapons threats."

After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia did not have enough money to destroy the nuclear and biological weapons inherited from the Soviet states.

In 1991, US senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar promoted related legislation, through which the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) was set up to address these weapons of mass destruction.

The program was supervised by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and included the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP). Related efforts have been extended repeatedly by Washington and lasted for decades.

According to an article of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2008, the initial focus of the program was on the nuclear weapons inherited by Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine and on Russia's nuclear weapons, materials, and facilities.

Following the successful denuclearization of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and with a bulk of the most pressing Russian nuclear proliferation threats resolved, CTR's efforts turned its focus to dealing with biothreats.

However, the CBEP gradually became different from what it was intended for. The US did not destroy all facilities storing dangerous pathogens in Soviet states, instead, it upgraded many labs. These labs, although located outside the US, are in fact controlled by Washington and their materials and research results have been transferred to the US, according to documents recently disclosed by Russia.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, tens of thousands of scientists lost their jobs. With the excuse to prevent these scientists from going to "rogue countries" for a living, the US established the Civilian Research & Development Foundation (CRDF) to recruit related scientists.

According to open materials, the US passed related legislation in 1992 and established the CRDF in 1995. Founders of the CRDF include public agencies like the US State Council and the US Department of Defense as well as private agencies such as the Open Society Foundations, founded by American billionaire George Soros.

At first, the US Department of Defense allocated $5 million for the launch of CRDF and Soros donated another $10 million. Yearly budget for the CRDF was about $10 million at the beginning. In 2000, then US president Bill Clinton proposed that the spending of the CRDF that year should be tripled from $64 million to $176.5 million.

US goes back on its words

In 2001, a decade after the end of the Cold War, the US made clear its opposition to the establishment of a multilateral verification mechanism for the BWC, probably because of its intensifying research on biological weapons and the improvement of its own biological research capabilities.

John Bolton, then US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, in 2002 explained three reasons why the US rejected the Draft Protocol to the BWC: first, it was based on a traditional arms control approach that will not work on biological weapons; second, it would have compromised national security and confidential business information; and third, it would have been used by proliferators to undermine other effective international export control regimes.

Biological arms control has its particularities, but the measures including declaration, visit and verification proposed in the Draft Protocol to the BWC are feasible and supported by most countries, Guo Xiaobing, a research fellow with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, responded to the US' "explanation."

The US seems to have a skeleton in its closet in the field of biology, Guo said. The biological laboratories at Fort Detrick, for instance, severely lack transparency, and it is unclear whether the US is pursuing biological weapons under the guise of defensive biological researches, he added.

Wang believes that there are deeper reasons for the US' rejection of a verification regime. First of all, the US has put its domestic politics ahead of the common interests of the international community. Both the BWC and the Draft Protocol to the BWC are the result of the contracting parties maximizing international interests and seeking common ground while putting aside differences. But the volatile political climate in the US can easily break this fragile balance.

Secondly, the driving mechanism of the US to resolve the biological weapons issue has changed, Wang said. The development of biological technologies, including synthetic biology and gene editing, has prompted the US to reexamine the strategic value of biological weapons. In the name of protecting itself against bio-terrorism threats, the US has drastically increased its bio-defense budget. It becomes an important strategic goal of the US to maintain its superiority and hegemony in biotechnology, and to achieve absolute security in the field of biology.

Thirdly, out of the protection of the military and industrial interests of the US and its allies, the US is wary of the multilateral agreements on biological weapons arms control that require transparency and are governed by international laws, said Wang. And the lobbying of American biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries pushes the US further away from the negotiating table of the verification protocol, he added.

US' credit deficits under dark records

Despite US President Joe Biden's recent solemn statement that Washington has no biological and chemical weapons in Europe, no one can take his statement at face value as the US has lost its credibility over repeated lies throughout the years. After World War II, the US sought to gain an edge in biological weapons research by making a secret deal with Japan to protect the Japanese war criminal, microbiologist Shiro Ishii who led Unit 731. Located near Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province, and at the time occupied by Japanese invaders, Unit 731 was notorious for conducting Japanese biological warfare experiments. Ishii later served as a bioweapons consultant at Fort Detrick Biological Warfare Laboratories.

In addition, after the end of World War II, the US "recruited" a large number of Nazi scientists. One of them was Kurt Blome, director of the Nazi Biological Warfare Program.

Several US-funded biological laboratories have been found to have carried out deadly human experiments. The location of Washington's overseas biological laboratories also overlaps with the site of many reported local accidents.

The US remains the only country in the world that still possesses chemical weapons. It also stands alone in opposing the establishment of the verification regime. The country has twice exceeded the time limit to destroy all its chemical weapons stockpiles despite repeated requests by the international community. It is also tight-lipped about research carried out in biological laboratories overseas.

Faced with Russia's evidence, the US simply tried to dismiss it as "disinformation." As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao said, the US responses so far have been self-contradictory and perplexing.

` Source link

US pardoned Japan’s war criminals in exchange for Unit 731 chemical weapons – how trustworthy is its clarification on Ukraine labs?

 

The US is a country with a long history of using and developing chemical and biological weapons in other countries, and such moves, that contravene human rights bills and international laws that could be traced back to 1940s after World War II, have been largely ignored by most mainstream Western media outlets, and analysts have predicted that the US' dirty record in this field could spike global concerns over its recent operating of biological laboratories worldwide.

According to information gathered and gleaned from interviews done by the Global Times reporters, the US government has cooperated and colluded with Japanese war criminals to obtain data and technologies for the making of biological and chemical weapons for which Japan conducted inhumane live human experiments on innocent Chinese people during Japan's invasion of China.

Most of the data and files collected by said Japanese war criminals were acquired by scientists in Fort Detrick, the center of the US' biological weapons program, and after the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established in 1947, the agency participated in the relevant research pertaining to the development of biowarfare weapons.

Ruins of Japan's notorious Unit 731 facilities in Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province Photo: VCG

Ruins of Japan's notorious Unit 731 facilities in Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province Photo: VCG

Nasty cooperation

Unit 731, infamous for conducting Japanese biological warfare experiments, was located near Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province, which was occupied by Japanese invaders. The monstrous unit was created by Japanese war criminal, microbiologist Shiro Ishii in 1936, and eventually was comprised of 150 buildings and had the capacity to hold 600 people at a time to be experimented on, according to the book titled Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover-up.

Unit 731's experiments involved deliberately infecting people, primarily Chinese prisoners of war and civilians, with infectious agents, and exposing prisoners to bombs designed to penetrate the skin with infectious particles.

In 1945-46, representatives of the US government made similar discoveries in both Germany and Japan, unearthing evidence of unethical experiments conducted on human beings.

However, the US played an equally key role in concealing information about biological warfare experiments by Japan and secured immunity from prosecution for the perpetrators. Along with the data from Unit 731 and experiments inside Fort Detrick, Howard Brody, director at the Institute for the Medical Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, shared in an article released in 2014 details of the shady deal, titled United States Responses to Japanese Wartime Inhuman Experimentation after World War II: National Security and Wartime Exigency.

Masks used by Japan's notorious Unit 731 are exhibited in a museum in Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province. Photo: VCGMasks used by Japan's notorious Unit 731 are exhibited in a museum in Harbin, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province. Photo: VCG

Fort Detrick, which is an enormous complex, has, for decades, been the center of American military research related to biology with only a select few being privy to details of operations, Stephen Kinzer, senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, was cited by the Xinhua News Agency in a report in July 2021.

Kinzer is the author of bestseller Poisoner in Chief, which revealed the little-known life story of Sidney Gottlieb, master CIA chemist and head of secret mind control experiments at Fort Detrick and elsewhere in the world.

He said in order to find out "the limits of human endurance - how can you kill people, at what moment do they die, how can you seize control of their bodies and their minds," Gottlieb and the CIA hired "Nazi doctors who worked on the concentration camps, and their Japanese comrades," for example, war criminal Shiro Ishii, who headed the notorious Japanese military biological warfare program called Unit 731 during World War II.

Keep it in the dark

The CIA and the US Army Chemical Corps worked closely together. When the US finalized its secret agreement of cooperation with Shiro Ishii and Unit 731 after World War II, it was decided that the cooperation would be kept strictly within "intelligence channels," Jeffrey Kaye, a former clinical psychologist in San Francisco, told the Global Times.

Kaye wrote a book published in 2017 on the torture of detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and later started his research into US biological warfare during the Korean War (1950-53), most documents of which were systematically redacted and destroyed during the McCarthy era.

Kaye said that such cooperation was kept top secret and purely on a need-to-know basis. From 1949, the CIA had a unit inside Fort Detrick - which was called Camp Detrick back in those days - which researched and developed biological weapons for use in covert operations.

"Much of this was done in a CIA program known as MKNAOMI. It was this unit, called the Special Operations Division, that developed, for instance, the feather bomb, which was an adapted bomb used to deliver propaganda leaflets, except instead it delivered feathers and similar material coated with pathogens like anthrax. The use of infected feathers for such warfare was pioneered by Unit 731," Kaye revealed.

Kaye said that although he does not have a document that specifically states the US got the idea from Unit 731, it is still a reasonable inference to make given the known level of alliance between Japanese units like the Unit 731 and Fort Detrick, that the feather bomb idea came from contact with Unit 731. Moreover, an official from Fort Detrick who was involved with the initial interviews of Unit 731 officers after the war, Colonel Murray Sanders, told two British researchers that Ishii was brought to lecture at Fort Detrick. In addition, the chief of the CIA Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, John Schwab, submitted an affidavit under oath in a criminal trial in 1959 that the US had the means to conduct biological warfare as far back as 1949, according to Kaye.

An aerial view of the barracks in Camp Detrick (later Fort Detrick) in Maryland, September 24, 1944 

Photo: VCGAn aerial view of the barracks in Camp Detrick (later Fort Detrick) in Maryland, September 24, 1944 Photo: VCG

Biolabs worldwide

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an extensive speech on the Ukraine crisis on March 16 and he pointed out that the US is conducting military biological programs in Ukraine.

"There was a network of dozens of laboratories in Ukraine, where military biological programs were conducted under the guidance and with the financial support of the Pentagon, including experiments with coronavirus strains, anthrax, cholera, African swine fever, and other deadly diseases," Putin said during his speech.

Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya shows pictures during the UN Security Council meeting discussing US biological warfare labs in Ukraine, on March 11, 2022. Photo: ICRussia's Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya shows pictures during the UN Security Council meeting discussing US biological warfare labs in Ukraine, on March 11, 2022. Photo: IC

This is the latest example to spark global concern over the US' biolabs worldwide. According to the information provided by the US to the Conference of Parties of the Biological Weapon Convention (BWC), there are 336 US laboratories around the world. Scientists and analysts from all around the globe have once again expressed their worries and concerns over the US biological programs.

But unfortunately, effectively enforcing the law when it comes to the US under the influence of US hegemony remains an enduring problem for the international community, said experts, noting that the countries most affected by the US biological programs should push the US to accept the protocol for monitoring biological weapons by the BWC.

US' dirty records of using, developing bio, chemical weapons. Graphic: Zhao Jun/GTUS' dirty records of using, developing bio, chemical weapons. Graphic: Zhao Jun/GT

Source link.  

 






ELATED ARTICLES

Thursday 7 April 2022

Omicron XE on its way

New Covid Variant XE Found In UK, More Transmissible Than Omicron: WHO

Daily reminder: Experts noted that authorities should be on guard and increase surveillance as the Omicron XE variant is 10% more infectious compared to the current strain. — AZMAN GHANI/The Star  Experts predict the new variant could reach Malaysia within a month
Even as the country’s daily Covid-19 cases are on a downtrend, there is every possibility of the Omicron XE variant reaching our shores within a month, and posing a new danger.

According to Universiti Putra Malaysia medical epidemiologist Assoc Prof Dr Malina Osman, the current Omicron variant arrived in Malaysia within a month or two even when the country’s borders were closed.

In view of this, Dr Malina predicted that Omicron XE could arrive much faster as it has been detected in Thailand, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

“For the Omicron XE, theoretically it can arrive faster compared to the current Omicron variant, but we hope our surveillance can help to limit the spread,” she said when contacted yesterday.

First detected in the United Kingdom on Jan 19, the Omicron XE variant, a mutation of the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 strains, is said to be 10% more transmissible compared to the current variant.

Dr Malina said there was no indication that the Omicron XE variant was causing severe infections like the Delta variant, but noted that the risk was high for those who have yet to be vaccinated, or had no previous infection.

However, she believed that the situation would be under control as the country had good vaccination coverage, good adherence to protocols, and measures in place for travellers to limit the spread.

“What we have to focus on now is to ensure coverage of vaccines among those aged five to 11, booster shots to achieve coverage of at least 70% to 80%, and provision of specific care for children less than five-years-old as well as those unable to be vaccinated,” she said.

Volunteers for Community Engagement and Empowerment For Covid-19 chairman Datuk Dr Zainal Ariffin Omar also predicted that the new variant would arrive in less than a month due to higher domestic and international movements.

He said that continuous testing and variant identifications must be carried out, adding that the country’s healthcare system would be able to handle a surge in cases, as more than 99% of the cases are from Categories One to Three.

“It is still resilient and robust,” he said.

Universiti Putra Malaysia’s consultant clinical microbiologist Prof Dr Zamberi Sekawi concurred, saying that the variant might enter the country at a much faster rate as the borders had reopened.

However, he said this variant would have to compete with the existing Omicron variant to be the dominant variant.

“According to reports, this variant is 10% more infectious,” said Prof Zamberi.

He added that not much was known about the Omicron XE variant in terms of its severity, and whether it could evade the vaccines.

“If the character of this variant is the same as Omicron, then our healthcare system will be able to cope,” he said, adding that authorities had to be on guard by increasing surveillance, not just for foreigners, but also locals.

The country first saw a surge in cases, hospitalisations, as well as deaths when the Delta variant hit the country last July.

On July 14, Health director-general Tan Sri Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah said the Delta variant, first detected in India, was the dominant variant in the country then, with cases hitting a peak of 22,642 cases on Aug 25.

Subsequently, as cases fell, the country experienced another surge in cases at the beginning of January this year, which Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin had warned that the Omicron variant wave had begun in the country.

The Omicron variant was first reported in South Africa on Nov 24, 2021, and Malaysia detected its first Omicron variant case on Dec 2, 2021, involving a 19-year-old South African private university student in Ipoh who arrived from South Africa through Singapore on Nov 19.

Source link

Related stories:

Getting testy upon arrival

CLICK TO ENLARGE 

‘Review requirement for incoming passengers’

Operators unhappy travellers being made to cough up for costly test

 Covid-19 Watch: 12,105 new cases, says Health Ministry

Omicron XE on its way to Malaysia, experts warn - The Straits .


Related posts:


TODAY is April Fool’s Day, traditionally a day where pranksters make jokes at the expense of others. But jokes aside, today, April 1...
 
  A production line of an electronics company in the northern province of Thái Nguyên. Strong export is among main drivers for Vietnam's...
 
  Malaysia to fully reopen borders from April 1 as country transits to COVID-19 endemic phase Free to travel: Under the new rules, visi...
 
 

SAVING FUEL AS PRICES AT PUMPS SOAR

 

Money-saving fuel tips for drivers as petrol and diesel costs rise

The conflict between russia and Ukraine has massively driven up fuel prices in many parts of the world as the cost of oil surges. But there are simple ways to reduce the amount of petrol or diesel you need to get around. — dpa

 

WITH pump prices for petrol and diesel soaring as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, there has never been a better time to learn how to save fuel by driving economically.

The first tip is to make sure the tyres are pumped up to the right pressure. Low tyre pressures increase a vehicle’s rolling resistance and that costs fuel.

The correct pressures are listed in your owner’s manual and they will vary depending on the load you are carrying. With four passengers and luggage on board, you will need the tyres inflated to the maximum recommended pressures.

Removing heavy items from the boot and remembering to take off the roof or rear-mounted bicycle or ski racks will save weight and improve aerodynamic efficiency.

Ultimately, driving too fast is the biggest fuel-guzzling factor so a light right foot is essential. That means thinking ahead.

If your route takes you past a series of traffic lights, you should watch out for red signals well ahead. This allows you to ease back on the accelerator or slow down naturally. In many cases, you can keep moving rather than coming to a complete stop.

The aim is to not lose momentum. Accelerating from a standstill always uses more fuel, along with going up any steep incline. If a hill is not too steep, try to stay in gear rather than change down too early.

Drive as smoothly as possible, using the steering, accelerator and brakes gently. Many cars have a dashboard indicator which shows the best time to change up to a higher gear. This lowers the engine revolutions and saves fuel.

The best advice in built-up areas is to change as swiftly as you can at around 2,000 rpm. Naturally, the faster an engine spins, the more fuel it uses.

When slowing down, it’s important to remain in gear since the fuel cut-off switch in a fuel-injection engine is then activated, which means hardly any fuel is used while braking.

In cars without a stop-start facility, it makes sense to switch off the engine at the traffic lights or in a traffic jam if the pause is likely to last more than 20 seconds. The extra wear on the starter motor and battery is negligible.

It might seem a good idea to switch on the cruise control and let the car take care of maintaining a constant speed, yet this could actually worsen fuel consumption. This is especially the case in hilly terrain where the engine has to constantly change speeds and the transmission hunts for the right gear.

Cruise control will work best when driving on a constant flat surface such as a motorway or long stretch of dual-carriageway where the driver can leave the car in top gear and gently cruise along, using minimal fuel.

Switching on the air conditioning will also worsen fuel economy, since the engine needs power to make the system work.

Try to also combine journeys so that the car engine remains warm. Cold starts are the least fuel-efficient part of any trip and several of them in succession will push up consumption even though the overall mileage may turn out to be the same. – dpa

  • Star2 By MARTIN BENSLEY
In a contrasting move to its pressuring of European allies to not buy Russian oil against the backdrop of the ongoing Ukraine crisis, the US increased crude oil supplies from Russia by 43 percent, or 100,000 barrels per day, over the past week, Russian Security Council Deputy Secretary Mikhail Popov told Russian media on Sunday, with critics pointing out that the US pursues its own interests at the costs of its European allies.

Related posts

Cold War schemer: Reminiscing in its past ‘victory,’ US brings color revolutions to 21st century to maintain its hegemony

Cold War schemer: Reminiscing in its past ‘victory,’ US brings color revolutions to 21st century to maintain its hegemony

 

Editor's Note:

Since the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began, the international community has grown increasingly aware of the roles the US and NATO have played behind the crisis.

From launching color revolutions around the world to leading NATO's eastward expansion to hem in Russia's territorial space; from imposing sanctions on "disobedient countries" to coercing other nations to pick sides… the US has acted like a "Cold War schemer," or a "vampire" who creates "enemies" and makes fortunes from pyres of war. The Global Times is publishing a series of stories and cartoons to unveil how the US, in its superpower status, has been creating trouble in the world one crisis after another.

This is the fourth installment.

Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFPSupporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP -Anti-government protestors wait at the entrance of a barricade in front of the Dynamo Kiev stadium in Ukraine on February 23, 2014. Photo: AFP

On the evening of December 25, 1991, the hammer and sickle flag representing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was slowly lowered over the Kremlin, and the flag of the Russian Federation in white, blue, and red was raised on the same flagpole.

The change of flags signified the official disintegration of the Soviet Union, which had existed for 74 years, as well as the end of the 44-year Cold War.

There were no ceremonies held in Moscow that night, just the dull tolls of bells from Spasskaya Tower from across the Kremlin. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific, Americans proclaimed internationally how they had defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War victory.

It has been 31 years since this period in history, and several major changes have taken place in the world order and international patterns. However, these have not dispelled the arrogance of the US enraptured in the title "winner of the Cold War" and its overconfidence in the "maker of history" conclusion.

Standing at the start of the third decade of the 21st century, people can witness how American politicians still view every country considered to be a threat through the Cold War lens. They are still keen to incite ideological hostility and battle their own imaginary enemies, which makes the dissipation of the dark Cold War clouds virtually impossible. The shadow of the Cold War has spread from Washington to Beijing and Moscow.

From disintegrating the Soviet Union to designing the "Ukrainian Trap" step by step with the intention of achieving the strategic goals of "eliminating" Russia, suppressing Europe, containing China and maintaining an absolute hegemony, the "strategic master plan" adopted by the US can kill many birds with one stone in order to dominate the world.

The US is still a schemer that harbors a Cold War mentality.

US plays 'central role' in political demise of Soviet Union

"NATO is a defensive alliance that has never sought the demise of Russia," said US President Joe Biden, defending the eastward expansion of NATO in a speech he delivered in Warsaw on March 26, but turning a blind eye to the "not one inch eastward" pledge that NATO had made in the 1990s. Biden's words were not a complete lie, as there's little possibility of trying to eliminate (or, achieve the demise) of a nuclear world power with more than 17 million square kilometers of land and a permanent seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

A physical "demise" of Russia is almost impossible. Nonetheless, the US-led NATO has been attempting to "eliminate" Russia in the past decades in various aspects including politically, economically, culturally, and ideologically, in order to keep dividing and weakening Russia, observers noted. Having acted out a similar script on the Soviet Union, the US is now looking forward to an encore performance on present-day Russia.

"The American role in the political defeat of the Soviet Union... was indeed central," Zbigniew Brzezinski, a renowned US geopolitical expert who served as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, pointed out in his book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. "The defeat of the Soviet Union was the consequence of a forty-year bipartisan effort that spanned the presidencies," he wrote. "...almost every US President made a substantial contribution to the outcome."

A prominent example of this "effort" was the US' Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as the "Star Wars program," which was proposed by then US President Ronald Reagan in March 1983. The US proposed the program to try to maintain its nuclear superiority, hoping to bring the Soviet Union's economy to its knees through space arms races.

The US announced the end of the program after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The release of the secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents in the Cold War era showed that the "Star Wars program" that the US had hyped was no more than a calculated strategic deception.

Another "Cold War tool" resorted by the US was its foreign propaganda machine system, such as the Voice of America (VOA). Founded in 1942, VOA began to serve the US' Cold War strategy after WWII, and became the main tool for the US government's promotion to the Soviet people of, not only the American way of life but also the principles of the "free world."

In the 21st century, the US still wields its ideological "soft knife," playing up its color revolution intrigues under the disguise of "democratic values" to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Tunisia, which only brought about three instances of political turmoil, mass impoverishment and war.

US engrossed in creating purported enemies

The end of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union did not bring about an end to the US' Cold War mindset, which continues to haunt the White House, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and the CIA even today. American politicians view the international situation through a "zero-sum game" and "ideological competition" mindset, and keep seeking out purported enemies - now Russia and China.

It is truly a reflection of the US' geopolitical strategic ambition when former US President Barack Obama said that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors" or when the incumbent, Biden, said Russia is the country that most "threatens [the] security" of the US while China is US' main competitor. There has long been an anti-Russian consensus among America's political elites.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had pinned great hopes for the West. But as former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "We lied, we cheated, we stole… we had entire training courses" and "It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." That encompasses reasons why an ambitious schemer cannot be trusted. 

  

https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac

From 1999 to 2020, NATO increased its membership from 16 to 30 through an eastward expansion, completing the 3,000-kilometer-long strategic encirclement of Russia.

Since 2014, Russia has been slapped with 5,532 sanctions, according to sanctions monitoring database Castellum.ai, followed by Iran, Syria and North Korea. And Moscow has been subjected to 2,778 new sanctions in less than two weeks since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops' advancement into Ukraine.

At the same time, the US has been trying to undermine Putin's domestic authority, paving the way for a potential "color revolution" in Russia.

Who set the 'Ukraine trap'

Analysts point out that the current situation in Ukraine is a trap that the US has spent years digging into and is determined to draw Russia into.

To prevent Russia from becoming a threat to US hegemony again, the US has promoted two "color revolutions" in Ukraine, first by putting the pro-West Viktor Yushchenko in the presidency in 2005 and then forcing pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych out of office in 2014.

At the same time, NATO's continuous eastward expansion further pushed Russia ever closer to the set trap.

Since August 2021, the US government has been speculating about Russian troops along the border with Ukraine and the possibility of an "imminent invasion" of Ukraine, which further provoked Russia.

It is almost certain that not only does the US want to deter Russia, but it also wants Russia to send troops to Ukraine, said Tang Shiping, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, adding that the real purpose of the US' actions was to force Russia to use force against Ukraine.

Supporters of US-backed Ukrainian opposition leader  wave flags during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine on November 28, 2004. Photo: AFP

Supporters of US-backed Ukrainian opposition leader wave flags during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine on November 28, 2004. Photo: AFP

The tactic of weakening Europe's strategic autonomy by putting it in a dangerous situation, a tactic that the US always used during the Cold War, is being played out again in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In this gradual escalation of the situation in Ukraine, the US continues to provide funds and weapons to Ukraine and impose a full range of sanctions on Russia. The sense of crisis created by the US has also strengthened Europe's dependence on the US and NATO, thus greatly enhancing the US' chokehold over Europe, experts noted.

Complex security issues should not be dealt with in a simplistic approach of determining whether "friend or foe" or "black or white," said Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi during a virtual meeting with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell Fontelles on March 29, 2022. "Facts have proven that the outdated Cold War mentality and camp confrontation leads nowhere in Europe, let alone the acts of taking sides and dividing the world," Wang noted.

Dragging the Cold War to the 21st century

"After 1991, the Cold War did not really end, as the US and NATO have not stopped strategically hemming Russia's territorial integrity. In recent years, the US has also regarded China as its main competitor, trying to shape an external environment that is not conducive to China's development through various means," Lü Xiang, a research fellow on US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times.

American politicians not only harbor a "Cold War mentality," but also continue to promote a new "Cold War strategy."

Robert Gates, former secretary of defense, wrote in the Washington Post on March 3 that "A new American strategy must recognize that we face a global struggle of [an] indeterminate duration against two great powers that share authoritarianism at home and hostility to the United States."

The two countries Gates refers to are undoubtedly Russia and China. Containing them and ensuring that no one can shake US' hegemony has become the core of the US' current global strategy.

"NATO members have demonstrated their loyalty to Washington by vowing to follow its orders aimed at ultimately containing Russia," the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on March 24, adding that Washington once again "disciplined" its allies by pressuring sovereign countries and erasing Europe's strategic autonomy.

Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP

Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP

In terms of China, the US government has introduced the "Pivot to Asia" and the "Indo-Pacific strategy," and has united with Japan, India, Australia, and other countries in the region to consolidate small strategic cliques such as "QUAD" and "AUKUS," trying to contain China from multiple directions.

Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, summed up that the competition between the US and China will be all-rounded, involving governments and societies; in-depth competition could lead to a serious weakening or even decoupling of China-US ties in the fields of industrial chain, science and technology, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges; in terms of intensity, competition is extraordinary.

"Since President Joe Biden entered the White House a year ago, he and his top advisers have insisted they are not looking for a return to the superpower competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that dominated global affairs for nearly five decades. Yet one year into his presidency, Biden's actions have indicated otherwise," a commentary published on the US National Interest website stated, adding that in all areas of US foreign policy, the Biden administration has a Cold War-style mentality.

"The Cold War was not a golden era of foreign relations, but instead was a tragedy that cost millions of lives around the world. Washington cannot fall for feel-good nostalgia about its Cold War victory," it stated

Source link.

RELATED ARTICLES
 

 

Related posts:

 

  The Ukrainian side has seen China’s neutral position on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine   The US’ attitude will be the biggest obs...

 

    China EU Photo:VCG China-EU leaders' meetings send positive signal towards world peace, development: Vice FM     Chinese President ...
 

That sinking feeling from Down Under: Australia, United Kingdom and United States (Aukus) pact

AUKUS plans to provide nuclear submarines to Australia seriously endangers nuclear non-proliferation

AUKUS plans to provide nuclear submarines to Australia seriously endangers nuclear non-proliferation

 

Beyond the submarine feud, contains China's rise 

 

'We lied, we cheated, we stole', ‘the Glory of American experiment’ by US Secretary of State/Ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo

 
 

 


 

SAVING FUE AS PRICES AT PUMPS SOAR

facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
email sharing button
sharethis sharing button
linkedin sharing button
pinterest sharing button
weibo sharing button
 Money-saving fuel tips for drivers as petrol and diesel costs rise

Tuesday 5 April 2022

Multilingualism a must, an asset to be a multilinguist

.

  .



 Ability to speak many languages a great advantage, academics say

A GOOD command of languages opens doors for fresh graduates entering the workforce.

Faced with the challenges of globalisation, and a competitive job market, multilingualism is a crucial communication skill to have, according to academics.

Being multilingual provides a greater advantage for employability, especially in a borderless world, linguistics expert Prema Ponnudurai, who oversees Taylor’s University Centre for Languages, said.

Last year, a report by the European Commission revealed that employees who speak another language are generally paid better than their monolingual counterparts.

And in 2019, up to 35% of people responsible for hiring or managing people told Forbes that an employee’s proficiency in another language resulted in extended job offers, job interview prospects, promotion recommendations and pay raises.

The article, referencing “The Wage Premium From Foreign Language Skills” survey, highlighted how speaking a second language can add 11% and 35% to one’s salary, depending on the language and the country employees are based in.

Dr Teh: Multilingualism gives job seekers an advantage.

Dr Teh: Multilingualism gives job seekers an advantage.

National Association of Private Educational Institutions (Napei) secretary-general Dr Teh Choon Jin said proficiency in multiple languages is an invaluable communication skill which allows students to expand their networks easily when they enter the workforce.

“There is an element of familiarity when a person connects with another in a common language.

“Living in a multicultural country like Malaysia with various languages and dialects, one can easily switch from one language to another seamlessly.

“As international students from diverse backgrounds and countries flock to Malaysian universities, the integration and cultural exchange through engagement where language plays a part will enrich the learning experiences for both Malaysian and international students.

“There are also studies that show how being multilingual can improve a person’s cognitive ability through their sensory processes.

“Being multilingual is an underrated but hugely critical skill to have today more than ever,” explained Teh, who is also Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU) senior director and registrar.

Knowledge transfer

But setting oneself apart from other jobseekers to secure employment isn’t the only advantage multilingualism holds.Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi of UCSI University said language opens up an avenue of understanding different cultures, values and belief systems.

Prof Mohd Tajuddin, who is from the varsity’s Tan Sri Omar Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Studies, said language isn’t only a means of ordering food or asking for directions.

“Understanding another language not only opens the door to information, but also to spiritual, cultural and political understanding, which is essential.

Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin: Language promotes understanding between different communities.

Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin: Language promotes understanding between different communities.

“The aspect of communication also involves appreciating and dignifying ‘the other’ and if we cannot learn this, then we are in conflict with our society.“This could lead to people sticking to their own groups, be it culturally or religiously, and this is not good,” he shared.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of Malay World and Civilisation (ATMA) director Prof Datuk Seri Dr Awang Sariyan said in addition to expanding career opportunities, the ability to speak more than one language allows for the transfer of knowledge between countries, fosters better understanding among citizens globally, and promotes unity, tolerance and the sharing of universal human achievements.

No nation, he said, should ignore the development of knowledge, science and technology in a barrier-free world.

This is vital, said Prof Awang, if the country wants to be competitive internationally.

“Language is the main vehicle in the context of countries benefiting from the development of knowledge, science and technology.

 CLICK TO ENLARGE

CLICK TO ENLARGECLICK TO ENLARGE

“There should not be a ‘clash of civilisation’. Instead there must be cooperation, sharing of knowledge, tolerance and respect among citizens,” he noted.

ATMA has been appointed by the Higher Education Ministry as the secretariat to start the strategic cooperation between HEIs in Malaysia and selected Asean countries to develop important aspects of Malay civilisation at the international level.

This is part of Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Dr Noraini Ahmad’s recommendation to the government to set up a Bahasa Malaysia (BM) language development steering committee for HEIs, in line with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s call for government officials to speak BM at conferences.

Ismail Sabri said there are more than 300 million people in South-East Asia speaking the language, and that it is the seventh most widely used language in the world.

“It is my ambition to make BM the second official language of Asean,” he said during his winding-up speech at the Umno general assembly on March 19.

Promote proficiency

Teh noted that proficiency in any language will only be enhanced through regular practice.

“There should be activities that are designed to promote the use of various languages, for example, social interaction using a specific language on certain days or during special events,” he said, citing initiatives such as local and international students communicating in BM when visiting an Orang Asli village, a debate or storytelling session in certain languages, and a national language month, as examples.

Activities and events geared towards promoting the usage of languages would enhance engagement and social integration while allowing students to practise their conversational skills, he offered.

Prema suggested that the design and development of the languages curriculum in HEIs be reviewed.

Prominent global languages for business and commerce, diplomacy, cyberspace, hospitality and the sciences, she said, should be structured as core subjects in the related disciplines.

“With this added importance to languages at the higher education level, we will be able to create proficient multilingual graduates.

Prema: Set up a multilingual steering committee in HEIs.

Prema: Set up a multilingual steering committee in HEIs.

“University-industry partnerships with international language organisations are crucial in exposing students to the real world and in improving their language proficiency in an immersive environment.

“Joint accreditations for these subjects by such organisations will be an added value and provide due recognition,” she explained.

This level of exposure and qualifications will give students the opportunity to apply their language skills in a professional context and to understand the importance of being multilingual, she said, while calling on the Education Ministry to train more language teachers for schools.

Language acquisition, she said, occurs more easily at a younger age.

While students currently have the option of studying languages like Tamil and Mandarin at primary and secondary levels, the lack of trained teachers means that there is a disparity of learning opportunities between rural and urban schools, she noted.

“We should train more teachers in other languages if we are to promote a robust multilingual talent pool.”

Teens: Learn more languages

 

“I am one of the few Malaysians who are monolingual. It is incredibly uncommon in a country that is as culturally diverse as ours, and it has come with many challenges. In the private school where I studied, Bahasa Malaysia (BM) was not prioritised as our syllabus was in English. Because of this, I was not aware of just how critically I needed to know the language. It was only after I graduated at the age of 16 and moved on into the ‘real world’ that I realised not knowing any other language besides English could pose many challenges. Today, I still can’t go to the government sector or local-based businesses on my own because I cannot convey what I want. I am learning new phrases every day in hopes that I will improve my fluency in BM.”

Keerat Kaur Wathan, 18


“Hello, Selamat Pagi, Ni Hao, I speak three languages: English, BM and Mandarin. I have also been trying to learn the Cantonese and Hokkien dialects from my grandparents. Although I still have much to learn in all these languages, being multilingual has helped me tremendously within and beyond Malaysia. For instance, since I can draw words from a few languages, I can convey my thoughts and feelings with more precision. In addition, learning how to quickly translate between languages has definitely improved my cognitive skills. Learning the grammar, vocabulary and structure of one language can better prepare you to learn another like how Mandarin has been crucial to me learning the dialects. Furthermore, as I am studying overseas, I stay in a dormitory with international students. When possible, I try to converse with my peers in their native languages to make communication more comfortable for them. Thus, I am extremely grateful to have learnt these languages. If you are looking to learn new languages, I hope you will believe in your abilities and eventually reap the rewards.”

Amelia Lim, 18

 

“I speak both BM and English, and am learning to speak Spanish. Though I am nowhere near being fluent in Spanish, I am proud to say I can speak fluently in the other two languages. There is no denying that being able to speak more than one language has its benefits. For instance, being bilingual has definitely helped me in my studies. I am able to multitask and solve problems more efficiently because I am able to switch between the languages. Furthermore, it can increase our knowledge of other cultures. We can easily make friends with people in different countries and understand their cultures. Travelling will be much more fun and exciting as well because we will be able to communicate with the locals. In conclusion, everyone should make it a priority to learn at least two languages. Learning a new language may seem daunting, but it will help you in the long run. I hope one day I can achieve my dream of visiting Spain and speaking Spanish fluently.”

Syaza Ahmad Munawir, 18 - All students featured here are participants of the BRATs Young Journalist Programme run by The Star’s Newspaper-inEducation (StarNiE) team. To join Star-NiE’s online youth community, go to acebook.com/niebrats..

 Source link

‘An asset to be a multilinguist’ 

 Experts: Ability to speak multiple languages important in borderlines world

 'Multilingualism makes our graduates global citizens...'  -Dr. Teh Choon Jin

PETALING JAYA: Employers and academicians back the government’s plan to promote Bahasa Malaysia (BM) while also extolling the advantages of being multilingual – particularly among young talents.The ability to speak different languages, they say, is all the more valuable in a borderless world.

Prema Ponnudurai, Linguistics expert from Taylor’s University’s Centre for Languages, suggested that a multilingual steering committee in Malaysian higher education institutions (HEIs) be set up.

Such a committee could serve to identify language trends and evaluate language-based issues which take into account national as well as global demands, said Prema, who is also the varsity’s Liberal Arts and Humanities department head.

“This will ensure that our graduates start on the right footing when they venture into the real world,” she said, adding that having the proficiency to communicate effectively in more languages creates greater options for students as such skills are beneficial to employers.

National Association of Private Educational Institutions secretary-general Dr Teh Choon Jin said being multilingual gives job seekers an advantage over their peers as bosses see this as an asset.

“In this era of globalisation, Malaysian graduates who are multilingual are able to work in different parts of the world so this skill is a plus point in advancing their career.

“It makes our graduates global citizens who can work and live wherever they go,” he said.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of Malay World and Civilisation director Prof Datuk Seri Dr Awang Sariyan agreed, adding that multilingualism offers better employment opportunities.

He said efforts in uplifting the status and role of the national language does not deny the importance of mastering other languages.

Prof Awang added that the government could work on both areas simultaneously, as multilingualism is pertinent in facing globalisation while BM is significant for national identity and unity.

“Multilingualism allows nations to develop knowledge, especially in science and technology, which is vital for us to be globally competitive.“Therefore, the government must have a two-pronged strategy in implementing the national language policy while promoting multilingualism.

“This is the model used by countries like Germany, Netherlands, France, China, Japan and South Korea in their language and education planning,” he said, adding that the government must ensure that the existing policy to encourage the learning of a third language in schools is implemented nationwide.

On March 7, Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Dr Noraini Ahmad recommended the government to establish a BM development steering committee for HEIs.

She said her ministry has identified 19 universities in Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines that have the potential to hold collaborative programmes with local universities.

The move came following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s call for BM to be used at official government functions abroad when English is not the host country’s national language.

Malaysian Employers Federation president Datuk Syed Hussain Syed Husman said Ismail Sabri is also encouraging the private sector to use BM in its official communications, but in today’s global society, business is increasingly being conducted across borders with English often used as an international language of communication.

The ability to communicate in English, said Syed Hussain, is a huge asset to many companies including those that do not use English as an official language.

“We should be encouraging Malaysians to be multilingual and speak at least three to four languages. We sometimes lose the essence of what is said when we rely on interpreters,” he said. 

 Source link