Hsien Loong - Singapore does have to make a stand

At the Davos Dialogue on Climate Change Hsien Loong was reported to be defending Singapore's position in making a stand when necessary.  'Because we are making decisions for Singapore, and not because we a cat's paw for one side or the other...that means you must have the courage to stand up and call things as they are and, from time to time, you will incur, well, at least a raised eyebrow and sometimes more than one raised eyebrow from one side or the other, and occasionally both.'

This is what Singapore stood for and it spoke so loud and clear over the funny Aquino govt's funny Hague Tribunal and the funny decision from a panel of funny judges that made Singapore stood up like a sore thumb in the region. And Singapore did not just raised eyebrow for being the only sore thumb that spoke so loudly but was taught a bitter lesson in not to meddle with big power politics. The bottom line was and is still believed in Singapore that Singapore would speak out loudly, would make a stand on grounds of principles and international law.

Now we have several incidents of Trump and the Americans violating international laws, interfering in the domestic politics of other countries and attempting to conduct regime change with their own candidates, would Singapore take a stand, or did Singapore take a stand? Or is it because the violator is the Americans so better to keep quiet, principle or not principle, breaking international law or not breaking international law also never mind?

If Singapore would not open its big mouth on such arrogant and blatant violation of international laws and principles, in the assassination of Soleimani and the support of opposition parties to overthrow a legitimate govt in Venezuela, Columbia and Bolivia, how would China think when Singapore talked so big and so loud against China in the funny Hague Tribunal judgement?

Did Singapore make a stand or it did not in these cases?


Anonymous said...

"Did Singapore make a stand or it did not in these cases?"

"Singapore" cannot make a stand.
This is bad English.

You should say:

"Did Lee Hsien Loong make a stand or he did did not in these cases?"


"Did PAP make a stand or it did not in these cases?"

Please do not conflate "Singapore" with "Lee Hsien Loong" or "PAP".

Virgo 49 said...

They refered to their homeland as our Country.

Any English newsreaders mentioned this?

Bananas educated overseas in Eng Kok countries or resided there before are the Worst kind.

Totally brainwashed by them and followed their decadent lifestyles.

Virgo 49 said...

Lastly, also SCORNED their own.

Anonymous said...

Very Simple, if Ah Long talk big against China PRC CCP, China CCP Foreign Ministers would juz ripped up this Long Burgers apart, juz like the US Pelosi ripped apart a copy of Trumpet's speech in the State of Unions address yesterday. And if Long still gonna get it, China wud juz import more viruses into Sinkieland & its economy would juz collapse in a couple of weeks.

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

@ RB

Instances like this "yaya-PAPaya Big Talk @Davos" makes me miss that crusty old cunt Lee Kuan Yew.

If the USA tried any of their shit, Old Lee would swiftly put them in their place. Instead of pissing them off, he'd earn their respect.

Times have changed. Singapore is undoubtedly the USA's "satellite state" in SE Asia. But, actually there are HUGE advantages to this. Many USA companies like Google are HQ'd in Singapore. The Singapore diaspora to the USA has grown significantly, and an increasing number of our local kids are slang-slanging away in fucked-up American accents.

So, all in all, it's pretty good. As long as Singapore stays fantastic, let the party continue to ROCK ON! 💪🤟🍻

Anonymous said...


Our F35s coming.......

Got use or not?


Anonymous said...

Coronavirus: India starts screening passengers from Singapore


PAP does not seem to screen the "university degrees" of all the CECA Indians from India.

But India screens all the Singaporeans going to India.

Who is smarter?
PAP or India?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 8:41am.

Well said.

Pan Dora said...


That is very good and very smart of him.

Nothing is dependent on luck in this world.

Everything is dependent upon actions that that has been calculated, prepared in advance or timed in such a way that it looks like coincidence.
If one is destined to be rich, every action of his will turn out in his favour.

If one is destined to be average, every action of his will turn out to be mediocre.

If one is destined to be poor, every action of his will turn into a losing action, derived from a loser's thinking and perspective.

The Christians called it God's Will. The Buddhists and Hindus called it Karma. Some others called it Fate. Whatever it is called, the resultant destiny is an accumulation of a confluence of a series of continuous actions - rightly or wrongly- done by that individual with the assistance of a number of others .....

Anonymous said...

Not to worry, the Chinese has I-Ching or Book of Change founded some 3000yrs ago. This book is a guiding principles of daily matters that some Chinese consult in times of difficulty. Chinese believe that one's fate can be change jus like karma or Gods will.

Anonymous said...

Hi Unknown 516pm

Yes! U are 1o8% correct!


Virgo 49 said...

The AGC bigger shot than a Judge?

AGC: Judge wrong in placing burden of proof on Government in Pofma cases.

So Everything the Government said are Gospel Truths?

Called it PoFma or PooMa?

Well done Judge!

Clap clap. Reserved Judgement.

Why the Matland Court Case, they don't dare challenge?

Anonymous said...

@ Virgo @ 7.35am

{ AGC: Judge wrong in placing burden of proof on Government in Pofma cases.}

The AGC is clearly wrong.
- please see legal reference below


// The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.

It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

In civil suits for example, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the Defendant's action or inaction caused injury to the Plaintiff..."