Report: 6-party talk may resume in February(AP)Updated: 2006-01-21 15:09
Six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions could resume as early as February, Japan's Kyodo News agency reported Saturday, citing a U.S. State Department official in Washington. However, both the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Foreign Ministry said they could not confirm the report. China proposed the February date after Washington's top envoy to the talks met with his North Korean counterpart in Beijing last week, Kyodo quoted the U.S. official as saying on condition of anonymity. "I think that there was a suggestion. The Chinese had talked about early February," the official said, according to Kyodo's Washington bureau. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, said she had no information about the report. An official reached by phone at the Chinese Foreign Ministry said he had to check with other departments before commenting on the report. Pressure has been mounting on North Korea to return to the talks, which have been stalled since November. Pyongyang has refused to return to the negotiations unless Washington ends financial sanctions imposed over the North's alleged illegal activities. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan in Beijing on Wednesday, in an apparent effort to relaunch the talks. The meeting also came one day after the North's leader, Kim Jong Il, wrapped up a weeklong trip to China. In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters he was not aware of an agreement between parties to resume in February, but said the U.S. was ready to restart as soon as possible. "Well, if the date is in early February, we'll be ready and we'll be there," he said at a regular media briefing. "We would encourage, in particular, North Korea to resume the discussions without precondition," he said. The participants in the talks are the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

A leader who have just celebrated his birthday yesterday, a governmenet who rely on nothing but propaganda to push through its aims, a stubborn foreign minister who is incompetent at the 6 nation talk, a foregin regime trying to stop it from unleashing its "nuclear weapons" and a country full of starving people who would rather find their 3 meals rather than be filled with music proclaiming the country's goodness and a nation run by communism.

That's North Korea.

Is it the fault of Kim Jong II or the world at large? We have an incompetent, disiullusioned leader who wish to unify North and South Korea on one hand, and an equally inept foregin regime who after years of negotiation still not able to resolve a single issue with regards to North Korea. At the end of the day, who suffers? The deprived and starving citizens of North Korea.

Let's talk about Kim Jong II. His ideology of unifying the two Koreas into one failing terribly yet he is unwavering in his belief. Withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 caused another big hoo haa in the world with the US accusing it of creating nuclear bombs. His people are starving and dying, all he does is to inject more songs at train station into the deprived minds of his citizens. Being a leader, does it mean we continue in what we believe in even though our people tells us otherwise? I believe that a leader, however hard it may be, must back down, eat the humble pie when the people he is serving are constantly giving him hints that he is wrong. On a seperate matter, what is he thinking when he set up the Uranium programme when the country is poor and pleading. He would rather spend millions to create nuclear bombs for "self defence" rather than getting his people their 3 meals a day.

Talk about being a great leader and comrade.

What about the world at large then? After years of negotiation, from one-to-one talks to 6 party talks, nothing have been solved at all. The question at large therefore is : Are the world leaders incompetent or diplomacy cannot solve problems? Indeed, years of compromise with North Korea has yielded little results and stained the names of the different countries involved for not being able to resolve a thorn on the world map. Again, I would like to talk about the leaders again. George W.Bush, since his assumption of the office, have stricten restrictions on North Korea and even put in place sanctions. What is have done to North Koreans is essentially make them detest America more, no yielding of stance was seen. However, this does not stop Mr Bush from carrying on with his iron first approach. Again, drawing parallels to Kim Jong II, this is another leader who does not yield even though his method has been met with resistance and rejection, both from the world and from the victim. Is it really that hard, for a great leader, to sometimes eat the humble pie, admit his mistake and move on with life? By pushing North Korea to its end, what will happen will be that one day, North Korea will retaliate. Is that the world that we want? One filled be catastrophe and chaos everyday.

Talk about the righteous vs the bad.

The recent issue on organ sale brought about by Nuerologist Dr. Lee Wai Ling most certainly sparked off a fruitful discussion and was indeed an eye opener for many. For one, we know of another prove of Singaporeans being kia su ( scared to lose ) and kia si ( scared to die ). From the Sunday Times article dated 4th February by Ms Melissa Low and Mr Vincent Leow in which they conducted a survey on whether Singaporeans would like to buy/sell organs if it was legalised. From the response, it was clear that Singaporeans would only want to buy and not sell organs. Indeed, we are telling the world what a fine country we are.

However, for my own personal view, there are more reasons for Singapore not allowing the sale of organs to be legalised apart from things like health reasons and ethical issues as brought up by the Ministry of Health. I feel that another reasons based on my own view is that because of the many countries who have not legalised it, noting countries like United States and China. Singapore, on record, has not objected or choose to differ from the United States in every UN convention that the two countries took part in. It is therefore understandable that Singapore does not want to legalise the sale due to the fear of antagonism of other countries.

Furtheremore, this further brings out the maturity of our society at large. Singapore is still a traditional and conservative country trying its very best to adjust to the culture of western countries. As such, it is also understandable why we would not permit the sale of human organs. In the status quo, many luxuries can already be bought using money. My opinion is that if we do legalise the sale of human organs, we will be putting a price tag on our organs. How can we then say that our body is sacred and that everyone's equal when there are different prices for each of our organs?

At the end of the day, however, I strongly feel for the government. Seeing it from their point of view, it is really hard to balance the need of safety precautions and saving more lives versus antangonism and level of acceptance of the society. In this aspect, my sympathy goes out to the government and I still feel that they made the right the decision by putting safety and ethics at the forefront of their priorities.

Pub Date: 19/01/2007 Pub: ST Page: 26Day: FridayEdition: FIRSTHeadline: Legalising organ sale the lesser of two evilsBy: SALMA KHALIKPage Heading: REVIEWSubject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^HEALTH^MEDICAL TREATMENTS/PROCEDURES^ORGAN/TISSUE TRANSPLANT POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^HEALTH^MEDICAL ETHICSSource: SPH
BY SALMA KHALIKHEALTH CORRESPONDENTWHEN the subject of organ sale came up some years ago, I was aghast that such asuggestion could even be made. Now, I’m not so sure.Having met patients who have died for lack of a donor organ, having seen howblack markets have emerged to meet this need, I now think there may be a strongcase to be made to legalise the sale of human organs.Let’s look at the arguments against the sale of organs:It degrades the value of human life, to treat the body as you would any otherobject.It exploits the poor, who will be the only sellers.No surgery is free of risk.It is morally wrong.What about arguments for the sale of organs?First, let me say that I support the sale only of kidneys from live donors.People can continue to lead healthy lives with one kidney, and the risk ofdeath from donating a kidney is less than one in 1,000.Selling the heart is obviously out; liver transplant carries a 1 to 3 per centrisk of death, which is too high; and to ask someone to give up an eye isridiculous.But there are now about 3,000 people with kidney failure in Singapore. At leasta third would have better and longer lives – and at a much cheaper cost – witha transplant.Basically, dialysis doesn’t stop the ravages to the body from a non-functioningkidney. So people on dialysis live shorter lives.Even with the expanded Human Organ Transplant Act which allows organs to betaken from brain-dead people, and not just those who died in an accident, thewaiting list continues to grow every year.Is it an acceptable option to obtain kidneys for transplant through commercialdeals with people who need the money?An editorial in the British Medical Journal in 2002, entitled “An ethicallydefensible market in organs”, suggested a monopsony, with the state as the solepurchaser.This would prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich, it argued.The state should ensure that sellers know the risk, are healthy, are givenfollow-up treatment if necessary, and as far as is possible, ensure that thereis no coercion.The state then allocates the kidneys to patients on a need basis, not just tothe rich who can afford to pay.Does it degrade the value of human life? Perhaps. But so does prostitution. Yetthere is no outcry against prostitution, which goes on in many developedcountries.The sale of a woman’s body in prostitution is to gratify. The sale of a kidneyis to save a life. A prostitute risks getting sexually transmitted diseases,including the deadly Aids.Are the poor being exploited if organ sale is allowed?Perhaps. But life is not fair. The poor, by definition, are getting a rawerdeal. If a poor person feels that the money he gets from the sale of a kidneycould make a difference in his life, and that of his family, who are we to denyhim that chance?We should not encourage him to sell his kidney. But the final decision is histo make.Professor Alastair Campbell of the biomedical ethics committee at the NationalUniversity of Singapore is right to say that no matter how hard we try, wecannot expect a perfectly ethical market to exist.Would people sell a kidney to buy a Gucci bag? Not if there were propercounselling. Would some loan shark suggest repayment of a loan through the saleof a kidney? Hopefully not.But take the analogy of cars. Every year, people die from road accidents.Should cars be banned?It is all a matter of weighing the risks against the benefits. And putting inas many safeguards as we can to protect sellers from being exploited.A final argument: Organ trading already exists.Over the past 20 years, more than 600 Singaporeans have gone abroad, mainly toChina or India, for organ transplants. They very obviously paid for the organ.Singaporeans are not the only people buying organs from poorer countries. TheAmericans do it, the Europeans do it, the Israelis do it – lots of people doit.The fact that it goes on doesn’t make it right.But if it cannot be stopped, then it may be better to legalise it, to protectboth buyer and seller. It would be the lesser of two evils.