​ 
The issue of government applying surveillance technology on its citizens is a controversial one, even in the name of national and/or society security. Surveillance is often touted to be effective with minimum impact on privacy and individual liberty, thus it can be justified. In recent years, the technology breakthrough on voice and facial recognition, biomedical identification methods and integration of data across multiple systems collected over different social conditions, for example, from transportation (land, sea and air), geography (cities and nations)and social events (shopping, sports and gathering) have  created big data useful for solving crimes and maintaining security. However, the forces that protest against surveillance are generally based on more than invasion of privacy and violation of human rights and personal liberty, particularly political rights.
 
Ever since Edward Snowden blew a whistle on NSA in 2013, the government surveillance issue has become a public concern, between nations and among citizens in the U.S. The U.S. Congress has allowed the government to access commercial customer data on a need basis which means the government can have access to private data collected by IT, telecommunication or social media corporations in the name of national security. Today the general public is basically resigned to the idea that if one was not a criminal or not plotting anything evil against the government or the public would have no fear of government’s access of your private data. Therefore, this sentiment is generally prevalent about government surveillance; most ordinary citizens should have no fear. In fact, the surveillance technology has grown to be a significant industry today with public surveillance systems mushroomed in public schools, towns and institutions. This happened along with several school and public shooting incidences occurred.
 
Video camera is still the most prevailing surveillance device in the world. According to a report by the Business Insider and Comparitech, the city having the most public cameras is Chongqing City in China, 165 cameras per 1000 people (note: Chongqing is a complex mountain city with over 30.5 million people and a complex multi-level highway system). Second place is Shenzhen, 159 cameras per 1000 for 12.5 million people, 6th place London, 68.4 per 1000 for 9 million people, 10th place Atlanta, 16 per 1000 for less than 0.5 million people, 9th place Beijing, 39.5 per 1000 for 20 million people, 11th place Singapore, 15 per 1000 for 5.6 million people, 13th Chicago, 13 per 1000 for 2.7 million people and 14th Urumqi, 12.4 per 1000 for 3.5 million people. From the above data, one can draw the following conclusions: 1. Per-capita public camera usage has a big jump when population exceeds 7 or 8 million. 2. Beijing as a capital of 20 million ranked much lower in camera surveillance compared to other big cities such as Chongqing, Shenzhen, Shanghai and London. 3. Urumqi, a predominant Muslim population is less under surveillance than Atlanta or Singapore, which dispels the Western media’s portrayal of Urumqi being a highly suppressed city in China.
 
The effect of surveillance has a pro and con interpretation. The anti-authoritarianism is battling the authoritarianism in the interpretation in that the former claims that the latter around the globe are accelerating their efforts to institutionalize cultures of surveillance and control. However, the positive effect is clearly seen in surveillance such that the more surveillance efforts do improve more safety and security all over the world, as people, domestic and foreign, living in Shenzhen, Shanghai and many big cities in China and in the U.S. have testified in interviews by media. The nay-sayer often cites civil right and political right violations but with few concrete evidence and proof. Another corollary data, although not specifically quantified, is the increasing number of private surveillance devices used by citizens; it is clear that the higher crime cities in the U.S. do use far more surveillance cameras, burglar alarms and motion and thermo-sensors in their private residences than anywhere else. Therefore it is comical that the U.S. would use surveillance to mock China as an authoritarian police state while one actually does not see more police force in Chinese cities than in US cities. For example, the recent Hong Kong violence clearly demonstrated that the Hong Kong police was far too mellow in dealing with violent protestors compared to that in the U.S., U.K. or France. The Chinese Central Government, in honoring “the one-China-two-systems”, essentially leaves the Hong Kong matter to Hong Kong people to resolve.
 
However, we do hope that the violent acts in Hong Kong were recorded in cameras so that the criminals who had burned and damaged properties would be put to justice. In fact, the research division of the CIA wants AI enhanced facial recognition technology that can identify people from hundreds of yards away, using integrated data of multiple types of identifiers, such as voices, faces, movement patterns, height and gender as well as using cameras on distant rooftops or even on drones to enhance the government’s ability to monitor enemies and potential criminals. According to a report on the Internet, China’s All Seeing Eye, by Naomi Klein, 5/29/2008, China was developing a face recognition software using a software development kit licensed from a US defense contractor. Now China has developed the most advanced facial recognition technology. The West is accusing China for using the surveillance technology to control her people but China claims that she is using it to assure State security and maintain law and order. Putting this kind of government or official rhetoric aside, what the people feel is not too different in the U.S. and China, that is, if you were not a criminal or not plotting against the government, you would have nothing to fear from the State surveillance. This is the sentiment of the majority of people in either China or the U.S.
 
With the overall advances in technology, Internet (5G), computer, and sensing and data capturing devices, it is now more possible to expand and integrate the previously separate recognition and identification systems involving biometrics, ID cards, CCTV, driving records pertaining to vehicles, licenses and toll charges, transportation data involving ticket purchasing and passport, and communication involving phone calls, social media and any communication (email and computer conversations) intercepts to produce a comprehensive integrated and effective surveillance and monitoring system. Such a system permits data-sharing across several system/data boundaries which were less penetrable in the past. This includes all government centralized activities through CIA, FBI or the like and all ‘innocent’ consumer or citizen daily activities; all data are collected in the effort to make the society safe and secure.
 
Therefore, as long as the rampant world terrorism, drug epidemic caused crimes and random violent killings in our streets, schools and cities exist, it compels us to accept government surveillance as a legal protection, in the U.S. or in China, just like we must pay a premium to buy an insurance policy for protection against car accidents, fire hazards, sicknesses or death. 

​ 
The motivation of writing something down in an essay, story or book form can be numerous and varied. One may cite a few as examples: 1. Enjoy writing and exercising creativity and/or imagination, many unpublished stories and essays belong to this category. 2. Keep a record on certain significant matters so one may recall later, diaries and notebooks are this type of writing. 3. Express thoughts on something or to someone privately not appropriate to make it public or not willing to share with the ‘someone’, many poems, love letters and memoirs are written this way. Of course, there are many more reasons for people to write an unpublished paper in various forms, for example, a serious comment on a subject, an emotional farewell speech to the world or even a secret will for settling financial assets after one’s death .....
 
When people write and publish as an author, the initial motivation can be quite different but it converges during the process. The factors cited in the above paragraph may be a part of the initial motivation, but once the writing is destined to be a publication, the real motivation is almost invariably transformed to the following single key factor, that is the desire to have the ‘to be published writing’ read by as many people as possible. While an author is motivated to write and publish for readership, gaining fame, making money, exerting influence or receiving self-satisfaction may be a hidden purpose under such a motivation. However, whatever purpose an author has in mind, his writing inspiration, energy for hard work and attention to publication details are ultimately fueled by the readership that he hopes to get for his publication.
 
Whether you are a regular or occasional reader of Dr. Wordman’s columns, you may wonder what are the author, Dr. Wordman’s motivation and purpose of publishing his columns and his books which are edited together from his columns? Honestly, this is a question I often ask myself before. Now that I have the answer, that is, I have ‘a strong desire to inform my readers about the current events and significant changes happening in this world and I also hope, through my publications, to influence my readers in their understanding of our changing world. This desire gets stronger as I read and recognize more and more that our media contain a tremendous amount of fake news and untrue reports, especially in the area of international relations and world events. This is why I always use the phrase ‘Mainstream and Organic Views’ as sub-title in my columns and books.
 
Then you may ask whom or what kind of readers I desire to reach with my writings? This is an easy question to answer but it is a big desire difficult to fulfill. First, I desire to reach American readers, especially the young and senior citizens who are most vulnerable to mass media’s brain wash through their fake news and untrue reporting. Second, I desire to reach immigrants in the U.S., especially Chinese immigrants in this country. I believe that the U.S.-China Relations have a great impact on American people (including Chinese Americans of course) and their lives and prosperity in America. Third, I also desire to reach all Chinese young people in China and worldwide who can read English. It is my sincere hope that I have many readers who will read my writings and gain a clear understanding of ‘mainstream and organic media views’ regarding the US-China relations and the two countries’ current and historical events, since a friendly relationship of the two great nations is not only important to Americans and Chinese for their mutual benefit but also significant to all world citizens regarding their future prosperity.
 
Currently, there are many issues confronting the U.S.-China relations. First, there is the trade war between the U.S. and China with lots of rhetoric on blames and few honest analyses on how and why China, a socialist country seriously embracing capitalism, and the U.S., a capitalist country struggling to adopt and manage some socialistic programs, all for the benefits of their citizens, cannot understand each other’s economic system and needs to develop and adopt policies to collaborate for mutual benefits. Second, there is a blame game and accusation on each nation’s currency policies but few honest dissertations on how to manage the U.S. federal budget and national debt problem which seriously destroy the credibility of the U.S. dollar and cause concern of China in keeping the value of her hard earned foreign reserve. There seems to be more discussion on disengagement with China than cooperative and constructive dialogues to ease the tension between currencies and strengthen the management of the World Bank’s currency basket to charter a stable evolution of global monetary system.
 
Since the end of WW II the U.S. has contributed significantly to manage world stability but not without having numerous wars and conflicts which drained the U.S. treasury. Is moving into isolationism a solution to the U.S. domestic problems? Is retreating from engagement with fast rising China a right strategy benefitting the U.S.? Is fast development in China sustainable and at what cost? Must exporting American system and way of life be maintained as a U.S. strategy and at what cost? Is the United Nations a dysfunctional organization that the U.S. must exit? Should China be encouraged to contribute more to world peace keeping or viewed as an expansionist exerting her influence worldwide? Should the U.S. spend more on military budget which inevitably would stimulate arms race? Is pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord a good policy for the U.S. without hurting her in the long run? Why are the natural disasters such as storms and quakes occurring more frequently today? Why aren’t we work together to prevent global warming and improve our environments? Why can’t the great powers collaborate and resolve to stop the nuclear threat? Why can’t we put a lid on military spending and mandate nations to devote funds for economic development?
 
The above questions are just a few current issues among many more that are confronting the world. The world certainly could cooperate more in dealing with our clean energy needs, human medical care, environmental protection, peaceful space exploration, etc. etc. The U.S.-China Forum will continue to discuss these issues. I urge the readers of this column to join the Forum in its effort to propagate the right messages to a broader audience regarding current events, international relations and how the world may better understand each other and collaborate to solve our problems. With everyone’s effort, we will have a better world to live in and a brighter future to look forward to!

The Shanghai-La Dialogue was first conceived by the Director-General and Chief Executive Director, Sir John Chipman, of the International Institute of Strategic Security in 2001 to provide a forum for the defense officials and military chiefs to discuss world issues on strategic strategy. The first Summit was held at the Shanghai-La hotel in Singapore in 2002 and followed annually ever since thus known as Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD).  The first meeting was attended by 12 countries and it grew gradually with attendees moving up in official positions, first to vice ministers level then minister level and then included keynote speakers of head of state in addition to that of the host country, Singapore. 

It was in 2007, China first sent a delegation headed by Lieutenant-General Zhang Qinsheng of the People’s Liberation Army with ranking equivalent to vice-minister level. In 2009, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, gave a keynote speech at SLD and opened the precedence of sideline bilateral meetings between defense ministers to conclude agreements. That year in SLD, Australia and Singapore agreed allowing Singapore’s army to use Australia’s military training facilities for another decade. In 2010, the President of the Republic of Korea, Lee Myung-Bak was the invited keynote speaker. In 2011, it is notable that the discussion topics expanded beyond military matters and for the first time focused on the South China Sea (SCS) Issue. The U.S. defense Minister, Robert Gates, reiterated at SLD the commitment of the U.S. to the Asia Pacific (AP) region. As an outgoing defense minister, he raised a bet of $100 with anyone to proclaim that he predicts the influence of the U.S. would be stronger than today in the next five years. Of course $100 is a joke, so insignificant, considering the U.S. strategy in the AP region. Today, the attending countries of SLD grew to 28 nations. The agenda has elevated far beyond talks of military weapon development and sales. In a White Paper issued by China in 2010, it has cited SLD as one of her avenues to participate in regional security cooperation.
This year’s Shangri-La Dialogue was held from May 31-June 2 with 28 country delegates and 16 keynoters, including Singapore Prime Minister Lee and 15 Defense Ministers or Secretary or Representatives, Patrick M. Shanahan (US), Wei Fenghe (China), Jeong Kyeon-Doo (SK), Takeshi Iwaya (Japan), Federica Magherini (EU), Haji Mohamad Sabu (Malaysia), Penny Mordaunt (UK), Florence Parly (France), Hariton Singh Sajjan (Canada), Ngo Xuan Lich (Vietnam), Delfin Lorenzana (Philippine), Linda Reynolds (Australia), Ryanizard Ryacudu (Indonesia), Ron Mark (NZ), and Eng Hen Ng (Singapore). Observing the 18th Shangri-La Dialogue, it is significant to point out that four of the above 16 keynoters are female, hopefully signifying more peaceful cooperation in the future. 

In examining the speeches delivered at the SLD, one does find a change of tone, perhaps a more explicit expression of sentiments on the security issue. First of all, Singapore’s President Lee Xian Long, made an excellent speech tracing from the history to today’s international relations. He emphasized that it was the openness in trade and interaction that had brought prosperity to the region, not just Singapore as a free trade port but also to the entire Asia Pacific. He made observations on the US-China Trade War and implied its ill consequences. He warned to avoid hardened attitudes and pled for peaceful discussion and resolution on the trade issues. He expressed the wishes of not only Singapore, the ASEAN countries, but also the entire Asia that their desire is to pursue continued globalization, respecting multilateralism rather than being pressured to take sides on any conflict between great nations. His implication was clear, although Singapore is an ally of the U.S., he does not wish to see the U.S. and China prolonging their trade conflicts and expanding into other domains. His tone and of others are that competition is unavoidable among nations but it must be maintained as healthy competition.

The speech delivered by Patrick Shanahan, the new Defense Minister of the U.S., was a prepared speech emphasizing the wish of the U.S. to project her presence in Indo-Pacific Ocean. His speech although not naming names was clearly targeting China and calling her allies in the region to side with the U.S. to stop the rise of China however with little legitimate reasons. Shanahan did not modify his speech after hearing President Lee’s keynote speech which contained an obvious purpose to moderate any hostility between the U.S. and China and any conflicts in SCS. China’s Representative, General Wei Feng He, delivered his prepared speech defending China’s peaceful rise policy and her pursuit of globalization and multilateralism. Wei responded to President Lee and Mr. Shanahan’s speeches and inserted his comments which was not shy to hint that the U.S. intrusion under the name of “Freedom of Navigation” in the Indo-Pacific especially the SCS was the cause of instability of security in the region. Wei stressed that China will seriously defend her sovereignty rights and she has rights to strengthen her defense in SCS or elsewhere especially when facing threat.
​
Overall the other speeches were moderate containing a few echoes from official ally’s position stressing the desire to maintain stability and willingness to cooperate in maintaining the regional security. If one had to draw a conclusion, it might be said that there was no clear signal in taking sides or making threats in the speeches other than the U.S. and China exchanging a few barbs. Hopefully, when the delegates at SLD return to their countries that they will convey the genuine tone of the 2019 SLD - it is the region’s wish that the two great nations, the U.S. and China, will soften their hostile attitudes and carry on a healthy competition benefitting the world. It has been said clearly, confrontation between the U.S. and China will lead to instability and no country in the region wishes to see it happen. The Asian countries do not wish nor have the will to form a NATO-like alliance to replicate another Cold War!