Haze -Singapore should take Indonesia to The Hague

The haze problem is visiting Singapore and neighbouring countries again and Indonesia’s attitude is that it has done its best and blamed it on the wind. So how Singapore, are you going to live with the haze and blame it on the wind? What else can you do to protect your people and economy from the ill effects of the wind that came with the haze?

I think Singapore is very far sighted in supporting the Philippines case against China in the South China Sea dispute. Singapore must have the prescient for this moment to use the same formula to deal with the Indonesians. The precedent has been set, the Hague is UN backed and is legal and binding. Just repeat the same formula, hired the same Japanese guy, Shunji Yanai, to appoint the same team of judges, and pay them the same way as the Philippines did, or was it the Japanese that foot the bills, and file a case against the Indonesians on this haze invasion. And yes, this one got no issues with the territorial rights and thus is definitely legal and the court will definitely have jurisdiction to hear the case.

And it would even be better if Indonesia takes the same stand as China in the South China Sea dispute by not participating. Then the court and its judges can rule in Singapore’s favour.  So simple. Then Singapore can get all the friendly media and countries to tell the Indonesians to abide by the rulings, to respect international laws.  The US and western countries would definitely call the Indonesians to respect the international tribunal’s ruling. Philippines would also be shouting the same thing and so would all the Asean countries, rule of law, respect international law.

Like that Singapore sure win the case and can keep hammering the Indonesians for not respecting international law and that The Hague is UN backed.

I support this brilliant strategy. Now I understand why Singapore is so adamant in supporting The Hague rulings against China. Good reason to take such a stand. It is all about rule of law and respecting international law, not about vested interest. Never mind if the court is fixed up like a kangaroo court and the decisions made were just like what a kangaroo court would do.  As long as we believe it is legal, good enough. It is worth paying for the services of such a court and judges to guarantee sure win decision.

How, when is Singapore going to take Indonesia to The Hague? No need to stare them straight in the eyes, so unfriendly. Use the law, Sue. This is an expertise of Singapore, Sue until the Indonesians go bankrupt. Use the law, no need to behave like gangsters and hooligans.


Fare hikes if you want to have better services

How many times Singaporeans have been told of this mantra, ‘You want better service, be prepared to pay more’. If this is true, I think Singaporeans would not be complaining and would be most willing to pay more. The truth, the facts, over the years we have so many fare hikes, and so many times we were told that the hikes would lead to better services, but what were the truth? Were the services better or worse?

How many think the services of public transport have improved? And if this is the truth, our transport services would be the best in the world after so many years of fare hikes.  The truth is just the opposite. All the fare hikes led to lower quality of services. Tiok boh?

And if fare hikes led to poorer services, should not the mantra be, ‘More fare hikes for poorer services’? You want poorer services, be prepared to pay more.

Now, am I talking sense or nonsense?

What do you think?

PS. Train faults and breakdowns are the new normal. The problems are unlike building HDB flats, like taps, switch it off, then switch it on. You can’t switch off train faults/problems and then switch it on again. It is not that easy. The faults/problems, if serious, would not go away by simply wishing they would go away. You need real talents to solve them, not anyone can do it.

The faults and problems would not go away just because the fares are hiked. If only they are so simple, hike fares and services would improve.

Abe forgot to visit the War Memorial?

The Chinese community still dutifully and diligently visits the War Memorial annually to pay respect to the hundreds of thousands that were massacred by the Japanese in WW2. Though the wound has healed, but the painful memories would stay and the dead would be remembered, so would the horrific and savage Japanese Imperial Army and the butchers in the Kempeitai.


Abe found it important enough to pay his last respect to SR Nathan for the reason that Nathan was the first foreign president that visited the war memorial of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The Japanese remembered their war dead and their war criminals in the Yasukuni Shrine. Did Abe remember the massacres in South East Asian countries conducted by the barbaric soldiers of his grandfather? Does he think it right, or has it ever occurred to him that it is the right thing to do, to show some remorse and to atone the sins of his grandfather and his soldiers for slaughtering  innocent civilians all over South East Asia, particularly in Singapore during Sook Ching, executed by the infamous Kempetai here?


I have no memory of any visiting Japanese PM to this island laying a wreath at the War Memorial next to the Padang. When would the Japanese owned up to their war crimes and do the necessary and respectful, to show some signs of remorse for the cruelties to our people they murdered in cold blood? Should the Chinese Chamber of Commerce make a presentation to the govt that this should be a condition for any visiting Japanese PM or Emperor visiting our land?


Abe was on the way to Kenya and found it necessary to make a diversion to stopover in Singapore for Nathan's funeral. Would it be too much, too troublesome to spend 15 minutes at the War Memorial to show respect to the thousands killed by the Japanese Kempeitai here? What is so honourable about the Japanese when they refused to face the crimes they committed in the past and tried to whitewash it away?


To the dishonourable Japanese that pretended that they did not invade Asia and SE Asia and did not massacre the citizens of the invaded land, to the liars that tried to change their history of barbaric Imperialism, to the hypocrites that pretended to be men and women of honour, the more they tried to turn away from the truth, the more they will not be forgiven.


Singapore’s very successful open door policy

6.9m are not all that is coming to Singapore. We are also opening up for Chikungunya, TB, super bugs and now Zika.  Poor children, got to siam TB and mothers  to be got to siam Zika. Hope no mothers to be is bitten by this Zika thing. The option is unbearable.

Where could this Zika thing come from when all those affected did not visit Brazil? Infected in Singapore! Did the aedes mosquitoes know of our open door policy and come flying in first class cabin or economy?

This is the only way that the Zika thing can get here. How about tracing all those that were in Rio for the Olympics and call them up for a check up? And this must include the foreigners here who were in Rio as well. No one must be exempted from this call up. The aedes mosquitoes would not discriminate between the rich and powerful and the ordinary people. When they bite, they just bite whoever that is in their way.

A lot of work needs to be done. More work and jobs are created I am sure.

Haze - Time for Singapore to punch above its weight

''Asked about the complaints from Singapore, Jusuf only said, "It is up to them to complain. Whom are they going to complain to? Are they going to complain to the wind?"'

This is what Jusuf Kalla, the Vice President of Indonesia said about the haze over Singapore. Basically what he was saying is that Singapore got to live with the haze come what may. Indonesia already done its best and Indonesia cannot change the direction of the wind. What about cutting down on the number of cut and burn incidents? We are trying our best, so don't expect too much and don't push too hard.

Now the ball is squarely in the Singapore court. The haze is Singapore's problems. Complain as much as you want, the Indonesians would not be listening and don't try to go to them with your complaints. Just deal with it or live with it. So, how is Singapore going to deal with it or live with it? Or would Singapore try to punch above its weight and stare squarely into the eyes of the Indonesians, without blinking, and the haze will go away, with the Indonesians hurriedly trying to put them down?

Indonesia does not know that our PM was specially invited to the White House for dinner and the images sent all over for the whole world to see. What is the message? Want to act tough with Singapore? See who is behind Singapore?

Ok, what's next Singapore? Who shall we send to Jakarta, Vivian, Chan Chun Sing or Masagoes? Doing nothing means we will have to live with the haze. Complaining into the air is no use. Did we get the message from Indonesia?


Amos Yee representing himself in court

I just can’t imagine how the proceedings will go when Amos Yee defends himself in court without a lawyer but Amos in person. And he has requested that the witnesses testify orally instead of in writing. Oral presentation is Amos’ forte. It is like Amos in Parliament challenging the MPs who could only make their cases in writings and to read from scripts.

Let’s try to imagine how someone like Amos, but not Amos, would conduct himself in court.  Let’s call this fictional character Ah Mok. 

Ah Mok said: ‘Ok, you motherfucker, you said your Dog is so sensitive and is offended by what I said. Now prove it to me, show me that your Dog is offended. You see my two fingers pointing to your Dog? See, look at your Dog, how is it offended? Where is it, come on, show me that your Dog is angry, you dumb twit…. I need empirical evidence, facts man, not what you think or what you believe. In a court you must have solid hard evidence to state your case. Where is your hard evidence?’

Judge cut him, ‘Ah Mok, mind your language, this is my court. If you don’t respect the witnesses never mind, but you must respect me. I am the judge here.’

Ah Mok: ‘Oh shut up old man, I am cross examining the witness. I am no learned counsel and this is how I speak. Can, cannot? Never mind, you sit there and listen while I shack the witnesses, one at a time.’

The UN Special Representative on freedom of opinion and expression chipped in. ‘Your honour, please allow Ah Mok to exercise his freedom of speech so that he can defend himself against the charges.’

Ah Mok: ‘And you there, the one hiding behind there, what is your problem? You don’t like me fucking your Dog? Did your Dog mind? Did your Dog say it mind? Tell me what your Dog said, you silly motherfucker.’

Judge could not take it any more. ‘Ok Ah Mok, enough of your vulgarity. Vulgarity is not allowed in my court. If you go on like this I am not going to proceed with the case, you hear me?’

Ah Mok, ‘Yes, I understand you perfectly Mr…. Judge. Do I have to address you as my honour or whatever crap they used to call you in court? I am Amos, I know you don’t like my face, and I don’t dig your protocol. This is me, Ah Mok, flesh and blood, hot bloody blood running through me, no pretences, no hypocrisies. I repeat, I have the right to question my witnesses like all legal counsels do, to threaten, harass and ridicule the witnesses, to make the witnesses look stupid. You cannot object, only the prosecution can object. As the judge you can say sustain or over rule. That is your role. Did I get this right?’

Ah Mok: ‘Now, where was I? Oh you, yes you motherfucker, what is your problem? Come again, look at me, not at the piece of shit in your hand. Talk to me, not read to me….Oh Judge, can you tell the motherfucker to speak up? Can he talk or he can only read from prepared scripts? Who wrote the script for him?’

Someone switched off the light in the court room and everything went dark. Ah Mok screamed, let there be light. And there was light.


Are the appointments of the EP and PM racist in design?

I have noted some discussions in the TRE and some commentators insisting that the design of the election of the PM and the EP was racist in nature, favouring the Chinese community. Is that so? Where did it say so? To some small minds, it is very clear that it is racist, in favour of the Chinese majority.

Let’s look at the appointment of the PM? How does one become a PM here under the PAP? Where is it written that the PM must be a Chinese, in the Constitution or in the PAP manifesto? Come on, there is no such thing. The PAP has its own system of choosing their PM, by the CEC. The PM is elected by the majority of the PAP CEC members.  The PAP does not have a ruling that the election of a PM must be a Chinese. So, what is the fuzz all about?

What about the EP? Where was it stated that the EP must be from the Chinese majority? The EP was elected by the people in a presidential election. Tony Tan was PAP’s chosen candidate for the EP. The PAP can choose anyone from the minorities to be their nominated candidate, like SR Nathan.

But the other three candidates were also Chinese. So, these candidates applied for the position. They submitted their papers, they nominated themselves. There is no law saying a minority candidates cannot nominate themselves for the EP.  But, but the criteria favour the Chinese majority! Who set the criteria? Who agree to the criteria? If stag horns are found on the head of a stag, why blame the stag and accuse the stag of discrimination because a goat only got little horns?

Actually all the talks about changing the rules to ensure a minority candidate is unnecessary. The PAP had done it before by nominating SR Nathan. There is nothing to stop the PAP from nominating Halimah or Tharman as their candidate. The PAP brand will guarantee a win. In the SR Nathan case, no one dared to contest.

Coming back to the wild accusation that the system is discriminatory in favour of the Chinese majority, is it true?  The PAP is now going to redesign the rules and the system to favour a minority candidate. Is the PAP admitting that the rules and system were discriminatory and therefore must be changed?

Is this change progressive or regressive, good for Singapore in the future? Would LKY be turning in his grave that his ideals and concept of meritocracy is going to be dismantled and thrown into the rubbish bin and race will now become a factor in the determination of the EP?  Should our national pledge be torn away, should we rewrite the national pledge and remove the phrase, ‘regardless of race, language and religion’, and put into the constitution that race is a factor in the election of the EP?

I am waiting for the man to jump up from his grave to right the wrong that is being conceived and going to be enshrined in the Constitution. Meritocracy is no longer the core values of this country, race is. Instead of playing down on race and elevating meritocracy, a race neutral concept, this trend is like an about turn on govt policies. When it happens, then the Constitution will become racist.
The first legacy of LKY, meritocracy, is at risk of being dumped.

PS, there is this mischievous commentator in TRE called Harold claiming this,
‘At Independence, the agreement was reached that since it was always going to be more likely than not that the PM of Singapore will be a Chinese, then the President will be from a minority community.

That’s why all the first Presidents were minorities. (And don’t forget that for all the 51 years of our Independence, PMs have ONLY been Chinese.)

It was the PAP government that violated that agreement and convention with the introduction of the EP, much to the delight of racists, as we can see.’

This is a very mischievous and malicious rumour to spread as it would affect the people’s perception of the truth and the credibility of the govt. Let’s see if the govt would let this rumour to continue to float around.


Donald Trump the only sensible man in the West

This is a report from Germany calling for its people to stock up food and basic necessities in case of a catastrophe. What catastrophe, war with Russia?  Read below:

Germany is planning to urge its citizens to stockpile food, water and other supplies in the event of a catastrophe or armed attack.

According to a report by German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), citing the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper, the move would be the first of its kind since the end of the Cold War.

The proposal is reportedly contained in a government civil-defense-strategy document, which says that people should stock 10 days worth of food and a sufficient supply of water, energy, money and medicine that would allow them to stay put long enough for the government to respond.

The mood in Germany has been unsettled recently following a number of horrific incidents. In the latest violence, on July 24, a Syrian suicide bomber injured 15 people at a music festival in the central German town of Ansbach. The same day, a Syrian refugee killed a woman and injured two others with a machete in Reutlingen. Just days previous, an ISIS-inspired attacker was shot dead after stabbing several people on a train in the south of the country.

The huge influx of refugees — Germany accepted more than a million last year — has sparked fears among many Germans that terrorists have entered the country under the guise of seeking asylum.

And they are calling for European govts to take in more refugees knowing what could happen if only a small percentage of the refugees are terrorists in disguise. And many would even call for more refugees to prove that they are not afraid, to prove that they are doing the right thing, to prove that they are simply stupid beyond redemption. This is an inevitable trend of event that would lead to the destruction and an end to the European civilization, the destruction of Europe as a modern, orderly and peaceful place to live and to work in.

Only Donald Trump is sensible enough to know what the hell is going on and how to stop it, to save America.


Bukit Batok does not want to go away

Remember the rats incident? Remember the by election? Now it is about TB and how children in a kindergarten were exposed when a FT teacher has active TB. Active hor, infectious. Now the children had to be screened and for a few to be infected is very likely.

How many more children will be exposed to this almost non existent disease in this island? How widespread or serious is TB in this island today?

With more than 2 million foreigners here, with many now citizens or PRs, what kind of risk are we exposed to? TB is only one such risk. How many other kinds of biological and non biological risks that would have a long term health effect on the population and is this a fair price to pay for the large presence of foreigners from third world countries being invited here?

There is a price to pay for everything. It is not always free for the benefits we are deriving from them. How to vet the 2 million foreigners here? Were they vetted before entry?

Singapore more united in August

The month of August has been good for nation building and bringing Singaporeans closer as one united people. Thanks to Joseph Schooling and his Olympic Gold Medal. The Singaporeans of all races cheered when this hero returned from Rio and all felt very proud to be a part of his achievement.

Today we have another occasion for the people to be united as one people to mourn the passing away of SR Nathan and a state funeral for people to come together to show their respect for the past president.

Singapore needs more of such occasions to give a boost to the spirit of nationhood after the battering by the influx of foreigners that diluted the core built up over 40 long years of nation building. Schooling can be expected to bring in more gold medals in the near future. Oops, cannot wish for more state funerals. No more past presidents available. All our past presidents are dead. Maybe state funerals for past PMs but this will be a long wait if the expected lifespan of the elite is above 90.

Would there be other occasions to gel the people together? A terrorist attack, a war?


Elected President – What is the truth?

Hsien Loong has said it many times. I did not say the govt said it many times because no one else seems to be saying anything about the impending changes to the process of electing the President. Hsien Loong gave three reasons for the changes to the rules. 1. The EP is not just ceremonial but has a very important function to guard the reserves and to approve senior appointments in the Civil Service and uniformed services. 2. The person qualified to be the President must be able to make difficult decisions on financial matters and a stringent set of criteria must be met like managing a multi million organization to the tune of $200m, top civil servants or ministers. 3. The system must be changed to allow minority Presidents to be elected.

The above are the official reasons for this big constitutional change to enshrine racial considerations and elements into the office of the EP when race will be a factor in choosing the EP. Racial politics enshrined into the constitution a good thing, a progressive or regressive thing?

The unofficial version or reasons for the changes to the EP process in everyone’s lips is about keeping Tan Cheng Bock out of the race. Whether one subscribe to this view, whether one believes this is the real reason, this is what everyone is talking about. True or not, depends on who you want to believe.  If the govt is to amend the rules to bar the majority Chinese from the next EP election, saying that it is recommended by the Constitutional Commission, and applies this, then Cheng Bock would be locked out from the race and it would only confirm what the people feared and believed in.

And to add another barrier to people like Cheng Bock, the bar was raised higher, that the person must have managed an organization of more than $200m instead of $100m to take in inflation and the increasing value of the reserves.  So Cheng Bock’s previous organization would not be big enough and thus not eligible. This reason may be too flimsy to hold water as the inflation should also applies to the value of organizations at different times. Thus Cheng Bock’s $100m organization then would be revalued to $200m at today’s value, if there is no nitpicking. He was eligible then and should be now.

So, what is the real reason for the changes to the EP process? It depends on who you are and who you want to believe. Oops, please ignore those jesters recommending that there should be more than one EP at one time. They think Singapore is their grandfather’s company and money is no problem, can anyhow pay. And they may also be thinking Singapore is the biggest country in the whole world, bigger than USA and China combined, so need a few flower vases in the Istana, and pay them by the millions because their jobs are more important and difficult than the PM and ministers running ministries.

I got this funny feeling when I think of these extraordinary criteria for a non executive president. Should not these criteria or more stringent criteria be applied to people wanting to be PMs and ministers, the people that really wield great powers in managing the affairs of the state? Or are the PM and minister’s jobs easier than the EP so anyone can become a PM or minister without having to run a $200m company, just manage a town council will do? Make sense?

Oops, I digress. How many of you believe in the Hsien Loong’s version for the need to change the constitution on EP? How many of you believe the talk of the town, that the changes are rushed to keep Tan Cheng Bock out of the Istana? This one not I say one, everyone is saying this is the real reason.

At this moment, one thing is looking quite certain. The new conditions would mean that Tan Cheng Bock would not be qualified to stand in the next EP. What are the bookies stand on this? 1000 to 1 that Tan Cheng Bock would not qualify?

I think the bookies would even chicken out on such a bet.


SR Nathan – Another stalwart passes away

Singapore will have another state funeral with the passing of SR Nathan at the age of 92. There are not many of such ancients of a passing era left in Singapore. This is another man that had lived a very good life and passed away peacefully leaving behind a big family and family wealth that would last for generations.

Nathan is a typical relic of a time when life was tough and hard. Many of his generations starting life with nothing and tried all means to survive, to make a living. Nathan has made it good, very good, from the time he was a runaway, homeless and squatting in the attap house of his aunt. Now he lived in Ceylon Road, some said the whole or nearly the whole of Ceylon Road belongs to him.

Singaporeans would be lining the streets on Friday to send this man away in his last journey on mother earth.


The Presidency Myth

Recently Singaporeans have been bombarded with the information that minorities are not well represented in the position of the President of Singapore and there is an urgent need to put a minority candidate to represent the minorities, and that the majority Chinese has over represented themselves in the Presidency. Is this true or a contorted myth?

Let’s look at the facts and numbers. The followings were the Presidents of Singapore.

Yusof Ishak 1965-70 (Yang di pertuan Negara or Head of State 1959 to 65)

Benjamin Sheares 1971-81

Devan Nair 1981-85

Wee Kim Wee 1985-93

Ong Teng Cheong 1993-99

SR Nathan 1999-11

Tony Tan  2011 to present

What did the above said? There were 4 minority presidents and 3 Chinese presidents.  Minorities underrepresented or over represented? This only tells part of the story. If we consider the period 1965 to 2016, a total of 51 years, the minorities were presidents for 31 years while the Chinese were presidents for only 19 years. If one is to include the period from 1959, Yusof Ishak was the Head of State, this would mean another 6 years going to minorities. That would mean the minorities were Head of State/President for 37 years against the Chinese’s 19 years.

Yusof Ishak, Sheares and Nathan all served more than one term.  Of the Chinese presidents, only Wee Kim Wee served 2 terms, Ong Teng Cheong served 1 ½ terms, and Tony Tan is still in his first term.

The big question, are the minorities under represented as Head of State/President of the country? If one is using the formula of proportional representation, with a 75% majority the Chinese should proportionally occupied 75% of the 51/57 years of statehood or 36/42 years of the position of Head of State/Presidency.

The truth is that the minorities are occupying the Head of State/President office by more than 70% while the Chinese are occupying only 30% of the duration.

Now you see the myth? The majority Chinese is under represented in the office of the Head of State/Presidency, and the minorities have been over represented. So, what is the fish? Why the urgency and desperation to amend the Constitution to protect minority representation?

With the way immigration is changing the demography of this island, with the low productivity of the Chinese, mathematically, the Chinese can become a minority in the future. Then what?

Now there is this idea floating around that the Presidency would be something like a GRC with several presidents. Is Singapore so rich to pay for so many presidents doing mainly ceremonial roles? If a president gets $4m a year basic, it will mean $48m for a 12 year term. If you add 12 months bonus, that would be $96m, and if it is 24 months bonus, that would triple to $132m! And if we have 3 or 4 presidents at one time, just imagine how much public money would spend on this office?

A wrongly conceived idea, contrived, smells no matter how many layers of scrap paper are wrapped around it.


National Day Rally – Reliving the scary moment

The NDR was just another routine ritual every year and Hsien Loong was doing his part to deliver his lecture to the people on the state of affair of country and what lies ahead going forward. Everything was going fine and Hsien Loong was in his normal self injecting some humour into his speech now and then.

After the Malay and Chinese version there was a break before he came on again to deliver the main speech in English. It was nearing the end of his speech when he was talking about the third reason why there was a need to change the Presidential Election that it happened.  He paused, glared to his front, both eyes wide open. Then his body lowered and tilted to his right. The camera was quickly switched to the audience that gave a silent and stunt expression. The mike was not switched off and you could hear a tumble. And then there was silence.

The audience looked really anxious. A murmur could be heard saying, ‘Hope he is alright’ coming through the TV. I too was shocked and worried. What was happening at the rally was serious and not looking good. The worse thing that could happen happened right in the midst of a ND Rally speech and the audience saw the PM dropped right before their eyes. Homeviewers must be equally troubled by the event.

When the camera scrolled back to the audience, several of the VIPs including Ho Ching and the two deputy PMs were not in their front row seats.

TRE was quick to post a pic showing Eng Hen supporting Hsien Loong who was then back on his feet. Chee Hean and Chee Meng and a few aides were up on stage next to the rostrum. He seemed to be well. Then there was an announcement for the guests to go for their reception.

At the 10pm news Tharman was heard saying that Hsien Loong was fine, no stroke. And a crawler appeared saying Hsien Loong would be back to continue his rally speech and he did, to finish the last portion of his speech, though shortened.

For those who are looking at signs and trying to make sense of things and events, the timing of the fainting spell, when Hsien Loong was touching on the changes to the Presidential Election must be telling. Was that a warning not to tinker with the Presidential Election process? If it was, then it was like someone trying to say, leave the process alone. Man propose, God dispose. Or God propose, man cannot dispose. Was it divine intervention? Of course this is nothing scientific but just a belief, an occult happening.

Whatever will be will be. Whoever shall be the next president of Singapore, he shall be and no one can stop that.

Major Study Confirmed NO Chinese Privilege in Singapore (Part 2)

Over the past 2 years after the Post, the concept of “Chinese Privilege” has found its way into mainstream public discussion Forums on race relations.  Also, one website even dedicated itself on the subject and has been making money from Subscribers who actually paid to rant and share alleged personal stories of racial discrimination as evidence of “Chinese Privilege”. 


The most damning conclusive and condemnatory evidence against the advocates and proponents of majority “Chinese Privilege” was published this week by a Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) survey on race relations.  

The Key Findings are:

[1] 73% Singaporeans does not believe that a person’s race is “very important” in influencing his or her success;

[2] 89% Singaporeans agreed that a person who works hard has an equal opportunity to become rich, irrespective of his/her race’

[3] 90% Singaporeans stated that they liked talking yopeople of all races and lived in peace with everyone;

[4] 90% Singaporeans endorsed elements of “multiculturalism” such as according respect, equality and value of other races;

[5] Nearly 70% Chinese Singaporeans were amenable to social interaction across racial boundaries.  They were open to inviting Indians and Malays to their house for meals, and allowing them to play with their children and grandchildren.

One of the Report’s conclusions is that the Survey found “a strong endorsement that success in Singapore is meritocratic”.

The CNA-IPS is one of the largest surveys on race relations in Singapore by polling 2,000 Singapore citizens and permanent residents aged 21 and above.


Meritocracy is the Bridge to a racially and socially just and equally Singapore irrespective of ethnicity, language and cultural heritage.

About 51 years ago, Singapore’s Founding Fathers in their far-sighted wisdom had instituted “Meritocracy” as the core operating principle governing access to all the key routes and mechanism of social mobility.  The overall achievements of minority groups vis-à-vis the majority Chinese clearly attest to the success of this enduring leadership initiative.  The CNA-IPS Survey confirms this FACT.  

The CNA-IPS Survey disappoints the advocates and proponents of Chinese “Majority Privilege” who have simply based their construction of non-existent “Chinese Privileges” by virtue of the Chinese’s 75% numerical majority in the population, along with 17% Malays, 7% Indians and less than 5% Eurasian and other ethnic groups.

Truth in Singapore is, Chinese “Majority” advantage did not translate and be reinforced and institutionalized to the extent as to obstruct, discriminate and prevent minority Malay, Indian and Eurasian and other ethnic groups from enjoying EQUAL access to the MEANS of social mobility eg education, medical, housing, religious practice, security, law, order, justice and public amenities like MRT, bus, cars …etc.

Irrespective to whatever extent anyone wishes to construct whichever surreal “Chinese Privilege”, whether perceived real by the occasional experience or conceived mostly in their imagination, it is clear that such “Chinese Privilege” has failed to become entrenched in Singapore society to any material or significant degree.    


According to credible Social Science research literature on the subject, for the concept of “Chinese Privilege” to have any operational validity, the following must be true:

[1] “Chinese Privileges” exist ONLY for BEING CHINESE, and are AUTOMATIC and NATURAL Benefits for the Chinese;

[2] REAL and SPECIAL Chinese ADVANTAGES are packaged as “RIGHTS, ENTITLEMENTs and IMMUNITIES” granted to or enjoyed by the Chinese BEYOND the COMMON ADVANTAGES of all other Races;

[3] Chinese Singaporeans enjoy SPECIAL RIGHT or IMMUNITY Attached To Them in ALL Social Relations;

[4] FACT-BASED Evidence of ANY Social Expressions of “Privilege” by Chinese Singaporeans expecting to be exceptionally deferred or regarded other than being EQUALLY treated as their fellow Malays, Indians, Eurasians and Malays Singaporeans.

It is clear that Singapore does not satisfy ANY of the above conditions for the de facto existence of “Chinese Privilege”.

Their existence would in fact have critically prevented the effective and successful operation of Meritocracy as the mediating medium of a just and equal multiracial multicultural society.  The CNA-IPS Survey indirectly dismiss any existential ”Chinese Privilege”.


The lesson from Apartheid South Africa or pre-Independence Rhodesia is that the mere numerical majority of a race does not automatically confer “Privilege”. To move from "majority" to "privileged", the majority race should be granted special benefits, advantages and immunities to the exclusion and disadvantages of the minority races by virtue of solely the "racial" criteria.  Like in Malaysia.

Interestingly, if one were to substitute the term “Chinese Privilege” in the above 4 Conditions with “Malay Privilege” as in Malaysia” or “White Privilege” as in the United States (US), the contrast is stark and would demolish and dispel any notion of the existence of “Chinese Privilege” in Singapore.

The importation of the concept of “majority privilege” from the US context is simply bad scholarship and the wrongful application of an appropriate social science concept applicable ONLY in the US context.  Another of myPosts on this here:

The continual use of the false and fictional concept of “Chinese Privilege” in Singapore will not enrich honest ongoing conversations that would enhance racial harmony and cohesion in Singapore.


Racial harmony and integration in Singapore remains very much a work in progress. Much more is needed to increase and sustain our lead in our Race Against Racism before we dare to declare, without hesitation, “regardless of race, language or religion” in all that we think or do as one people and one nation.

As Singapore strives to continue our racial harmony and shared economic prosperity in the next 15 and 50 years, we need to take stock and ponder whether we have effectively forged a strong enough bond that can withstand any threat to our social communal canvas.  Do we have Racial Harmony or merely Peaceful Co-Existence?  Time will tell.


Breaking News - National Day Rally halted

My gosh, I was watching Hsien Loong delivering his ND Rally speech and saw him tilted to his right and the camera was cut off, showing a stunted audience. The next moment when it pointed to the front rows, many of the seats were empty, the two deputy PMs, Ho Ching and a few senior ministers were also not in their seats. There was an uncomfortable silence among the invited guests.

An announcement came over inviting the guests to proceed for the reception.  The Rally has been temporary terminated. Heard a comment, 'Hope he is ok'.

Hope Hsien Loong is ok. This is so unexpected. He was looking so normal, speaking in his usual self, with no hint of anything like that coming. During the last moment of his speech he halted, tilted to his right.... The officer in charge of the cameras was quick to react to turn the camera away.

Wish him well.

PS. If you have nothing good to say, please refrain from saying anything unkind.

A stroke a day will be the end of Singapore

We cannot afford to lose our super talents to stroke. If a stroke a day is going to be the new normal, we will soon run out of super talents. We have the ex President still in critical condition due to stroke. Kishore's condition is not known and after such a long silence, it is not looking too rosy. Heng Swee Kiat, the youngest of the three, also the luckiest, is on the road to recovery. Probably he is not wanted in heaven yet.

There were or was another ex junior minister that was reported to have stroke and now on light duties. Would there be more coming, on the way? Was it due to too much good food and good life or too much work stress? What is the common thread among the stroke victims at high places? Is there any correlation that could explain this phenomenon? What have they got in common other than stroke, money, plenty of money, or power?

Trying to make a sound and logical finding on this is serious medical science stuff, not political science.

No more Unequal Treaties for China

The rulings of the Hague Tribunal, a private organization, was nothing more than piece of paper issued by some backlane mobsters brought together to make a summary judgment using gangland justice. They appointed their own judges and judged with a predetermined set of objectives against an unwilling and non present victim. This kind of mafia tactic is now touted by the West as an authoritative and international judgment that a non partisan victim must obeyed or deemed to be violating international law and order. Which international law and order did the victim, in this case China, violated by refusing to accept the farcical rulings?

To make this farce easier for the daft and unthinking to understand, take the case of a football match where one side appointed all the referees and linesmen, paid them for their special services to rule in their favour, and went scoring against a non present team and an empty goal and demanded the absentee team that refused to play to respect and honour the scores, that they had lost the game fairly. Is this easy enough to understand?

The approach and outcome of the tribunal smacks of the Unequal Treaties brought against China in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries when a weak Qing Dynasty was defeated by the combined forces of foreign powers.  They drafted all the treaties with all the unequal and abusive terms that China must accept.

Today, the Philippines thought a weak pauper country could imposed such crude and mischievous terms on a super power like China and expecting China to accept the trash. The US and Japan and a few other countries thought they could gang up again to force the issue on China. They have forgotten that the China of today would not be pushed around anymore, not even by the US or a combined international force. China would tear such unequal treaties in the face of the perpetrators and send them packing. No more western and Japanese treachery against a new China.

No country can be foolish enough to think it can run roughshod over China, not even the US unless they are prepared to have a bloody nose. China today would stand firm and defend its territories by force if necessary. Not an inch of Chinese territories would be ceded to anyone by illegal means, by force or by deceit.

Small little countries and big countries must face the new reality that China would not be pushed around anymore.


F35 - The $114m wonder pill

The Americans are producing the so called state of the art warplane that can do everything except eating and shitting and is pushing it around to their allies to pay for it at $144m a piece, basic, minus the weapons systems that could be another $100m if the aircraft is not just to fly to show off but to do all the things it is supposed to do.  I hope the Americans are not dangling this piece of toy as a Christmas for the children to say ‘I want, I want’, but actually twisting the arms of the allied countries to pay up or else?

Singapore was rumoured to be interested in 10 or 12 pieces of this wonder pill and in many occasions was rumoured to have made the order or closed to signing on the dotted line. In the ST on 11 Aug, it was reported that Singapore is still considering this deal and delaying it till a later date.  One strange smell emits from this F35 episode. The Americans are never easy to sell their top end, state of the art, air superiority warplanes to anyone except themselves and a few extremely die hard allies. The fact that they are pushing so hard to sell this piece of toy to so many countries is something to ponder over with. Is it just a commercial piece of crap that they want to make the most money from, another bottle of snake oil? The Americans would always keep their best weapons system to themselves, not to anyone. Even the sale of the THAAD system to South Korea is for strategic reasons in favour of the Americans and would be fully under the control of the Americans. Why would the Americans be so generous to sell this wonder pill to all and sundry begs questioning. A can of problems? When a snake oil salesman says buy, run as far as you can from him.

Anyway, what are the reasons for a small little country to want to cough out billions to purchase 10 or 12 pieces of this aircraft and what can a few pieces do to improve the odds? Does Singapore really need such an expensive and sophisticated toy that should rightly be flown by a super intelligent robot, not an ordinary no talent Singapore boy? Or should Singapore than go all over the world to recruit foreign talents to fly these toys if it could not find enough Singaporeans to fly it?

Some of the considerations for Singapore to want to flatter itself with such a hyped piece of machine must be what Singapore is up against, the potential enemies and what they have that we don’t have and we need to be better than what the enemies have. Are our F15s good enough against the Russian toys of our potential enemies? If our potential enemies are buying inferior stuff and flown by not so able pilots, do we need to have these wonder drugs to be superior over them? Aren’t our F15s and our well trained pilots more than good enough to be on top of the situation? Do we also need to pay for the billion dollar system called THAAD?

Please take note, we are not the USA and our enemies are not the super powers and we need not be like the Americans to want to have the best of every military hardware to be the Empire. We only need enough to be an effective deterrence against little countries. We don’t stand a chance against the super powers even if we lelong the whole island to pay for all the F35s that we think we need to take on a super power.

Heard of prudence when spending public money? Let’s not behave like those boys and girls gambling with OPM, buy everything, everything is a goodbye, oops, I mean good buy, and hoping for the best. Lose money never mind, got more OPM to play with? Singapore has a lot of money to spend, money is not an issue?

Do we really need this wonder pill called F35?


The objective thinkers in red dot

The absence of Kishore Mahbubani in political debates has exposed a glaring big gap in the number of objective thinkers in the little red dot. Many are passing their subjective and one sided political narrative as intellectual thinking when they appeared nothing more than little brats trying to appease their masters in the West. There seems to be no one else out there to challenge political thinking from objective and intellectual thinking for quite a while.

Fortunately this gap is increasingly being filled by Simon Tay who started to present a more neutral view in the intellectual debate and on what is good for Singapore without becoming a little USA while calling other states as Trojan Horses. Do they know what is a Trojan Horse when they see one, or is one themselves without knowing it?

In his latest article in the Today paper titled ‘How will S China Sea dispute affect business in Asean, Simon discussed the mutually interdependent relationship between Asean and China and how China is taking the initiative in the AIIB and OBOR to improve connectivity and infrastructural development in Asia that would benefit Asean as a whole compare to the military buildup and dangerous provocations by the Americans and Japan that would lead the region to war. Which is the better option going forward, to promote more trade or more wars?

China needs peace and Asean as much as Asean needs peace and China for the good of everyone. Why would Asean take an increasingly hostile stance against China? Why would Asean increasingly align itself to the Americans to promote American military domination in the region?  There are great economic and strategic benefits both for Asean and China with more cooperation than antagonism.  According to Simon Tay, Asean does not need to be anyone’s puppet but be a worthy partner to key players in the region.

Asean benefits most by being neutral, taking advantage of big power rivalry to improve Asean’s bargaining power and interests. Asean would be doomed if it takes side in the big power conflict. Asean’s recent position, to throw itself into the American camp against China could be a short sighted gambit. By going against China and sucked into the American embrace, what would happen should Donald Trump become the next President and closes its door to Asean in an inward looking policy? Where or who would Asean turn to then? China would be happy watching the fallouts without offering a helping hand.

This is the first time that Asean is taking a non neutral position in big power rivalry against the wisdom of its forefathers. And the champions of taking sides, to be little Americas, are gaining grounds, unchallenged. Is Asean digging its own grave, led by American Trojan Horses strutting around as little USAs?

Simon Tay said these in his concluding paragraphs: ‘Asean can only remain central by pairing its political centrality with economic dynamism and moving ahead with integration. This is the way to better manage bumps and controversies, even sensitive concerns such as the South China Sea, and move ahead on an agenda for integration and reform that all – governments, businesses and ultimately Asean citizens – may partake and benefit.’


More laws to protect who or against who?

I am sure no one would miss who the new sub judice law is protecting. The learned judges of course. Don’t be rude or scandalize the judges, that is contempt of court. But you are allowed to speak up as NMP Kuik said, ‘Whatever you want to speak up on, keep speaking up on it without fear. If you see an injustice, speak. If you see a cruelty, speak.’ But, ‘However, she warned that comments that could be construed as influencing a witness in a pending case or slandering a judge would qualify to contempt of court.’ What she is saying is as good as you know what you should say and what you should not say. Speak up, speak up, but be warned. Just do not be too clever in case your comments are so good that the learned judges are influenced by them, then it would be bad.  But to do that you must be an exceptional talent, more talented than the judges, that the judges could be influenced by yew. Sorry typo error. Should be you not yew.

So the judges are now protected from being insulted or attacked by slanders. The judges are also protected from being influenced by the public and ended up making stupid decisions.

Who else are protected by our laws? I remember that you cannot follow, shadow or stalk a minister. Not sure if this applies to MPs. There is a law that would criminalise people following the ministers as they move around the island. I think this law is good given the threats of terrorists and disgruntled citizens that could set them on fire.

And there are also laws to protect military officers from acts that caused the death of Dominique Lee, an NSman.  Dunno if got laws to protect teachers or police officers when they handle mischievous children like Benjamin Lim.

This island is looking a bit dangerous for people in public office and more laws are likely to be introduced in the future to protect them. Would there be a lese majeste law to be introduced sometime in the future? Ok, this is a red herring, not possible unless the island is turned into a kingdom. If not lese majeste what about lese immortals?  Looks like the judges have been elevated to the realm of immortals.

What is more important is the likely victim. Who do you think would be the victim or victims of this law? Who do you think the laws are targeting at?

And there could be a new law coming into effect following the Presidential Commission that will protect the elite to be the President of the island.  This mostly ceremonial position will now be out of reach of the ordinary peasants and workers. Only rich and powerful people will be eligible to stand for election to be the President. All men are equal, but some are more equal than others? What happen to justice and equality in our national pledge?

Would there be new laws to protect the ordinary citizens and their rights to stand for election as the President of Singapore among other things, like their jobs, like their CPF money, like not being bullied or beaten by foreigners?


When the majority do not represent the majority

How can this be? The majority must always represent the majority or else they can’t be the majority. This is not really true in a democratic system like Singapore.  How many really believe the majority, or the politicians elected by the majority of the voters really, represent their interests?

Take the recent sub judice bill passed in Parliament. The media was trying its best to tell its readers that 72 voted for the bill and only 9 from the WP voted against it. So we have the majority 72 saying yes to the bill. The 72 MPs voted are representatives of their constituencies and technically represent them. But are the majority of the voters of these constituencies in favour of the sub judice law? In a worse case scenario, other than  all the good reasons Shanmugam said about how necessary is this law and how important is sub judice , and the 72 votes, the law could be used to silence the voice of the people as the WP has said in Parliament. And Lee Wei Ling also urged the people to speak up against this bill, now law, that it is not in the interest of the people, that it’s aim is to ‘muzzle public opinion’. This may be just her opinion, but could also be the opinion of the majority, not the 72 that voted for it.

If the majority of the people are against this bill, would not the 72 MPs, a big majority in the Parliament, not be representing the majority of the people when they voted for the bill?

What do you think? Did the 72 MPs represent the interests of the majority of the people? They could, if the people are so daft and so happy to have their mouths zipped.


Singapore ready for rocket attacks

I read this from David Boey’s blog. David Boey is a military expert and a spokesman for Mindef and should know what he is saying as he is accessible to information Mindef would want the public to know and information that the public did not know. Here is what David Boey wrote:

Response to plot by Batam terrorist cell to fire rockets at Marina Bay

Thanks to steady investments in defence capabilities - some of which have yet to be unveiled - the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) can detect and destroy artillery projectiles such as rockets in mid-flight.

The SAF has amassed several decades of experience operating radars designed to locate enemy artillery positions by tracking shells or rockets to their point of origin. Five types of counter battery radars have been fielded over the years by the Singapore Artillery and, in recent years, by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF).

The RSAF counter rocket artillery and mortar (C-RAM) radars are operated alongside guided munitions that can be launched in quick succession, in all-weather conditions and at very short notice to intercept aerial threats like rockets. This new capability underlines Singapore's ability to anticipate and respond to a wide spectrum of security threats.

We are heartened by MINDEF/SAF's proactive and resolute stance in defending Singapore.

Posted by David Boey

I remember reading an article about the how the Palestinians attacked the Israelis with their hundreds of $30 homemade rockets that rained into Israeli territories. These were very cheap DIY rockets made from makeshift metal pipes and explosive material plus whatever shrapnel they embedded to penetrate the Iron Dome. Even if the radars could detect them, the Israelis just did not have enough anti rocket missiles to match the incoming rockets.

The Israelis defended these rocket rains with their expensive anti missile missiles that cost a million or more a piece. Fortunately or unfortunately many of the makeshift rockets broke through the defensive shield, or mosquito net, of the Iron Dome, there were just too many of them to take down. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, the ISIS cells in Batam or nearby would not have the critical mass to rain rockets into Marina Bay or into other parts of Singapore. It would be a real test of our radar detection system and how many missiles we have and could launch to take them down, and how many would sneak through and give us a nightmare.

It is always comforting to know that our defence is intact and in good hands. Would someone be asking for THAAD? Just a couple of billion dollars only, to protect Singapore from ICBMs from God knows where?


How the main media play rogue media?

Many readers tend to assume that main media are responsible institutions run by responsible people, the editors, the journalists and reporters, to report news as factually and truthfully as they are as responsible people. By now, many readers must have learnt the truth, that many truths in the main media, particularly the western media, were anything but truths and many were outright lies. The main media has done the dishonourable thing, to discredit themselves by telling fabricated news, lies and half truths to mislead and to misinform to serve their agenda and political interests.


A very good example is the South China Sea dispute case. It was very obvious that the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague was a private and commercial organisation set up specifically for willing parties that voluntarily elected to seek the Tribunal to mediate their disputes but not a compulsory organisation of the UN. The institutions of the UN are the ITLOS and the ICJ. But since the Arbitral Tribunal made its one sided decision on the South China Sea dispute, the main media, especially the western media or those that have vested interest to want to toe the line of the American/Japanese camp have consistently and continuously been reporting that The Hague was a UN backed institution. What does this UN backed institution mean? Is it a representative of the UN? Obviously not. The UN has its own legal institutions and the Tribunal in Hague is not one of them. So why and what is the purpose of harping this line of thought in the main media when it has no legal purpose?


The main objective is to create a false impression in the minds of innocent readers that it is backed by the UN and thus authoritative and not abiding by its decision is violating international law or not respecting the UN. The truth is far from it. If it is so, the UN would have made official statements to demand that China respect the rulings of the Tribunal. The UN has taken an unusual silent stand on this issue, nothing to do with it. That speaks a lot about the legality of the Tribunal and its so called "UN backed'' status.


What is mischievous about the main media is how they glossed over the biased, unfair and unjust constitution of the Tribunal and the whole process. The main flaw is that it is an arbitration court of choice by the parties in disputes and must be neutral to both parties, agreed by both parties, before it would be accepted to arbitrate a dispute.


In the South China Sea dispute, China did not agree to the Tribunal as the arbitrator or mediator. This alone would rule out its role as a court of choice.  The second important point is that both parties must choose and approve the constitution of the court, ie, appointing the judges that they have confidence to be fair and just. In this case, the judges were appointed by a Japanese unilaterally without the consent of the other party. And it was clear that the process of picking the judges was to ensure that the judges would rule in favour of the camp appointing them. And the judges were also paid by one side of the camp in the dispute.


How can a court constituted in such a contrived manner be fair and fit to arbitrate between two parties of which one is unwilling? The main media chose not to expose this fraud and played on as if nothing was wrong with the whole process and the appointment of the judges by one party and paid by one party. This totally exposed the evil scheme of the main media and the parties behind them to mislead its readers to believe in a scam. This is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and an injustice committed by the main media, a very shameful act for an institution that is built on the foundation of trust and honour.


The main media has lost all its credibility, integrity, trust and honour in the shameful way they conduct themselves in reporting distorted and one sided truth to mislead its readers. It is despicable for the main media to think it can continue to tell lies and half truths to its readers and to be able to get away with it. They could if the readers are unthinking and chose not to question the half truths in the main media. Anyone that cannot see injustice, unfairness, and fraud and go about shouting that it is right, just and fair got to have his head reexamined.


The main media have not stopped its untruthful reporting and are still reporting the rulings of the Tribunal as legally binding and backed by the UN despite the unfair constitution of members of the court. When the main media chose to report a kangaroo court as an honourable and fair court, it subjects the integrity and credibility of the main media to question and public scrutiny..