7/03/2015

Another patronizing western view on what is good for Asians

‘Asia must rebalance not build banks’, an article by a Jonathan Holslag, a professor of international politics sat the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in the ST telling China/Asia not to build new banks to challenge the western dominated banks like IMF/World Banks and Asian Development Bank but to change them. Reading his other book titled, ‘China’s coming war with Asia’ you can tell where he is coming from. He would not know that he is speaking from the point of what is good for the West must be good for the Asians.

It is not right and not a good thing to build a new Asian bank like the AIIB. China is doing it for its self interests and at the disadvantage of other Asian countries for influence and creating more demands for Chinese goods. What he is saying is that the IMF and World Bank and the ADB were created not for the interests of the Americans/West and Japan but for altruistic goals, to give money to Asia and the world.  They are so selfless and generous. The AIIB is not like that?

Really, why is it necessary for China and other Asian countries to want another bank if the IMF, World Bank and ADB were out there to serve them and not western interests? Why is it necessary to work with these old western establishments to rebalance them and not to create new banks? Have not the Asian countries been trying to work with these establishments for change for the last 5 decades and not making any headway and forced to build their own banks?

This is the admission by Holslag, ‘The AIIB is a master stroke of economic diplomacy. The debate about its possible benefits distracts from the imbalanced economic partnerships to the  vague benefits of influencing it from inside and the bad habit of the United States and Japan to cling to their privileges in the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB.’ Despite this admission that the Americans and Japan would not yield an inch to accommodate the rise and interests of Asian countries, despite saying that they looked pathetic and China looking magnanimous with the AIIB initiative, he must sneaked in another blow that China is ‘seeking to advance its own selfish interests’.

And he wanted Asian countries to work harder to reform the IMF, World Bank and ADB? After 50 years of working from within, from a position of weakness, the Asian countries were totally ignored. And this is the exact reason why Asian countries have given up on trying to work with them and wanting their own banks, and with a bigger voice to serve their own interests, not the interests of the West and Japan. It is too late. Why didn’t the IMF, World Bank and ADB agree to reform and change to accommodate Asia earlier?

They are willing to change, to serve Asian countries and not their own interests? Please remove your tinted lens and look at yourself and how the American and the West in collusion with Japan have been exploiting these old establishments to serve their own interests first and foremost and Asian countries are there for show and to be exploited.

Now Asian countries have their own banks and their own voice. The loudest voice is Asian and Asians are calling the shot in their own banks to serve Asian interests. Is that not acceptable, bad? You want the IMF, World Bank and ADB to continue to exploit the Asian countries at your terms? If they don’t change, they would be history. And the change must come from them, voluntarily. The world has changed and Asian countries are rising and want a say in these organizations serving western interests.

Can the professor see this?

12 comments:

Virgo 49 said...

See the World Bank and IMF (I am Finished) does to the western economy!!

One by one toppled like dominoes.

White brains cannot beat Yellow and black brains in managing monies.

White: 1 + 1 = 2, Black: 1 + 1 = 10
Yellow: 1+1= infinite. Don't believe ask Kong Hee Fatt Choy. One property already can sell 10 million.

Anonymous said...

See how they handle Greece and how they bullied the Suharto?

ℳatilah_$ingapura said...

Competition is good. Redundancy is good.

>> that China is ‘seeking to advance its own selfish interests’. <<

Definitely. So what? They bring something to the table. Advancing self interests is what all humans do.

>> ‘The AIIB is a master stroke of economic diplomacy. <<

Of course it is! So what? Good Guanxi is good for business. Good business is good for production to build useful stuff like infrastructure and give people meaningful, value-creating JOBS...

...unlike being a tenured intellectual who probably could survive without his govt-funded job. (Academics are essentially USELESS at creating value)

Anonymous said...

Their jobs is to topple them like dominoes.
Not just greece and suharto, but Germany hitler and now Russia if it suits them so.
Everyone is scrambling to the take a swat at the new world order table...even your PM LHL is talking shot aristocracy out of his assessment, as if he is a burned into a royal Kingdom. Un..Un..um..unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Why not you write an article?:
"Another patronizing PAP view on what is good for Singaporeans"

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

You want to give me some ideas? PAP has never been patronising so I dunno where to start?

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's the way I interpret what is "patronizing".

I find the following PAP idea and ideology extremely patronizing:
"CPF Minimum Sum and a high withdrawal age limit" is required or I will go spend all my CPF money in Batam.
- Why not say I will take my CPF money and invest in the same portfolio of shares as Temasek?

While I am on the subject.
Somebody should ask the PAP Ministers "What is the peak earning age of Singaporeans"?
- It used to be in our 50's
- a little bird told me it may be as low as 39 years old now

How to even talk about CPF as an institution when our peak earning age keeps dropping?
That's the elephant in the room.

Anonymous said...

Spending my CPF money on Batam women versus spending my CPF money on a portfolio of shares that mirrors Temasek Holdings' portfolio.
Is there an important difference in the final outcome?
What do you think?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

PAP's intention is good. They want to make sure that all Sinkies are very rich when they grow old and no need to worry about having no money.

Oh, I think you got your statistics wrong. The peak earning age is 90 or 91.

You can bet all our ministers are still not at their peak and their income will keep on growing till they vaporised in the 90s or maybe 100.

So not right to say the peak age is getting younger. I got statistics to prove it.

Anonymous said...

american is a "genius"

how they know the AIIB dont have high standard

when the bank does not operate yet and there are not bank charter yet .

IMF possess extremely high standard to lend their money to Greece.

Anonymous said...

How true.
I think Nathan hit his peak earning years in his 80's or 90's?
So if Nathan can do it, that means ALL Singaporeans is doing it tio bo?
One Singaporean guy spends all his money on Batam women.
Therefore all Singaporean men will also do the same.
Power Logic.

Anonymous said...

Just take such talk with a spoonful of salt.

Everytime we have such people from some prestigious university's department of bluffalogy, who are either 'resident pharoahs' or 'visiting pharoahs' telling grandfather's tales to fool the daft.

They just turn me off.