The World Via The UN Must Condemn Australia For Bullying and Stealing The Timor Sea From The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

When Timor-Leste gained its independence from Indonesia on May 20th, 2002, the boundary of its Timor Sea which it shares with Australia had yet to be settled. The Australia-East Timor disputes over maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea have been simmering for a long time. Both Australia and East Timor brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague for arbitration However, Australia pre-empts the case of being decided by the court in favour of East Timor when its Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop and its Attorney General George Brandis jointly declared , " In line with our pre-existing legally binding treaties, ( with Indonesia and not recognized by Timor-Leste government ) Australia will not accept the jurisdiction to conduct hearings on maritime boundaries." This is tantamount to Australia not accepting the tribunal's award on the disputes

Australia in fraudulently referring to its pre-existing treaties with Indonesia as fait accompli does not hold water because they have never been recognized by the East Timorese government and people. However, an interim Timor Sea Arrangement was signed between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET ) in July, 2001. The Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and East Timor took effect in April, 2003, and both parties consensously agreed on the exploitation of resources and on January, 2006 , they signed the agreement on certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea in which both agreed to share the dispute for 50 years and make a 50-50 split on the profits in the disputed Greater Sunrise region.

However, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ) most oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea fall within East Timor territory. Thus the East Timorese government attempts to settle border disputes with Australia via negotiations on law which was later turned down by Australia.

East Timor protested to to an Australian spying scandal in 2012 , when Australia on the pretext of giving aid to East Timor was able to steal vital information regarding the Timor Sea negotiations which put East Timor to great disadvantage and this intensified the maritime disputes.East Timor then demanded negotiations with Australia to settle the disputes via bilateral talks. Australia has yet to agree to bilateral talks and in the meantime it refused to accept the PCA arbitration case.

Australia was too quick to condemn China in the recent fake and bogus tribunal over the South China Sea issue and its Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cynically claimed , " It is an important decision , it is one that has been made in accordance with international law and it should be respected by both parties, and indeed by all parties and claiments." It is a shame its Foreign Minister , Julie Bishop doesn't seem to agree when it is applied to Australia's cheating and stealing of East Timor's territorial seas and resources. Julie Bishop reiterated Australia's committment to exercising its rights to freedom of navigation ( referring to South China ) and in her own words to ignore the ruling  would be a serious international transgression " and that Australia would stand with the international community in calling for both sides to treat the arbitration (no doubt illegal and illicit ) as final and binding.

This has exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of Australia for that opinion might have been taken more seriously if Australia followed up on its hollow commendation for multilateralism and international law with adherence to those ideals itself in the context of its disputes with East Timor Republic. In the present case Australia is both bullying East Timor and stealing its territorial seas , thus depriving East Timor of its rightful sovereignty over the Timor Sea.

It must be remembered that for its own shameful and selfish ends , Australia is the only country in the world that endorsed the 1975-1999 Indonesia occupation of East Timor during which more than 180,000 East Timorese soldiers and citizens were killed. Australia was complicit in the atrocities and the only Western nation to recognize Indonesian annexation of Timor-Leste , a means to an end , ensuring the ratification of the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty, between Australia and Indonesia which favoured Australia.

Southernglory1
Thursday, 8th September,20

Elected Presidency – Cheng Bock in or out?

This must be the question in the minds of many after the recommendations by the Constitutional Commission were revealed. Nothing surprising and all the changes were more or less expected, like a child with all the right DNAs of the conceiving parents. So what is new?

Many are seeing the intended consequences of the Commission and the intended results based on a preconceived idea or agenda of what the Commission was all about from the very start of its existence. And they are not disappointed. Let me point out a few unintended consequences arising from the recommendations that would prove tricky and slimy in times to come.

The first point is the stringent criteria for an Elected President that, and I quote a comment by Chok Tong in the media, ‘We do not want to have a very high powered man who can be your President to be doing nothing for six years.’ This remark by Chok Tong was in response to a suggestion for a Vice President. But it is still very appropriate in the case of the EP whose 6 years would mainly be kissing children and waving at the crowds and shaking hands with the people visiting the Istana on public holidays.

The big question, why is there a need for such a high powered man with a string of stringent criteria? Is the job of the EP more important, more complicated and more demanding than that of the PM? Is the PM’s job so ‘senang’ that any Tom, Dick and Harry could take over without a single criteria on his suitability other than he is not insane? How many of you would agree that the PM’s job is definitely hundreds of times more difficult and complicated and demanding than the EP? It’s a no brainer really.

So, should not the criteria for the EP be made applicable to the PM, and more, make it even more stringent as the importance and complexity of the job demands a bigger superman. It is simply nonsensical for such an important job to be given to anyone without passing the same criteria as the cosy job of the EP. Tiok or boh tiok? If not, then the stringent criteria imposed on the Presidential candidate would become nonsensical as well.

The next unintended consequence of the recommendation is that all new citizens would be equally eligible to be the EP as long as they met the criteria, with no regards to their place of birth. They are eligible the moment they get their citizenship, fresh from the oven, as they said. Is this fair to the rest of the true blue citizens? Any new citizen from PRC or India or anywhere else would have the same right as a native citizen to be the EP.  This is as good as selling out the citizens’ rights to the Johnny come lately. Good, tiok, can, acceptable, never mind?

Another unthought of consequences, ok, I am being intellectually arrogant here to think that the wise men and woman did not think of it, is that Pinoys would stand a good chance to be a minority EP. The Indian Indian new citizens would fall under the Indian category so no sweat, they are eligible if no Indians are elected over 30 years, or an Others ie Europeans could enjoy the same privilege. They must thank God that they are classified as Others and automatically qualified as a minority.

What is this Pinoy thing that is so special? If I am not mistaken, the Pinoys are classified as Malays in their Identity Cards. So they could hitch a ride in the Malay category to be a minority EP when the time comes. Lucky buggers. The Malay pool of eligible candidates for minority EP is thus enlarged and there should be no fear of no qualified candidates. The Pinoys are qualified legally by this classification. OK, this anomaly or privilege for the Pinoys would not be applicable if I am mistaken and they are classified as Pinoys and not Malays. I stand corrected on this.

What other things to consider about the recommendations? Oh there is a point that needs further clarification on the 5 terms and 30 year absence of a minority President. I will touch on this in another post.

Did I miss out on more unintended consequences on the EP issue? Surely there must be plenty. Oh, did Cheng Bock qualify or kena booted out for good? I will address this in the next post together with the 5 terms/30 year criteria.

Elected President - Pandora box or a can of worms?

The minority President issue is now the top agenda of Hsien Loong. From what he said and the publicity given to the issue, the amount of effort and resources poured into this black hole, he is adamant to see it through and there is no stopping it, come what may…unless.

Raising this racial issue of protecting minority representation, and the likely outcome of race being enshrined in the Constitution, is a very dangerous precedent to set. All the works of LKY and the first generation of leaders to make this a multi racial society where everyone is equal regardless of race or religion would go kaput.  Race would become a national issue and be institutionalized and embedded in the Constitution that the pioneer leaders fear to tread and did all they could to keep it out of national politics.

Some may see this as the opening of the Pandora box. Some would see it as the opening of a can of worms.  The big question in everyone’s mind is why now when the PAP had all the time and opportunity to put in a Malay President in the last 50 years after Yusof Ishak? After Yusof Ishak there were Sheares, Nair, Wee, all appointed by the PAP and PAP could appoint any Malay leaders if it wanted to. It was so simple!

Then the next 3 elected presidents with Nathan taking two 6 year terms, why didn’t the PAP deem it fit all these years not to put up a Malay president candidate? Never think of it, it only happened yesterday and now they are thinking how important and urgent this is that it must be done today like a do or die matter?  Is it just an after thought or there is more to it than just a minority president, specifically a Malay president?

The biggest worm crawling out from the can is the argument and the call for a Malay PM.  This has never been talk about before. Why not a Malay PM? And the newspaper’s list of 6 Chinese candidates as the possible PM after Hsien Loong makes the story more uncomfortable and out of sync at this moment. Tokenism or seriousness to want the Malay to play a vital role in the country’s leadership? If the role of Malay is so important in political leadership, to be the EP, why not the premiership? There are voices asking for his PM seat now. More shit is being stirred up in the process. Here is a comment from TRE.

‘PM Lee has hinted that next Elected President will be a Malay.
So why don’t he insist that next Prime Minister be a Malay.
Possible candidates – Yacoub Ibrahim, Zulkifli Masagos, Halimah Yacoob.’ (Spelling error inherent in the quote)

This call for a Malay PM is becoming very uncomfortable and growing louder. This is something the PAP did not expect. It is only heard in the social media but not the main media. What is the excuse of not putting up a Malay PM or a minority PM?  Meritocracy?  Is meritocracy the issue or should race also be an issue? Would it not be better to have a Malay PM in charge to make it really representative?

The more this EP is being discussed and kicked around using race as the raison d’tre, more worms would start to crawl out from the can. And like the Pandora box, there is no way to close the box or seal the can again.  Heed the old wisdom, do not open the Pandora box, or the can of worms. The founding fathers with all their wisdom have worked diligently to seal the can of worms for good.  No race politics!

What is happening today would make them turn in their graves.

What would happen when it is the turn of a Malay President? Would he be rolled out as the best Malay candidate for the Presidency? Or would he be rolled out as the best Singaporean for the Presidency? Next, this is the best Malay President to represent all races? This is the most meritorious candidate, chosen and elected based on merit, or based on race? Meritocracy is not compromised?

What do you think?

Anti China rantings by obsequious pro American running dogs

The self appointed American running dogs are putting a show again of their most anti China rantings every time when the topic of ASEAN and South China Issues crop up. They behave as little USAs and the dangerous thing is that they could be planted USA's fifth columns to undermind and sour ASEAN and China relationship so as to destabilize the whole of the South China Sea region to the intent and benefit of the imperial world hegemony, the Evil Empire, USA.

Each of these American lackeys try to outdo each other in condemning China for the wrong reasons in their savagery remarks and derogatory statements about China. They are even more vociferous than their American masters in wanting to defame and condemn China and putting China in a bad light. They behave as if they are eager to pick a fight with China as proxies on behalf of their American masters.

These shameless American running dogs who could possibly be paid American fifth columns in ASEAN countries are playing with fire in trying to stir up muddy waters in the South China Sea issue and create animosity between China and some greedy ASEAN countries who on the behest of the evil Americans had stolen some Chinese islands in the South China Sea corridor. Also these faceless traitors to ASEAN- China relationship are by their insidious actions and behaviour working to the detriment of ASEAN-China friendship and to the benefit of the underlying American interest of securing full control and hegemony of the whole South China Sea and East China Sea, the ultimate aim of which is the American plan to contain China and prevent her from peaceful development.

These Amertican lackeys and running dogs who work as strategic research writers as well as lecturers in many of ASEAN and Singapore institutes of higher studies in the universities and in the institutes of international political and strategic studies could post a danger to Singapore and ASEAN countries. They could in their lectures poison young minds who are under their lectureship with wrong and bias views and attitudes toward China and this will not bode well for the future of ASEAN-China relationship when these young people grow up to inherit their countries' leadership.

These American running dogs who eat and grow fat at the expense of tax payers' money with very high salaries should be removed and despatched forthwith into oblivion for the safety of Singapore and Asean countries and for the peace and stability of Asia.

Southernglory1
Tuesday, 6th September,2016

Trojan Horses and Little USAs, got difference meh?

The South China Sea dispute has led to the often quipped terms in the lips of the protagonists like Trojan Horses and Little USAs. Both terms are unique in their origins, from Singapore or by Singaporeans. You don’t hear them being repeated by leaders, diplomats or analysts from other Asean countries, not even from the USA. And the way the terms were used, especially Trojan Horses, came with very strong negative connotations.

What about the term Little USAs, are there any negative connotations? It depends on where the person using it is coming from. This term first appeared in an article by Simon Tay. He put it politely and tried not to ruffle feathers knowing where the sensitivity is.

What does the term Trojan Horses mean?  No guessing, it means exactly in the same way as the Trojan Horse of Troy. It means those countries in Asean that were labeled as Trojan Horses of China were the agents of China and out to protect China’s interest in the South China Sea and to harm Asean.

What about Little USAs? Actually Little USAs and Trojan Horses are terms that meant the same thing and doing the same thing, serving their masters and working to protect the interests of their masters. If one is ugly, the other is just as hideous.

The Trojan Horses have been named as Laos and Cambodia. What about the Little USAs, who are they or which countries are the Little USAs or Trojan Horses of the USA? A clue, not the Philippines, not Vietnam. They are open in opposing China and siding with the USA.

While there will be Little USAs versus Trojan Horses to support their masters, Singapore’s relations with China is on the mend with Hsien Loong and Xi Jinping saying that there might be differences but these should not be allowed to affect the strong bilateral ties. So, would Singapore’s civil servants still be allowed to accuse China of trying to divide and rule Asean? Or would they be allowed to call China’s friends Trojan Horses?  If these would continue, then Singapore is really punching above its weight, a class of its own, and China just got to accept it and take the bollocking as sign of strong bilateral relations.

Blood Hounds in Washington Crying Wolf Over South China Sea Issue.

It is ridiculous for the bloods hounds of Washington which had destroyed many countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and badly destabilized the whole of the Middle East and some Latin American countries to tell China to abide by the illicit terms and rulings of the fake and bogus South China Sea tribunal . The latest in the line of these blood hounds like the Clintons, the two Bushes, Senior and Junior Bush is the black hound Obama who during the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou was telling President Xi Jinping to abide by the illegal rulings of the illicit American sponsored bogus South China Sea tribunal. They together with countless numbers of other anti China warmongers and Neo-conservatives in the White House, CIA, Pentagon and in the Congress and Senate like to speak with fork tongues. They talk peace but are always making wars to subjugate other countries. They talk about Human Rights but are the greatest perverts of Human Rights and always run rough shot against other countries to make sure they toe the USA line or policy.

Obama is pushing China to abide by the South China Sea obligations. Why should it be when China's long standing historical rights and sovereignty are being subverted and supplanted by USA and its lackeys Japan, Vietnam and the Pinoys. Under the treaty rights and obligations of the Cairo Conferenced, Potsdam Treaty and the San Francisco Treaty , all the Paracel Islands the Spratly Islands together with many other islands, shoals and reefs in the South China Sea were legally handed back to China by Japan after the Second World War and they were solemnly recognized by USA, Japan Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries prior to the mid 1970s.

Somehow in the 1970s when China was still military weak and with the discovery of oil and gas under the sea bed of the South China Sea, USA cunningly encouraged and urged Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia to stealthily steal many of the Chinese islands in which Vietnam stole 25 Chinese islands, Philippines 9 and Malaysia 7 and they all claim under the false facade  of the UNCLOS Treaty of 1982 basing on the new rule of continental shelf economic rights. USA and its lackeys the Vietnamese and Pinoys wrongly used the 1982 ruling on continental shelf to subvert China's traditional rule and sovereign rights over her own territorial islands and surrounding seas. All of a sudden USA made phoney use of the 1982 ruling to whisk away China's long traditional historical rights and sovereignty.

The world especially USA and its lackeys have an obligation and responsibility to abide by the treaties of Cairo, Potsdam and San Francisco to make good China's ownership and sovereignty over all these South China Sea islands. China should stand firm to her rights and sovereignty and should not yield or concede even one centimetre of her territory. China should and must eventually recover all the islands stolen from her by Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia and should not be afraid of the intimidation by the Evil Empire's show of might.

Southernglory1

Tuesday, 6th September, 2016

Who should be responsible to protect the legacies of LKY?

I may be asking the wrong question here by assuming that the legacies of LKY need to be protected. They should only if they are good legacies. Legacies should not be protected just because they are legacies. To ask such a question lies an underlying assumption that the legacies are good and worth protecting. Of course some may say the legacies are worth nothing, useless, should all be forgotten, dump into the dustbin of history.

 

I don’t think all of LKY’s legacies are bad. There must be some that are good or else we would not be what we are today. Then who should be the ones protecting his legacies? Should it be the people, the PAP or his children. As for the people, even if they want to protect his legacies, they are hapless. At best they could go to Hong Lim to kpkb but would be ignored. I bet Gilbert will be thinking about this seriously, to try a protest to protect LKY’s legacies instead of against govt policies and see how the govt will react, how the people will respond. Maybe he will get more supporters coming for free chicken rice.

 

Would the PAP protect and preserve the legacies of LKY? After all the PAP is his baby. The elite and the wealth they have accumulated were only made possible because of LKY and his legacies. Should they be honourable and grateful to want to protect his legacies that have made them rich and powerful? No country would have politicians becoming millionaires legitimately by just living on their million dollar pay. This is a legacy of LKY.

 

If the PAP does not think it worthy to protect the legacies of LKY, though I think they would if they are honourable, then it would be left to his children to do the necessary. Who among his children would be zealous enough to want to protect papa’s legacies?

 

We are already seeing some of his legacies being overturned and put away. Would there be any LKY legacies left by the end of this decade or sometime further down the road? During the mourning of his death, everyone was talking about his legacies. Now there is a silence, no one seems to be interested or bothered to talk about them, to bring them out to justify what they are going to do, to praise the legacies for the success of Singapore.

Xi urges the US to stop flexing muscles over the Middle East

London: USA needs to be a more responsible power as it gains global influence and avoid flexing its muscles in disputes with smaller countries over issues like the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, China President Xi Jinping told CNN in an interview to be aired on Sunday.

Xi, who meets with President Obama at a G20 summit next week in China, told CNN China supports peaceful American hegemony but that Washington had to recognise that "with increasing power comes increasing responsibilities," according to excerpts released on Friday.

"If you refuse to sign a treaty that calls for international arbitration around maritime issues, the fact that you're bigger than North Korea, Iran or Syria or other countries ... is not a reason for you to go around and flex your muscles," Xi said. "You've got to abide by international law and sign to be a member of UNCLOS."

Xi said Beijing had urged Washington to bind itself to international rules and norms to help build a strong international order by ratifying UNCLOS rules and regulations and become a member of the international community.

"Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the Middle East or in some of their behavior when it comes to economic policy, we've been very firm," Xi told CNN. "And we've indicated to them that there will be consequences."

The Chinese president said the US could not expect to "pursue mercantilist policies that just advantage" itself now that the US has become a more affluent, middle-income country.

"Even though you still have a lot of weapons, you know, you can't just export problems. You've got to have fair trade and not just free trade," Xi said. "You have to open up your markets if you expect other people to open up their markets."
World Associate Press

PS. Actually this is a writer article. I just change the name Obama and USA to Xi and China and vice versa and a little doctoring of the areas of conflict from South China to Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.

Pax America crumbling into pieces

Canada has finally break away from the American Empire by announcing that it would join the AIIB and is quickly welcomed by China. Canada was three of the sore thumbs, including the US and Japan that refused to join the AIIB despite Britain, France, Germany and Australia joining as founding members.  The attraction and benefits of being a part of the AIIB are too difficult to resist in a world economy that is declining and in need of a growth engine.

The AIIB is strongly anchored to China’s One Belt and One Road infrastructure development in Asia for another two or three decades and Canada just cannot afford to miss this boat if it wants economic growth and opportunities for its people.  According to Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Morneau, Canada is looking for opportunities around the world and the AIIB just provides that.

In a Business Times report by Anthony Rowley, ‘Former Goldman Sachs Asia vice-president Kenneth Courtis said in comments made available to The Business Times that "this is clearly the right decision". "It was a major mistake of the former government of Canada not to have joined the AIIB from the start, as Germany, France and the UK did.’

With this move, only the two anti China diehards in the USA and Japan are left out of the AIIB loop and isolating themselves from the infrastructure development in Asia. What could likely happen in the near future would be for the two antagonists to want to join the AIIB and it would be China’s turn to shut the down on them like the way they shut the door on China from IMF for so many decades and making it so difficult for China to join.

The whole game has come full circle. China should make the Americans and Japanese plead for membership to the AIIB when the day comes.

Singapore running out of luck

For several decades, nothing could go wrong in Singapore. And if anything went wrong, they would be put right immediately. The last outbreak of contagious disease was SARS and was quickly wrapped up and put away. We had many other problems but did not become too big a task to solve.

What is happening today? We have endless breakdowns on the public transport system after paying so many years of fare hikes for better services but with things getting worse by the days. We have outbreak of TBs, Hepatitis C, and now this Zika thing. How dreadful are the lives of pregnant mothers infected by the Zika sickness is beyond your imagination. Day and night, every moment, the mother and father would be thinking of their little unborn baby’s health. Would the baby be alright or born with brain damage? The latter is the fearful tragedy that could likely be their fate. What about little children infected with TB in kindergartens? If only you are the parents of the affected child.

Why were we so successful then and not now? Was it because we have had better people and better systems then and now no talent but highly paid people today with lousy systems? Very likely it is more like luck running out. For we are having the best talents from the world, oops, to be correct from the third world, to replace our own talents, and this is the result. This is one of the facts that we are living with but still needs empirical proof to connect the two.

If not this, then, assuming the people are still as talented and the systems have been improved, why then are we getting all the outbreaks? Luck running out! When luck runs out, the best system will still be found wanting. When luck runs out, poorly devised systems, half baked systems, tidak apa attitude, etc will stand out glaringly.

When luck runs out, all the wrong things will happen at the same time to wreck the system and the lives of the people here. How many more bad things are going to happen before the whole system implodes? 4 days of train faults and fuming commuters, and more and more Zika cases being detected and more mothers to be infected, and more coming along the way. When you have a few cases of infection, contact tracing is quite easy. When you have hundreds and thousands, you can forget about contact tracing.  Watch out for this Zika to develop into a full blown epidemic and woe beholds this little Red Dot. Complacency?

Return of the Sultans, bye bye Mahathir

Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar has taken a shot at Mahathir for interfering into the affairs of Johore with his typical Mahathir accusation that Johore is splitting the unity of Malaysia while he, Mahathir, is the uniting force for Malaysia. The Sultan has rightly pointed out that the problems of Malaysia, the racial politics and racial divide and the deep seated racial hatred have their origins from Mahathir. Under Mahathir’s rule, it was all about race politics in the name of unity.

Mahathir even attacked the phrase ‘Bangsa Johor’ as divisive, …’promoting affinity to individual states over the country will divide Malaysians’.  The Sultan told Mahathir to shut up and rightly pointed out that the seed of division and racial politics was planted and nurtured by Mahathir. ‘Bangsa Johor’ was a foresighted concept originated by the late Sultan Sir Ibrahim Al Masyhur Abu Bakar in 1920, a call to unite all the races under one flag.

The sins of Mahathir have not been spoken and are now surfacing. The Sultans are standing up to defend themselves and their rights as heads of their respective states and rulers of Malaysia. Mahathir better shut up or would not only be told to shut up but could end up in very compromising and uncomfortable position as his fame and stature fade away. He must know that time has changed to his detriment and it is for his own good to disappear quietly to enjoy his retirement in his twilight years.  If he insists to take on the royalties and the UMNO that he used to rule, he may be in for a rude awakening.

More LKY legacies falling

I wrote about the meritocracy legacy of LKY at the verge of being dumped by including race as a key factor in the election of the EP. Under the present criteria, though very, actually extremely elitist, it still has the hallmark of LKY in it, ie meritocracy. The EP will be chosen on merit and elected by the people. No tokenism. The likely proposed changes to the criteria to include race as a key element soundly denounced the ideal of meritocracy, that does not need to be elected base on merit but on race. Several minority bloggers have spoken up against this compromising change that would not look good when a minority candidate is elected under a different and unmeritocratic rule. They expressed their objections to such a patronising move. How strong is this view from the minorities against or in support of the changes has yet to be determined but it sure irks the minority elites as was seen in a CNA programme.

 

What is certain is that this meritocracy legacy of LKY will be the first to fall and not the last. In last week's ST there was an article by Kor Kian Beng on how Singapore walked the tight rope in a balancing act between the two super powers, China and the USA. In the article he quoted LKY saying that Singapore must not choose between the two super powers. Singapore should be neutral in their conflict. And Singapore might host Chinese military facilities as well after offering such facilities to the Americans. That was another hallmark and legacy of LKY. A wisdom only fools should disregard.

 

Vivian Balakrishnan and Chan Chun Sing have both been quoted that Singapore's position between the two powers was and is neutral, Singapore does not take sides. This was the position of Singapore in the past. Has this been changed recently over the South China Sea dispute?

 

Hsien Loong took pains to explain Singapore's position at the National Day Rally not for no reasons. China is fuming and has lodged protests to the govt on Singapore's pro American stand, read as anti China, after several govt officials made statements that were obviously unfriendly to China. Singapore's role within Asean on this issue, the favourable comments on The Hague ruling, freedom of navigation, etc etc mirrored the American positions to the chagrin of China. And the Americans are using military facilities in Singapore to conduct provocative manoeuvres in the South China that further put to question about Singapore's neutral position between the two super powers.

 

The big question, is Singapore really neutral or has Singapore taken side with the Americans, abandoning its policy of neutrality? It is not just what the Singapore govt and its officials were saying but what Singapore has been doing in recent times that would be judged. And only China and the USA know and matters whether Singapore has taken sides.

 

If Singapore has taken side, then another legacy of LKY is going down the drain. The next question to ask, are these legacies obsolete, outlived their usefulness, or they were wrong in the first place and have to be dumped, LKY legacies or whatever? How many more of LKY's legacies or wisdom would be ignored, challenged and buried away? How many people have the audacity to think they are wiser than LKY and dare to show disrespect to his legacies, to put them away, barely one year after his demise?

 

Was there a call to protect and preserve his legacies?

 

PS. I understand there are people that would pui when LKY’s name is mentioned. Let’s be objective about this. Not all his legacies are bad and some are critical to the continued existence and well being of this little Red Dot. Abandoning the good stuff indiscriminately would be an unforgiveable sin, an injustice to the future of Singapore and the millenials.

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.