Partitioning

Partitioning involves moving populations, dividing and conquering human beings.

The governments of the USA, Canada and Australia historically moved indigenous peoples into reservations, in a version of containing and corralling groups, minimising their cultures and not allowing them to fully participate in the fabric of the nation.

This involved not only physical partitioning, but emotional, social and economic alienation.

During World War 2, Americans of Japanese and German ancestry were interned in specially set up camps, after they were forcibly removed from their homes.

The human pysche of nations can go to extremes in times of war, religious divide or when there is competition for resources.

Partitioning was both a strategy and solution deployed when decolonisation swept the world in the mid 20th century. The worst consequences of such political and socio- religious partitioning was experienced in south Asia in 1947, when the Mountbatten Plan gave rise to the modern nations of India and Pakistan - a million people, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims, died in the ensuing mass migration between the two newly formed states, due to man made hunger, inter religious fighting and social violence.

The colonial British deployment of divide and rule to manage diverse ethnic groups
within their colonies also arose in Malaya, which lay the seeds for continuing racial discrimination even today in a nation that is overly conscious and emphatic of racial and religious differences. The Afrikaners imposed apartheid in South Africa, which officially ended late last century, but still casts a shadow on inter ethnic relations in today's Rainbow Nation.

In both the Malaysian Federation and the Republic of South Africa, partitioning of hearts and minds to the exclusion of more significant things has not been optimal or beneficial for both societies.

Ireland saw the partitioning of their island due to religious and political factors intervening from London. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the USA saw the unnatural partitioning of Germany, which recovered and reunited after the fall of Communism in Europe.  

Europe has seen a chequered history of changing boundaries and territorial partitions, think of Yugoslavia before 1990 and new nations arising after 1990 - but Italy was federated on the late 19th century and the EU was created in the late 20th century.

The most intense and yet unresolved conflict resulted from the creation of Israel in 1948 from a partitioned Palestine. The heady mix of entrenched cultures, beliefs and geopolitical interests add to a cauldron of shifting military balances, outside interference and historical alliances and enmity.

Russia remains unpartitioned. Yet Koreans remain separated geographically and politically between North and South. Vietnamese reunited as one nation after the French and American Wars. Thailand was never partitioned and colonised.

Partitioning can mean being reunited, but at what cost?

Social Media Messages and News - Stop First to Think

It is usually in our human nature to share experiences, knowledge, news and information.

One may expect human beings to gather around physically and face each other to do so, but this is no longer necessary.

They come in various forms in our contemporary world. We need not even speak to each other, but transmit almost instantaneously what we share in graphics, videos, pictures, text and more. Such startlingly efficient sharing communication is enabled by code, artificial intelligence, analytical cookies, wi-fi, gateways and monitored channels.

We do so with rising expectations of the quick and easy. The convenience can come with a cost.

We learn to lower our trust levels when messages in whatever format can be tampered with an intent to manipulate.

Racial, religious and political matters are especially vulnerable to be disseminated with an intent to arouse our deep set emotions, stir our beliefs and shake our convictions.

Hence the rise of the risks in whether things shared are authentic.

What are the signals that alert us to a higher possibility of receiving mischevious, false, compromised and tampered messages?

1. Messages featuring provocative negativity or over rated hope on an uneven emphasis.

2. Messages with no ownership and attachments with no trace of a time stamp.

3. Messages with sensational graphics and tone of voice over.

4. Messages with images that cannot be authenticated and so can be put out of context.

5. Messages from unknown and highly dubious websites.

6. Messages that test your inner instinct of being too good to be true, or make you want to authenticate further.

7. Messages from parties known to slip through fake news to you.

8. Messages sent instantaneously to groups of recipients can signal higher risks.

9. Messages from unknown or untraceable parties and yet claims to originate from famous persons.

10. Messages that intensify matters when every one should step back and calm down.

Each of us can just respect and utilise our own level of intelligence to avoid being sucked into furthering the progress of social media messages that cause problems if shared.

Step back from a message received if the first gut feel is bad on a suspicious message.

Always question the agenda of the party who shared the stirring message to you.

You can be the only person to break the chain of such suspicious messages. In the end, it is best not to respond.

Haphazard and Hopeless in Haymarket

Rough edges, sudden bumps, grey blotches.
Unfriendly fences, bored workers, negative vibes.
Paths keep changing, dust in the air and no one cares.
There is a warzone for quiet battles, long delays in completion and accumulating hidden costs.

The character of a once vibrant place has been degraded.
Its denizens wander like zombies, the throbbing soul of the earth beneath scarred.
The promise, the beauty and the delivery as seemingly hopeless now as snow on Sydney streets.

"Haphazard and Hopeless in Haymarket"
Laying new tram tracks, Sydney 2017-2019

When You Next Eat Out

It is lovely when a food outlet has a staff member asking you how the meal went. This has been the practice in many mainstream establishments in the greater Sydney basin, but to observe it being carried out in a Chinese Malaysian culinary outlet recently was most welcome. 

On the other end of the spectrum is the increasing tendency of Chinese restaurants, whether for dinner or yum cha, to ask for tips when a customer pays the bill at the counter. The staff member unabashedly asks the customer in the face. We are not the USA. Customers are willing to pay tips but not when pressured. Tips given are a voluntary token of appreciation for good service, not to burden customers who already pay a higher average cost for dining or lunching in Australia.

Are the tips collected shared amongst all staff members working that day or evening, or are they scooped up by the boss owner?

And then there are now tips asked for in Uber services - are these for the driver with still a percentage cut for the company?

The restaurant trade is not easy to run and there are heavy rental and high labour costs in a market as small as Australia's. Food outlets do provide much appreciated employment and income for youngsters and young adults who are forced to work on a casual and part time basos, to pay for costs of living and study.

Many of the kitchen and wait staff who labour to provide us a satisfactory dining experience are said to not even receive the official minimum pay per hour, not to think of superannuation. 

The bane of many eating and food businesses are high costs of franchise, venue rental, renovation requirements in shopping centres and the seasonal nature of revenue spikes. Although some capital cities have become more vibrant at night, the absence of night shopping (except for one or two evenings a week) does not encourage regular daily dining revenues. 

The operational costs of cafes are set off by getting volume in coffee and quick breakfasts in early mornings. Very few cafes are open after sunset, except in family run businesses in immigrant suburbs.

So called fine dining places do charge more than a quid for creative and unusual dishes, a remarkable setting and with excellenr wait service ( with more than the question of how your meal went). Corporate and government credit cards do go to pay for such establishments, with the ultimate costs borne by business customers, taxpayers and a rising cost of living for all.

#yongkevthoughts

Wi-Fi Rules the World

How do you envisage an experience of a Wi-fi supply breakdown?

These seemingly invisible facilitators, as opposed to a more tangible scenario of water not coming out of taps or electricity cut off after a destructive storm, can provide frustration in every stage of a daily routine........especially if we have taken it for granted.

In a contemporary world where there are expectations of faster downloads, more dependencies on the internet of things and an overwhelming linkage of private lives to Wi-fi, it can be a truly felt personal shock when the Wi-fi supply is hijacked, not available or sold to you at monopolistic prices.

We have been gradually, relentlessly and unashamedly been nurtured to depend on Wi-fi as part of our lifestyle and aspirations.

Alarms, weather forecasts, home security, private viewing entertainment, operation of white goods like fridges and printers, information searches, education delivery, investment algorithms, news dissemination, communication channels and travel means rely on the workability of Wi-fi.

Ditto to cyberspace gaming, gambling, banking, transport enablers, on line purchasing and selling, military applications, medical transactions and access to public, private and commercial data.

Artificial intelligence, driverless mechanisms, robotic procedures and automated control processes only work if you have Wi-fi. Compare to the huge reliance on petroleum to operate motor vehicles. Is Wi-fi the new and more dangerous dependency?

Instant and flexible accessibility to what you need can be an over powering rationale for individual users to salute the benefits of Wi-fi. The most significant disadvantage on the other hand is the risks of power concentrated in the hands of Wi-fi suppliers.

An old adage is to never put all your eggs on one basket. Do you put all your hard earned monies in just one type of imvestment? No. Do you ensure your good health by just digesting one super pill? No. Do you utilise only one form of gym exercise to buff up your body? No.

Then why do we let our daily lives increasingly be controlled by Wi-fi? It is obvious there are immediate negative pyschologicall reactions when Wi-fi is cut off or becomes a controlled item.

Humans progressively make it easier to do things, that is the common thread of civilisation. However, there are hidden costs with each new invention, if not managed optimally. For example, social media makes it seem a breeze to be in contact with a network of people, even if you do not really talk with them. Social media makes it so efficient to share the bad and the ugly together with the good and encouraging.

The key is to find an optimal use and reliance on new tools and inventions. Machines and cars increased the quality of our lives, but we do not use or rely on them all the time. The dangers of Wi-fi are the easier addiction and relentless usage encouragers not seen before with use of other previous inventions. The pervasiveness of Wi-fi clearly means many seemingly simple processes do not work without Wi-fi.

Be honest with yourself. What makes you more upset and feeling disempowered, if you have a cut off of clean water, or fuel, or electricity or Wi-fi? Is your business not operable when there is no Wi-fi? Would you vote out a government which provides sub standard Wi-fi delivery? Would you pay more to be part of a select group of users having access to the most quick download and upload speeds? Would you pay a ransom if your Wi-fi was withheld by crimimals and political enemies?