Wikileaks.

In my opinion wikileaks is not a reputable source of information. The reason I belive this is that the recent revelations from ‘cables’ are simply just memos between government staff.

These are personal views of people employed by the government to give their perspective, which help form a government’s policy, but do not directly influence or dictate a governments policy. Policy or official views are determined by collating this information and deeming the best policy from the information available.

This means that no one person’s views or comments are responsible for government’s policies, and therefore the publishing of certain confidential cables is misleading and inaccurate.

Those who take this information as gospel and government policy are without doubt naive and misinformed.

Further to that, these confidential cables are secret for a reason, people should understand that a government has to operate with a certain amount of secrecy when it comes to military and diplomatic views, these should not been seen by the public as it does and has create a false view of the actual facts and views that the government believe to be correct.

discuss, flame and correct (if you must)

totster

I agree with everything that you have said here, but the conspiracy theory buffs will not.

The Guardian and the BBC (yes) are shameless in promoting the hype with this - and so is Thaivisa

totster

It is human nature to discuss things more honestly when we feel the conversation won't be made public for everyone. It is NOT dishonesty. It is NOT covering anything up.

Imagine if every discussion with your family was made public in your neighborhood. You wouldn't like that? Does that make you dishonest, covering something up?

Imagine if every discussion in your company were made public? Your competitors might like it but you wouldn't.

Imagine if your ThaiVisa PMs were posted for everyone to see, how would you feel? YOU may not mind, but what about the people on the other end of those PMs? Do they get a choice in the matter?

Wikileaks isn't trying to "blow the whistle" on anything. I might feel different if he released a dozen or so "cables" on one subject but he didn't, they released over 200,000 messages on a wide range of subjects. They are fishing, hoping for something to come out so they can embarrass gov'ts, become famous, get laid without being accused of sexul assault, etc. Whatever Assange's reasons are, they ARE NOT NOBLE. No more than than the reasons governments give for going to war or anything else they do. Countries act in their own self interests and so did Assange.

If something embarrassing comes out if it, does that make the leaks good/right? Well, if someone were to take your private emails from the past 15 years, make them public and they found something "bad" in there, does that make it OK? No, it doesn't. But if you believe it does, then YOU should release EVERYTHING they have for all of their friends, family, colleagues and millions of strangers to see and let them decide.

Maybe now governments will be less likely to be open with each other in "secret" conversations. This will lead to what? More misunderstandings? Which leads to what? Even more bad decisions than we see now around the globe? Does Assange and his supporters think that is a good thing?

Top Singapore officials trash the neighbours

MALAYSIA'S ''dangerous'' decline is fuelled by incompetent politicians, Thailand is dogged by corruption and a ''very erratic'' crown prince, Japan is a ''big fat loser'' and India is ''stupid''.

So say some of Singapore's highest-ranking officials, according to leaked US State Department cables that are likely to spark intense political controversy in the region.

The cables, leaked exclusively to The Sunday Age by WikiLeaks, detail the content of separate meetings between senior US officials and Singapore's foreign affairs chiefs Peter Ho, Bilahari Kausikan and Tommy Koh.

The trio, who at the time of the 2008 and 2009 cables occupied some of the most senior positions in Singapore's Foreign Affairs Ministry, all give US officials damning assessments of Malaysia.

According to one cable detailing a meeting in September 2008, Mr Kausikan told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney that ''the situation in neighbouring Malaysia is confused and dangerous'', fuelled by a ''distinct possibility of racial conflict'' that could see ethnic Chinese ''flee'' Malaysia and ''overwhelm'' Singapore.

''A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia,'' Mr Kausikan said, citing the need for Najib Razak - now Malaysia's Prime Minister - to ''prevail politically in order to avoid prosecution'' in connection with a 2006 murder investigation linked to one of Mr Razak's aides.

''Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case,'' Mr Kausikan said.

Mr Ho's March 2008 assessment of Malaysia, given to another US official, is also unflattering, and includes claims that former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has been ''throwing stones'' at his replacement, Abdullah Badawi.

''The political knives will be out for Abdullah's son-in-law, United Malays National Organisation politician Khairy Jamaluddin, whom nobody likes because he got where he is through family ties,'' the cable records Mr Ho saying. ''As for … Najib Razak, he is an opportunist. Although he has not been critical of Singapore, he will not hesitate to go in that direction if it is expedient for him to do so. Najib's political fortunes continue to be haunted by the … murder scandal.''

In his September 2008 meeting with Mr Sedney, Mr Kausikan savages Thailand's political elite, labelling Thaksin Shinawatra as ''corrupt'' along with ''everyone else, including the opposition''.

Mr Kausikan is also critical of Thaksin's relationship with the xxxxxxxxxx, stating that Thaksin ''made a mistake in pursuing a relationship with the xxxxxxxxx by paying off the xxxxxxxxx gambling debts''.

''Kausikan said the xxxxxxxxx was 'very erratic, and easily subject to influence','' the cable states, while also saying that Mr Kausikan warned of continued instability in Thailand.

In a September 2009 meeting with US officials, senior Singaporean foreign affairs official Tommy Koh savages Japan and India in relation to the impact on both countries of China's increasing regional might.

''Koh described Japan as 'the big fat loser' in the context of improving ties between China and ASEAN. He attributed the relative decline of Japan's stature in the region to Japan's 'stupidity, bad leadership, and lack of vision','' the cable says.

''He was equally merciless towards India, describing his 'stupid Indian friends' as 'half in, half out' of ASEAN.''

Other notable comments about regional affairs made by Mr Kausikan in September 2008 include his reported claims that:

■ Burma's neighbours, including China and India, are ''more concerned with stability than justice'' and they feared the Burmese junta's demise could produce ''an Asian reprise of the breakup of Yugoslavia''.

■ He would be ''more comfortable with a nuclear-capable North Korea, than a nuclear-capable Iran''.

■ Russia's economy is ''Third World'', its health system a shambles and its demographic challenges almost insurmountable.

Mr Koh is recorded praising China's ''investment and intelligent diplomacy in the region''.

''I don't fear China. I don't fear being assimilated by China,'' the cable states that Mr Koh said, while he pointed to China's decision to invest in Africa ''without lecturing them about human rights and democracy as the West does''.

(Censored to stay with ThaiVisa rules )

http://www.theage.com.au/world/top-singapore-officials-trash-the-neighbours-20101211-18thg.html

Dear Totster,

While I agree that so far most of the cables leaked are not more then entertaining, still a few do raise my eyebrows.

However, there are plenty of other documents available that show some serious misconduct by companies and/or governments.

As this is OTB I am surprised you base your statement/believe on just a few leaked cables saying WL is not a reliable source.

After the leaking of the cables appeared in the media, is that when you first heard about WL?

There are other sites that publish "Secret" stuff as well, why are they not held responsible?

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

I think this fact is many times not understood and people think that government is some kind of higher entity.

Just ask yourself who is paying for their salary.

A

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

Gov't employees may be "servants" but only to the citizens of their own country. They are not accountable to people from other countries.

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

Gov't employees may be "servants" but only to the citizens of their own country. They are not accountable to people from other countries.

Correct, so why are you not asking the servants of your country to explain what they do?

Dear Totster,

While I agree that so far most of the cables leaked are not more then entertaining, still a few do raise my eyebrows.

However, there are plenty of other documents available that show some serious misconduct by companies and/or governments.

As this is OTB I am surprised you base your statement/believe on just a few leaked cables saying WL is not a reliable source.

After the leaking of the cables appeared in the media, is that when you first heard about WL?

There are other sites that publish "Secret" stuff as well, why are they not held responsible?

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

I think this fact is many times not understood and people think that government is some kind of higher entity.

Just ask yourself who is paying for their salary.

A

WL is only the messenger and is doing a public service in encouraging transparency. It checks ( and often quotes) its sources so i can't see the op's point of it not being a reputable source of information.

what it has shown is bad security and controls in government and its agency offices. there have been disclosures that affect security or encourage terrorism. even the aussie pm has now had to admit that.

they have uncovered embarrassing comments that should not have been made public. But blame the diplomats not wl

Dear Totster,

While I agree that so far most of the cables leaked are not more then entertaining, still a few do raise my eyebrows.

However, there are plenty of other documents available that show some serious misconduct by companies and/or governments.

As this is OTB I am surprised you base your statement/believe on just a few leaked cables saying WL is not a reliable source.

After the leaking of the cables appeared in the media, is that when you first heard about WL?

There are other sites that publish "Secret" stuff as well, why are they not held responsible?

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

I think this fact is many times not understood and people think that government is some kind of higher entity.

Just ask yourself who is paying for their salary.

A

WL is only the messenger and is doing a public service in encouraging transparency. It checks ( and often quotes) its sources so i can't see the op's point of it not being a reputable source of information.

what it has shown is bad security and controls in government and its agency offices. there have been disclosures that affect security or encourage terrorism. even the aussie pm has now had to admit that.

they have uncovered embarrassing comments that should not have been made public. But blame the diplomats not wl

They are being unethical, so therefore some of us consider them unreputable.

Dear Totster,

While I agree that so far most of the cables leaked are not more then entertaining, still a few do raise my eyebrows.

However, there are plenty of other documents available that show some serious misconduct by companies and/or governments.

As this is OTB I am surprised you base your statement/believe on just a few leaked cables saying WL is not a reliable source.

After the leaking of the cables appeared in the media, is that when you first heard about WL?

There are other sites that publish "Secret" stuff as well, why are they not held responsible?

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

I think this fact is many times not understood and people think that government is some kind of higher entity.

Just ask yourself who is paying for their salary.

A

WL is only the messenger and is doing a public service in encouraging transparency. It checks ( and often quotes) its sources so i can't see the op's point of it not being a reputable source of information.

what it has shown is bad security and controls in government and its agency offices. there have been disclosures that affect security or encourage terrorism. even the aussie pm has now had to admit that.

they have uncovered embarrassing comments that should not have been made public. But blame the diplomats not wl

They are being unethical, so therefore some of us consider them unreputable.

they are releasing information of public interest ( no security or terrorist issues are released so no ethical problems there) . interesting that no-one is saying the cables are lies. that might make it unethical

governments serve the people. they should also take more care in how they actually speak or write information.

wl have broken no laws, though i respect you have an opinion

how do you feel about the ethics of sweden's role in illegal rendition

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

Gov't employees may be "servants" but only to the citizens of their own country. They are not accountable to people from other countries.

Correct, so why are you not asking the servants of your country to explain what they do?

None of your business. That's between myself and my servants.

governments serve the people. they should also take more care in how they actually speak or write information.

Most American citizens probably have no problem with the candid assessments our embassy staff give to their higher ups about the countries where they are stationed. Without these honest assessments, little would get done - which is Assange's stated reason for the leaks.

However, there are plenty of other documents available that show some serious misconduct by companies and/or governments.

Possibly, I'll admit I haven't read much of what is on WL, I'm not interested in what could be third party gossip.

As this is OTB I am surprised you base your statement/believe on just a few leaked cables saying WL is not a reliable source.

After the leaking of the cables appeared in the media, is that when you first heard about WL?

WL is definitely not a reliable source of information when people and media take what is written and believes it actually means something, especially with the 'cables'. It's dangerous to give naive people tidbits of information without all of the other information that goes with it.. they will believe what they see without thinking it through.

Also, this kind of site releasing information is also open to manipulation, easily pulled off by professionals whose job is to do this kind of think... propaganda, whatever you call it.

This is why WL is not a reliable source of information.

All of those people that work for the government are in fact our servants and should be held accountable for what decisions they make and what actions they take.

Well, I think the elected government is answerable and accountable to the people of a certain country. A civil servant on the other hand is not personally accountable to you or me, thats a rediculous notion. They answer to their managers who are accountable to the elected government ( be it national or local). It is then up to us to decide if they have managed our money correctly, taken care of things as they said they would and either re-elect or not.

Just ask yourself who is paying for their salary.

I don't need to ask myself, I know already.. That's a lame argument normally used when a police officer stops a speeding driver who thinks he shouldn't be fined....

totster

WL is only the messenger and is doing a public service in encouraging transparency. It checks ( and often quotes) its sources so i can't see the op's point of it not being a reputable source of information.

It's not a public service. As I said earlier, information is easily manipulated if someone wanted to.

what it has shown is bad security and controls in government and its agency offices. there have been disclosures that affect security or encourage terrorism. even the aussie pm has now had to admit that.

they have uncovered embarrassing comments that should not have been made public. But blame the diplomats not wl

Yes, I agree.. security is a big issue here. Proper procedures should be in place to track information and those responsible for leaking.

Totster

they are releasing information of public interest ( no security or terrorist issues are released so no ethical problems there) . interesting that no-one is saying the cables are lies. that might make it unethical

No one is saying the cables are lies because they are not. They are useless peices of information, out of context and as I have said, totally unreliable as a source of information. The general public have no need to see this information.

governments serve the people. they should also take more care in how they actually speak or write information.

I completely disagree. They should be able to speak freely and to the point when speaking or writing IN PRIVATE to one another. Yes, when making official statements care should be taken, and it is.. so..

wl have broken no laws, though i respect you have an opinion

Well, that is debatable. However I'm quite sure that the sources have broken laws by stealing information.. so in effect WL is handling stolen goods.

Totster

Sorry, but with three similar topics on the go we're consolidating.