11/28/2015

Another Bloomberg China bashing article in the Today paper


I am just curious, why would a main media be so happy to publish stupid articles that are outright dismissive, mischievous and unfriendly to another sovereign state, and repeatedly doing so? What would such media seek to gain or what is the agenda of the media? Just a few day’s back I posted an article by a Singapore teacher lamenting that our young have been fed with an Anglophone diet and are looking at the world unconsciously through the western perspective.

There is an article in the Today paper by Bloomberg on 27 Nov with the title ‘China’s leaders lay foundation of new Silk Road’. It also presented boxes to show the mind boggling figures of 60 countries involved in 900 massive projects with an estimated value of $1.25 trillion. With so many countries willing to participate in this One Belt One Road project by China, would it be a good thing or bad thing? If bad, why would the leaders of 60 countries be interested in these projects and to spend the money and resources on them?

Of course it must be bad, according to the Bloomberg article. And the words used were most crude and inappropriate for a supposedly serious article. The fact that 60 countries saw great benefits in the OBOR is not material. The fact that China is willing to pour in ‘gush of money’ in risky and not well governed countries with ‘poorly conceived plans’ is immaterial. What is material to the author of the article is that it is bad, bad that China is throwing money to build the infrastructure, bad that these countries would now be closely binded to China, bad that China would be building better relations with these countries and having more influence on these countries.  It is also bad that it is in China’s interest to cut its transportation cost by building land roads and no longer needs to depend on the costly sea lanes for access to goods, raw material and markets.  The countries involved also have nothing to gain. Their leaders are stupid to be involved in the projects, and some will have to pay for them with their natural resources.

And worse, let me quote a Scott Kennedy, a director of the Project on Chinese Business and Political Economy at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, ‘Any time the Chinese dangle yuan in the face of foreign officials, they kind of swoon.’ The Americans would never swoon in the face of money? It must be. And it is so bad that ‘All along the Silk Road they have opened their hearts to the Chinese.’ Really bad! They should be opening their hearts to the Americans by buying more American weapons for war.

What else is new?  The questions to ask, what would the leaders of these countries do with their natural resources, sleep on them? Who is there to buy them if not the Chinese, the Americans? And would it be good if the Chinese could also bring in their technology to build the infrastructures they needed to trade with the world?  Or should they be signing military alliances with the Americans, to allow the Americans to station troops in their countries to protect them in exchange for their natural resources and to compromise their independence?

These are poor countries, lack of technology and know how, lack of financing, and yes, the countries are not well organized or well run. Who would be willing to pour money into them and risk losing their investments? The Americans, with no strings attached?

What are the risks China is taking for pouring money and investments into these countries?  According to the report, ‘With many projects destined for economically weak countries with dubious governance, China’s money could get lost to corruption or be wasted in poorly conceived plans, … Nor is there guarantee that China’s cash will win it camaraderie….China’s infrastructure bonanza also presents dangers to its own economy.’

With all the negatives, would it be better for China and these countries not to be part of the infrastructure development? The countries can continue to keep their natural resources forever and China need not bother throwing money at them?
Or would it be better that, according to Derek Scissors, an AEI scholar, “The Chinese are going to work very hard – throw money at any and all problems – to make sure prized ‘belt and road’ projects all work out….That could turn China’s grand Silk Road dreams into an even grander disappointment.”


Now what is so bad when China is the only loser, throwing money at poor and badly governed countries, helped them to develop, to build their infrastructure and losing money and influence and friendship? And what is so bad to these countries that are going to get everything at the expense of the Chinese with the Chinese working extremely hard for them? The Chinese must be real stupid, only know how to make money in the trillions and only know how to throw them away to these poorly governed countries that the Americans are not interested in, in the mind of the Bloomberg author.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is in the entire world's interest to have a world with MULTI superpowers.
USA, China, Russia and EU.

It's called checks and balances.
If USA is too trigger happy, get your aid from China or Russia.

Only stupid Singaporeans do not believe in MULTI superpowers.
Only stupid Singaporeans do not believe in checks and balances.
Do 70% of Singaporeans believe that only one superpower political party is better for Singapore?

Anonymous said...

The USA can ownself check ownself.

agongkia said...

Not only main media lah.Social media oso.Last time I always go to Tee R and wake up those angmosai who just like to paint a bad picture of their PRC long lost cousins.These Richards and Peters despise their own China cousins. How you expect others to give respect.
And 1 in your earlier post even ask whether you will stand by PRC or your country when there is conflict.
These khongcums lost their roots.
But....by the way Uncle. .did you stop your children or grandchildren naming themselves Peter or Rebecca Chua?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

My children and grand children all got Chinese names.

Anonymous said...

But....by the way Uncle. .did you stop your children or grandchildren naming themselves Peter or Rebecca Chua?
November 28, 2015 10:44 a.m.

Hey stupid!
If the grandchildren stop using names like Peter or Rebecca.
Are you saying Premiere Xi Jinping will reward redbean with $1,000?

Until Xi Jinping can prove that his existence will improve the lives of Singaporeans, we can all tell Xi Jinping to kiss our ass.

And what about PAP and Prime Minister Mai Hum?
Until they can prove that their existence will improve the lives of Singaporeans, can we also tell them to kiss our ass?

Anonymous said...

China is throwing money at these countries in order to secure their supply of resources for China's economc growth! That's the return for China! So nothing is free.

Just like PAP is throwing money at Sinkies, eg Pioneer Packages, Workfare, market subsidies for HDB pigeonholes, etc to win Sinkie majority votes and also for economic growth. So that majority Sinkies won't kpkb or vote opposition when HDB pigeonhole prices are sky high, or for the sake of economic growth, so many foreigners took away the jobs of Sinkie PMETs. And it works for PAP when they got a whopping 70% mandate in the last election, notwithstanding that many Sinkie PMETs are becoming taxi drivers and security guards!

Imam Yamami Sheik Heraz said...

This Bloomberg article is proof positive---yet again---that you have to be insane to not to be skeptical of anything written by contributors to Big Media. Apparently any cunt with a keyboard and a free copy of Open Office can write as if they're an "ex-spurt" but actually know sweet fuck-all about what they're talking about.

>> Now what is so bad when China is the only loser, throwing money at poor and badly governed countries, helped them to develop, to build their infrastructure and losing money and influence and friendship? And what is so bad to these countries that are going to get everything at the expense of the Chinese with the Chinese working extremely hard for them? <<

I don't know how many "deal" this Bloomberg author has made in their life, but please lah, give the Chinese (or any deal-maker) more credit than that.

To whit, even if you had a milligram of functioning brain tissue, the first part of any deal is to appeal to the other party's SELF INTEREST, because every human benig on earth has their in-built "radio" tuned to the popular station WIT-FM, aka "What's In It For ME?"

So whether you call it a "bribe" or an "incentive", you'll need said "tool" to influence the actions of the other party such that they will act in a way which serves YOUR interests.

China is not some green-horn player that was born yesterday. They know how to "influence" positions of power on the other side so that China gets its way.

China battles constantly with its "negative image", thanks to mostly an unsympathetic and suspicious world press---not only the evil westerners, as people like REDBEAN would surmise, but also regional media the State's masters who they serve like obedient, balls-licking lapdogs.

So to even think for one moment that China will throw a shit-tonne of money down a black hole of futility without expecting any "control" or beating an objective or agenda which will eventually pay off, is just plain DUMB, not just ill informed and biased.

For years I have made the claim that you don't need a perfect world with incorruptible people in positions of power (ain't no such thing) to make any successful enterprise. You can make deals with the dirtiest bastards on earth and still come ahead with a healthy balance sheet. China knows that. Where the rest of the "conservative" world is too scared to invest for fear of losses, China will be there with a HUGE CARROT to sweeten any deal, and in the end, China gets what it wants.

Got capitalism, motherfuckers?