In its repeated demonizing of China and bullying of China, the Americans
have run out of ideas and reasons to oppress and obstruct Chinese
exports and trade with the Americans and the Americans have dug into the
dark dungeons to bring out a defunct 1974 Trade Act to use against
China. Section 301 of this Act ‘allows the president to unilaterally
impose tariffs or other restrictions to protect US industries from
“unfair trade practices” of foreign countries, such as trade agreement
violations or “discriminatory” actions that burdens US commerce.’
So what else would the Americans pull out next, what about the Chinese
Exclusion Act of the 1882? I think this Act will surely work since it
was so effective in the past. And Trump and his administration should go
further and go back to past practices of their grandfathers. With the
glorious reputation of being the head of a Ku Klux Klan, Trump could
invoke the power of his grandfather’s Klan to deal with immigration from
Asia and Africa and also from Latin America.
The Americans have been so civilized in their old ways and should look
no further, no need to think harder or work harder. Go back to past
practices. It is all about American Exceptionalism and the Americans
were and still are the most civilized people in the world.
Tillerson is telling the North Koreans that they ‘are presenting an
unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond.’ The North Koreans 2
ICBMs still under testing are an unacceptable threat to the Americans
while the Americans flying nuclear bombers over the Korean peninsula is
not an unacceptable threat to the North Koreans. The almost daily
military exercises outside North Korean soil and sea simulating an
invasion are not an unacceptable threat to the North Koreans. The threat
of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea backed by thousands of
nuclear warheads is not an unacceptable threat to the North Koreans.
Many western stereotype writers and politicians have been harping about
an assertive China as if China was pushing everyone around in its
foreign policies. They have yet to see what an assertive China is like.
The truth, China has been adopting a policy of restraint and humility
guided by Deng Xiaoping, to work conscientiously in the peaceful
development of China and to avoid dispute, in another words, to work
hard, even to swallow bitter pills.
The western powers especially the Americans and even Japanese thought
that this was a sign of weakness and had been pushing China on every
fabricated issue they could think of. China’s response was appeasement
and walked away from the raw challenge of military power like the
bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the flying of nuclear armed
bombers and recon planes to threaten China and the increasing
provocations of violating the territorial sovereignty in the South China
Sea. Even a pretentious regional power like India thought it was strong
enough to brazenly send soldiers into Chinese territories to stop the
Chinese from road building works at the Sino Bhutan border.
The Philippines under the Aquino govt in collusion with the Americans
and Japanese thought they could bully China by setting up a kangaroo
court at The Hague to rule against China and to declare Chinese islands
as rocks in the ocean, thus cutting away Chinese territorial rights in
the South China Sea.
Enough is enough. China would not tolerate such violations of its
sovereignty and national interests anymore. During the 90 Anniversary of
the PLA, Xi Jinping has made an important policy speech to move away
from Deng Xiaoping’s policy of avoidance of trouble by not picking up
the gauntlet, even when humiliated. Henceforth, ‘We will never allow any
people, organization or political party to split any part of Chinese
territory out of the country at any time, in any form. No one should
expect us to swallow the bitter fruit that is harmful to our
sovereignty, security or development interests.’
This is a major shift in Chinese policy and overdue. Countries still
complaining about an assertive China would be mistaken and would be
rudely awaken to see the real assertive China to come. From this speech,
Xi Jinping has firmly give notice to the world, to the USA, Europe and
little countries like Japan, England and Australia that China would mean
business and would not tolerate their nonsense and unreasonable demands
and provocations. The constant provocations by the Americans in the
South China Sea would be firmly dealt with and with appropriate military
response if needed to. China would show the Americans the middle finger
on the North Korean issue. It is not China’s problem to deal with the
North Korean’s nuclear programme and China would not go along or be
pressured by the Americans to undermine its relations with the North
Koreans. More firm response would be taken against Thaad deployment in
the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese should be more careful with their
words and actions on the island dispute in the East China Sea. And India
better move its soldiers out of Chinese territory before they be kicked
out by force.
The China today would take the bull by the horns and face any challenges
squarely and militarily if necessary. Little USAs better take note and
shut up or would have eggs in their faces. ‘China wants peace, but will
not be bullied’, said President Xi Jinping. China would no longer walk
away from trouble, provocations and challenges.
The world is going to see the real assertive China when its interests
are threatened or challenged. This time China would say to the
Americans, all options are on the table, including military ones. Not
only the Americans can say this, China too would be saying this to the
Americans. China would not just be watching idly by should the Americans
attack North Korea or any of its allies.
Philip Ang wrote a piece with figures to support to warn Singaporeans
about the risk of the CPF Ponzi scheme blowing up. How reliable were
the numbers he put up is debatable as what he could do was to
extrapolate from the limited data available. The truth or data as to the
financial health of the CPF money is not readily available. The
soundness of the CPF savings is as good as the govt’s words, trust me,
everything is professionally managed by the best managers money can buy,
in good hands, and the money is safe. And it is secret. This is the
most frightening part. When the data or truth cannot be told or
concealed, should you be worried? Knowing how people like to parrot
their achievements, and when there is no achievement to gloat about and
no data to show, you better read between the lines and make your own
conclusion.
The CPF is now like a secret maze, guarded with top secrecy and the
public don’t really know what is going on except for some numbers put up
occasionally. Is Philip’s concern valid, that this Ponzi scheme is
about to blow up? If Philip is right, no Singaporean is spared and the
consequences are grave. Imagine a whole life time of earnings of a few
million people disappeared in thin air. Just hope Philip is wrong and
everything is fine. Trust the govt that everything is fine.
There is another Ponzi that cannot escape the passage of time. This is
the 99 year lease on HDB flats. Singaporeans are expected to celebrate
SG100 in 2065, ie less than 50 years away. By then, many HDB flats would
be at the end of their leases and many Singaporean HDB owners would see
the value of their flats becoming zero. There is no way to cover up or
avoid this rude awakening. The million dollar asset rich Singaporeans
would turn penniless overnight comes SG100.
Not only that, many would have to be evicted from their flats when the leases expired.
Still there is another immigration Ponzi scheme going on when more and
more foreigners would have to be brought in to shore up the property
market. The influx of more and more people cannot go on and on. It is
unsustainable and must come to a halt. Then what? Another big bust.
With these 3 Ponzi schemes awaiting to explode, is the future really that comfortable, good and secure for Singaporeans?
This article appeared in The Independent site written by a Veasna Var, a
PhD candidate and a Sovinda Po, a masters student. The gist of the
article is that many countries are heavily in debt to China for
borrowing to build infrastructure and commercial projects in their
respective countries. Sri Lanka is supposedly drowning in debt to the
tune of US$64b of which US$8b is owed to China.
Cambodia also owed 80% of its bilateral debt of US$3.9b to China. Next
comes Malaysia, with Chinese firms investing some US$35.6b in projects
in Malaysia and another RM56b for a high speed railway linking KL to
Singapore. And after signing for RM143b worth of projects last November,
Najib is back in China to ask for more funds and more projects. It is
China’s fault again! Najib is so gullible and is begging to be duped
again and again to get Malaysia into bigger debt? The bomohs in China
must be working very hard on Najib to make him fall into China’s debt
trap.
What is important and often ignored is that the debt is made up of
concessionary loans or grants to these countries which means at very
favourable interest rates. What is also not mentioned is that these
countries are the beneficiaries of investments and infrastructure
developments as a result of the loans and grants.
The big question, why is this China’s fault? Did the authors understand
that it is these countries that went to China to ask for cheap loans to
rebuild their countries and to ask China to invest in their countries?
Are the leaders of these countries idiots that blindly went to China to
ask for cheap money and investment only to end up in huge debts? Did
these leaders know what they were doing, why they were taking such huge
loans and grants and would end up in big debt if they mismanaged the
funds? Is this the fault of China for being generous and helpful to
offer cheap loans and investments at the requests of these countries?
Did China put a knife at the throat of the leaders of these countries to
accept the cheap loans and grants? Who is doing who a favour in such
deals and agreements? Who are the beneficiaries of the cheap loans and
grants? With the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, did these
countries benefit anything at all?
And if these countries mismanaged or make losses as a result of these
cheap loans and grants and investments, why is it China’s fault? All
these silly academics only see one side of the picture, China is
benefiting and the countries enjoying cheap loans and investments are
the losers, not gainers?
Why did not the leaders of these countries go to the West to ask for
cheap loans and grants for the same reasons, for more investments? The
West would not lend them the money? Or the West would charge them higher
interest rates and higher development costs?
Are the authors of the article thinking individuals or thinking but with
flawed logics, as good as unthinking? Or they have different agenda to
paint the generosity of China as black?
What do you think? Why are the leaders of these countries forming a
beeline to China for cheap loans and grants voluntarily if these are bad
for them? Should they be running away? Are these leaders fools and
willingly be conned by China? China is not their colonial masters and
did not put a gun on their heads and tell them to sign or else as the
West did in the past.
Half way through a prepared speech on the reliability of the train, Boon
Wan could not tahan anymore and went off the cuff to berate the
negative reporting of the breakdown of public transport by the main
media. ‘I don’t like the media reporting…Even our main media have turned
tabloid. Yes, exciting and so on…frightening figures, headlines.’
According to Today’s readers comments, the media were reporting the
truth, what were happening exactly on the ground and these were very
helpful to commuters who needed to know the real situation and to plan
their travel. It would be terrible if the media were to report average
of breakdowns over24 hours like the reporting of haze situation and the
commuters would be like lost sheep, not knowing what to do.
Some comments from interviews conducted by Today, ‘The media is
basically reflecting the sentiments of regular train commuters….the
updates provided by the media have helped commuters such as herself to
plan their commute…I don’t think the media has (exaggerated) recent
train delays and breakdowns….)
Professor Lee Der Horng of NUS has this to say, ‘…that mainstream media
coverage of the recent train delays was an accurate reflection of the
situation, and it played a role in getting train operators to come
forward and explain to the public the cause of those delays….The media
cannot be so blind that when the re-signalling work casuse delays,
they’re not reported. I think (in that case) the public would be
furious.’
Now the media is caught in a vice, between a hard rock and the deep blue
sea. How and what should the media be reporting? Or should the media be
telling the people just to hear the good stuff…and ignore the bad news?
What Boon Wan could do is to follow Donald Trump and go twitting and
instruct the train operators to twit as well. Just keep twitting and
ignore the main media. It would be better if he could tell the main
media to stop reporting on the train delays and all news on public
transportation and delays would be available on twitters. That would
make the job of the main media easier and commuters would only hear the
good news, the good stuff, the right stuff, from twitters.
What is fake news and real news is a fine thin line. I am being generous.
The latest missile test by the North Koreans has drawn immediate
response from the world's number one outlaw and its fellow gangsters.
The Americans not only responded by more military exercises to threaten
the North Koreans, Trump also added this rhetoric,
'By threatening the world, these weapons and tests further isolate North
Korea, weaken its economy, and deprive its people,...The United States
will take all necessary steps to ensure the security of the American
homeland and protect our allies in the region.'
This is the normal reaction of the outlaw, to show the other party that
it has bigger guns to hit them and also to fool the world that the North
Koreans are threatening them and the outlaw is there to protect the
rest of the world from the North Koreans. Now, who would be fooled by
the American rhetoric, who would believe the North Koreans would be
firing nuclear weapons at them for no good reason? Or is there any
country been poking at the North Koreans and now felt guilty about it
and thus has good reason to know that the North Koreans would not be
happy with their big mouths?
The North Koreans are doing the right thing, to make sure it could give a
few deadly blows at the outlaw should it tries to nuke them. The best
part is that attention is directed at North Koreans' ability to hit the
US homeland. Should the Americans nuke NK, Japan would be the first
target for the short range missiles from NK. Japan would go up in smokes
as the North Koreans have plenty of short range missiles to cover all
the big cities and American bases in Japan.
The first victim of a nuclear war between the US and NK would be Japan.
They better don't play with fire and tell the Americans to back down
from their madness.
And why is North Korea becoming China’s problem and China has to solve
it? What has China got to do with the affairs and defence capability of
another sovereign state? Who is poking the North Koreans and threatening
the North Koreans and demonizing the North Koreans?
China should show its middle finger to the Americans and tell them to
deal with the problems they created, or was there really a problem in
the first place? Just stop provoking and harassing the North Koreans and
they would not threaten to blow up American cities. Stop your war games
and flying nuclear armed bombers over the Korean Peninsula.
The Americans are the real problem, the threat to North Korea and world peace.
The controversy over the new batch of representatives for the Miss
Singapore Universe contest is turning very sour and distasteful. Some of
the comments were outright discourteous and nasty and uncalled for.
What is this beauty contest all about? It is all about beautiful and
intelligent lasses representing their respective countries to show off
to the world. It started off as an innocuous event but now becoming more
political and commercialized and as fake as one can get.
While being fake is acceptable, let’s go one step further by doing what
Singapore is good at, buy, buy, buy. Just like our dream of buying a
football team for the World Cup and our embarrassing displayed of
foreign players winning medals for our country to prove that we have
talents, why not go the extra mile and buy the most beautiful girls from
around the world to represent Singapore in the Miss Universe or Miss
World contests? When money is everything, when money can buy everything,
let’s use our money to its fullest advantage and tell the local lasses
to step aside, we are going to import beautiful girls from around the
world to represent Singapore.
This would add another plastic layer to our everything beautiful
country, a country full of foreign talents and no local talents. But
never mind, as long as it is good for the country. Never mind if it is
good or no good for the people. Anyway we are already deep in the
process of replacing all the unwanted, untalented and now unsightly
Singaporeans with better foreigners. It is just part of the process of
renewal for the better. Let’s fake this one as well.
What do you think?
Next on the list to be replaced by foreigners would be the top military
and police officers, the top civil servants, the judges and of course,
last on the list, the ministers and Prime Ministers and the President.
Singapore must pay for the best foreigners to take over jobs that
Singaporeans cannot do better. And there are billions of foreigners out
there that can replace every Singaporean, from the toilet cleaners to
the President and PM of the country.
Let's not kid ourselves that what we have the best in the world. The best in the world are out there, the foreign talents.
My alma
mater has made Singaporeans proud by believing in the abilities of
Singaporeans as among the best academics in the world. After the
disaster in NTU where the heart of Chinese education continues to be
headed by foreigners and the incident of Chinese language not allowed, it is a pleasant surprise to see NUS raising the
flag of Singapore in appointing another Singaporean to be the President
of our premier university. I would not know where to hide my face if all
the heads of Singapore's universities are headed by foreigners.
This was reported in Channel News Asia on 29 Jul 17.
SINGAPORE: The National University
of Singapore (NUS) has named Professor Tan Eng Chye as its new
president, an appointment that will take effect in January 2018.
Prof
Tan, a mathematician and an NUS alumnus, has been the university’s
provost for the past 10 years. He will succeed current president Tan
Chorh Chuan who will be seconded to the Ministry of Health, said NUS in a
news release on Friday (Jul 28).
The incoming
president, 56, said he will be focusing on three areas - lifelong
learning, personalised learning and inclusive learning....
If
Singapore and Singaporeans do not believe in Singaporeans, then this
country would go to the dogs. Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, true
blue Singaporeans, not those instant tree Singaporeans. Singaporeans
need to take back control of this country before it is taken over by
foreigners and instant trees.
I am proud of my alma mater.
The CNA also reported this,'
'NUS also announced the appointment
of Professor Ho Teck Hua as its new senior deputy president and provost
from January 2018. He is currently the deputy president (Research &
Technology), and heads two national research and development programmes
in artificial intelligence and data science.
“With these two appointments, NUS
will have a truly outstanding leadership team,” said NUS chairman Hsieh
Fu Hua who led the search for the new president.
Recently Singaporeans have been bombarded with the myth that Bhutan is
the heaven on earth where the Bhutanese are the happiest people in the
world. There are some truths on this statement without the ’buts’ being
exposed. The happy Bhutanese are as happy as the caged canaries. A caged
bird’s happiness is about living in a cage with food provided, secure
and safe from the paws of a hungry cat and ignorant of what lies outside
the cage.
Bhutan is in all definition a protectorate of India. It has an agreement
with India, supposedly signed voluntarily and happily, that India
guides its foreign policies ie India decides its relations with other
states. In the current border dispute with China, or India’s border
dispute with China by actually hijacking Bhutan’s border to start a
dispute with China, it was repeatedly highlighted that Bhutan has no
diplomatic relations with China. It did not say that Bhutan also did not
have diplomatic relations with all five powers of the UN Security
Council. Why would not Bhutan want to have relations with the five
powers or with more countries of the world? Because India decides it to
be so. Having relations with other powers and countries would be bad as
it would reduce the influence and control of India over Bhutan.
Why didn’t Bhutan wants to participate in the BRI project? A landlocked
country would definitely benefitted from more access to the rest of the
world. No, India would not allow that. India would not allow Bhutan to
have FDIs other than those from India. Japan and European countries and
now China would like to invest in Bhutan. But permission was not
allowed. Whose permission? Bhutan or India?
Bhutan has very little trading activities and trade relations with other
countries, not allowed to participate in such activities. On the
surface, Bhutanese love to remain in their present state of heaven and
are very happy with their way of life and want to be protected to be in
this state of living forever.
Is this what the Bhutanese want or what India imposed on the Bhutanese?
The current border trouble with China, or is it Bhutan’s trouble with
China or India’s trouble with China? India is claiming that China wants
to invest in Bhutan, wants more relations with Bhutan and wants Bhutan
to participate in the BRI project. But Bhutan refused and wanted to
remain a protectorate of India, did not want to open up, want to remain a
happy cage bird, look after and fed by India, and to remain a nation of
very happy canaries. Oops.
What do you think is the truth? Do the Bhutanese have any aspirations
and ambitions to be a free people, to decide what is good for them, to
be a normal country like everyone else? Are they really happy to be
canaries in a cage?
The current border dispute is India's excuse to move in troops into
Bhutan to strengthen its control over Bhutan in the name of protecting
Bhutan. And Bhutan could hardly say anything within the approval of
India. The canary can only sing but not speak up for its own interests
The UN has started a move, led by the small nations of the world to ban
nuclear weapons. But knowing how powerful is the evil Empire, this move
is at best dreaming and chest thumping. The evil Empire will not give
up its arsenal of nuclear weapons. Without the nuclear weapons it would
not be able to bully every country that it chose to demonise by
threatening to conduct preemptive nuclear strike on them.
The evil Empire is sending its nuclear forces of aircraft carriers and
bombers to the east of the Mediterranean Sea poised to attack Syria. It
is also sending its nuclear fleet and nuclear bombers to threaten the
North Koreans as well as Russia and China.
The North Koreans have warned that the evil Empire is flirting too close
to ignite a nuclear war. Many people still did not know how destructive
is this coming war? It would escalate beyond control and half the world
would be wiped out and become inhospitable for centuries to come,
becoming nuclear wasteland. And to the Americans, please, the American
continent would not be spared either as the top target in a nuclear war.
You will be wiped out while your soldiers are out there wiping out
other countries.
Is this what you want? No, you do not think you too would be victims of a
nuclear holocaust? You think your so called nuclear shield, the stupid
Thaad system, could protect you from a nuclear war? The trial shooting
of pre planned inert targets is proof that it would be able to shoot
down real targets that are designed to evade the Thaad missiles?
For the rest of the world, pray hard that your leaders did not get
involved and be spared from becoming collaterals in this war. The bad
news is that even if they did the right thing, not to get involved, the
nuclear clouds would be all over the world and there is no escape.
When would the American masses put a stop to the evil men and women in
charge and stop this menace from destroying human civilization? There
will be no Sunday morning cuppa of hot coffee or football games to
watch, no more Saturday night fever or basketball or baseball games, no
more hamburgers or hotdogs to tuck in. The devastation would be
horrendous. You want your good life to be destroyed by your
irresponsible and reckless monsters in the White House, in the Pentagon,
in Washington?
You still have a chance to stop them before it is too late. The mad men
and women and their madness will drag you into the sea of fire. You
have to take charge now and throw out all the mad men and mad women
wanting to go to war, to provoke a nuclear war with North Korea or in
Syria and surrender the peace and good life you are having today.
God save the poor Americans, they are inviting disasters onto themselves
thinking that they would be spared. They could destroy others and
others could not destroy them. The monsters in Washington do not care a
shit how many million people would be annihilated when this war starts.
Not to worry, the North Koreans may not hit you, but don’t count on
China and Russia not hitting you. It is World War 3, damn it! Keep on
threatening others, keep on provoking others. Just keep trying.
The time to remove all the nuclear weapons on mother earth is here. Get
rid of them or they will rid you from mother earth. Small nations must
stand up, especially the principled ones, to blow their trumpets loud
and clear, that nuclear weapons are harmful not only to small nations
but to the whole world.
This controversy over what is a Malay and what is a Muslim has
precipitated finally, thanks to the Constitution on the definition of
what is a Malay or who can represent the Malay community as a minority
President. According to Article 19B of the Singapore Constitution, "any
person, whether of the Malay race or otherwise, who considers himself to
be a member of the Malay community and who is generally accepted as a
member of the Malay community by that community" is qualified to run as a
candidate for the reserved EP for Malays.
The dichotomy between a Malay and a Muslim has never been in question or
was a non issue before. It was not important enough or there was reason
to want a clearer definition of a Malay and a Muslim. It is common
knowledge that all or nearly all Malays are Muslim, with a few
exceptions. For those Malays that are non Muslim, I am not sure if the
Malay community still regards them as Malays or ex communicado.
On the other hand, all Muslims are not necessarily Malay. One can be a
Muslim from any race or nationality. A Muslim can be European,
Caucasian, Arabs, Pakstani, Indian, African or Chinese and living
totally different ways of life. Ok the Singapore Constitution understood
this and further clarified that a Malay is not only a Muslim but
practises Malay way of life. The ‘otherwise’ in the Constitution is very
extensive and inclusive to the extent that anyone not of the Malay race
can be considered as a Malay if the Malay community, reads as the
Committee set up by the govt, accepts the person as a Malay.
The big issue, what is this reserved EP all about? Isn’t it about the
election of a Malay rather than anyone not of Malay ethnicity? A Malay
is a Malay by ethnicity. Period. Though this is further complicated by
mixed marriages, a person that has no Malay ethnicity in him despite him
practising the Malay way of life and being a Muslim, is not a Malay by
any means except by a round about way of interpreting what is written in
the Constitution.
Coming to this big question of a Malay that is not a Muslim. Does the
Malay community regard a Malay that is a non Muslim a Malay or no longer
a Malay? What about the legal interpretation of a Malay? Is it by
ethnicity or by religion? Legally, I would presume that Malay parents or
mixed Malay parents that are not Muslims but chose to register their
children as Malay at birth have the right to do so and no one can deny
that they are Malays when registered. Things get more complicated should
non Malay Muslim parents decide to register their children as Malay at
birth. What would be the status of such persons legally? Malay or non
Malay? Going forward, with the EP pie beckoning, would Pakistanis,
Indians and Pinoys choose to register their children as Malay to take
advantage of this loophole? Would the babas also do likewise?
How would this debate continue and would it lead to a better definition
of what constitute a person being accepted as a Malay or would the
definition in the Constitution be final and the end of the story? Is
this mess necessary or can be avoided? There is no such problem before
this minority EP thing.
This is what a Malaysian said of corruption in high places in Malaysia.
Where got problem? It is ok if the corruption did not lead to high cost
of living. Who is going to complain when seeing a govt doctor cost RM1.
Who is going to complain when the delivery of a child in govt hospital
cost RM1?
Then there is public housing where a 2 bedroom apartment cost RM50,000.
Complain for what? This is good govt, a govt that looks after the
welfare of the people. What corruption? Who cares?
Najib just announced a RM1.42b package for Felda. How is this to be
spread among the people? This is what AGENCIES reported, ‘Cash
incentives of RM475 million, or RM5,000 to each settler. Forgiving
RM128 million in debt for settlers who took out Felda Global Ventures
equity loans. Debt forgiveness of RM519 million, or up to RM5,000 for
each settler that had taken part in Felda’s scheme to replant
unproductive oil palms, and A special fund of RM300 million to be set up
for 2017 to 2021, to help with replanting operational debts of RM40,000
or more.
And everyone knows that this is pre election budget. The Malaysian govt
is buying votes and the people are not worry as the govt would not be
coming up with high taxes to take back everything they gave during the
election. Why not? If the govt is giving money to the people, this is
the kind of govt that the people will vote for. Why vote for a govt that
promises everything under the sky but what comes after the election are
tax hikes in everything. Malaysians are smart, unlike the daft
Singaporeans, got conned and conned after every GE and still never
learn.
The Malaysians love their govt, a govt that takes care of them and their
welfare. It is ok if they take care of themselves, pocket a bit more,
but give the people more also.
Which govt do you think is good for the people? Which govt is not
corrupt? What is important is whether they are making life better for
the people or not.
Diplomacy is an old art of interstate engagement to build relationship
and to improve and protect the interests of states. When diplomacy
fails, the likely outcome is war between states or strained relations.
This is something that the art of diplomacy would want to avoid so that
states can work and live with each other peacefully. The last thing in
diplomacy is Bridge Burning.
Is there a Diplomacy of Bridge Burning being practiced by the diplomats
and state officials? In the recent tense relations between Singapore and
China, ok I may be wrong as Singapore did not see it this way and
claimed that Singapore’s relation with China is as good as ever, I would
say a few cardinal sins of diplomacy were committed on the Singapore
side. Ok, please feel free to disagree with me as this is just my
perception of the events.
What were these cardinal sins? 1. Singapore demanded that China obeyed
the rulings of the Hague Tribunal on the South China Sea. 2. Singapore
demanded that China followed the rule of law. 3. Some Singapore
officials commented that China was adopting a policy to divide Asean. 4.
Some Singapore officials said China had been pressuring Singapore to be
on the side of China on some issues.
To me, these are the cardinal sins Singapore committed in this fracas
that led to a very strain relation with China. Of course I stand to be
corrected as some Singapore officials said Singapore did not do anything
or say anything to provoke China or things that would affect the
relations negatively. If this is so, then all my comments are hogwash,
even fake news.
Did Singapore say or do anything to offend China? Did Singapore know
that the above four points that I mentioned are as good as Diplomacy of
Bridge Burning? The positions taken, cannot be uttered unthinkingly as
the statements were very serious in nature, were as good as telling
China that Singapore was prepared to cut off relations with China if
needed to. And to take such a position, it would be expected that
Singapore would have thought through this very carefully and weighed the
consequences of offending China and possibly breaking all ties with
China, diplomatically, commercially, economically and culturally.
It is foolish to think that when Singapore took that position that was
openly unfriendly to China, ok, I agree to disagree with those that
thought Singapore was friendly with China and did not do anything
against China, it did not do any homework to consider the consequences.
To take such an unfriendly position, to shout so loudly, daily, to China
and for the rest of the world to hear, it must be a properly thought
out position, that Singapore was prepared to burn bridges with China. Or
maybe Singapore thought China was hapless and would not do anything to
harm its relation with Singapore as Singapore was more important to
China to lose. China would swallow the bitter pill and would keep
relations as per normal despite the utterance of Singapore.
Oops, was there an after thought, that burning bridges with China was
not a good idea after all? Or this was not even discussed or considered,
that taking that position would not lead to such an eventuality? The
subsequent flurry of activities to make amends to China, to tell China
that Singapore was a friend and is still a friend said it all, that
Singapore cannot afford to burn bridges with China. There are too much
at stake economically for Singapore to do so.
Funny, why didn’t they thought of it in the first place and avoid the
Diplomacy of Bridge Burning? When a bridge is burnt, it takes time to
rebuild a new bridge and the new bridge would not be the same again.
The big question going forward is whether Singapore would adopt another
Bridge Burning Diplomacy again in the name of national interests and
sovereignty, in the name of rule of law? From the noises heard recently,
Singapore does not regret its Bridge Burning Diplomacy and would do it
again for the same reasons, ie when Singapore’s interests are at stake,
when the rule of law affecting small states are challenged. Singapore
has strong principles and would stand on its principles come what may.
Do not triple of the Little Red Dot.
Did I get Singapore’s principled position right? Lee Kuan Yew’s time was
all about pragmatism and survival. Things must have changed.
The issue of your race has never been so controversial, so ambiguous, so
subjective and so disputable until this minority election for an EP
comes into being. Everyone is now questioning what his race means to his
opportunity to qualify for the appointment of the EP. While the heat is
now on in how to define what is a Malay and Malayness, many have
forgotten the meaning of race as stated in the BC/IC. Is this still valid
and still legal? Is a person a Malay or Indian or Chinese or Others as
stated in his BC/IC or is that person something else?
Going backwards, when a child is born, the most important decision and a
natural thing to do for the parents are to identify which race the
child belongs. This is instinctive and the real identity of the child
that the parents want the child to be. They have consciously chosen,
declared and made a decision for life for the child.
What is happening today is that this important decision of choice is
questionable and may not be legal. A person with a particular race
stated in his/her BC/IC could not be what was stated in the BC/IC. A Malay may
not be a Malay or an Indian may not be an Indian, and so is a Chinese
or Others.
Would this new development have any implications other than just the
qualification to stand as an EP candidate? Many govt polices are race
related like HDB, education, social organisations etc etc. When one's
identity in the BC/IC is subject to question and challenge, what would it
make of the BC/IC, an official document that tells the identity of a
person?
Can the Committee deciding what or who is a Malay reject a person that
is officially stated as a Malay in his/her BC/IC? Can the same Committee
decide that a person that is officially stated as a non Malay be
officially ‘accepted’ as a Malay despite what is stated in the BC/IC? How
would such an issue be ruled in the courts of law should race be in
question, is the person what he is as stated in his BC/IC?
The problem of this confusion of racial identity is not just about the
EP but about a whole series of complex govt policies and regulations and
the social fabric of the country. This is a problem that is self
created and is not going to go away just by a few simplistic rulings by a
Committee that now appears to have the right and authority to change
the race of a person.
What is happening?
Would there be more stringent checks and conditions before one can
register a child belonging to an ethnic group at birth given this new
development, that parents cannot anyhow hantam the race of the child in
the BC/IC when being an ethnic minority comes with exceptional privileges?
The cover up of activities by Japanese soldiers in Sudan in the logs of
Japanese soldiers has raised doubts of the participation of Japanese
soldiers fighting in Sudan. The soldiers were sent there as peacekeepers
under the UN mission. Japan has prohibited sending soldiers into theatres
of war and would only allow Japanese soldiers in places where a ceasefire
is in place.
Apparently in the case of Sudan when fighting was escalated, the removal
or non admission of logs by Japanese soldiers in Sudan has led to
suspicion that the Japanese govt is hiding something and what they are
hiding is Japanese soldiers involved in fighting on the ground in Sudan.
Japanese defence expert Tosh Minohara has been quoted to have said this
about the cover up. ‘We all know that things were getting nasty in South
Sudan. If the logs recorded fighting by Japanese troops, what will be
the political fallout?’
ST’s Japan correspondent in Tokyo was reported in the ST to have said
this, ‘At a meeting in February, Defence Minister Tomomi Inada was said
to have given the nod to her top officials to hide the existence of
activity logs maintained by ground forces in South Sudan….The
controversy started brewing last December after the Defence Ministry
declined an information disclosure request for the logs from the media,
which had noted the worsening situation in South Sudan since July last
year….’
What is the Japanese govt trying to hide or to lie to the Japanese
people and the people of the world, that Japanese troops have engaged in
actual warfare again? After having lied about their war atrocities
across Asia, about comfort women, it is not unusual for the Japanese to
lie again about the truth in Sudan.
Japanese soldiers have conducting warfare again, forbidden by their
Constitution and their pledge not to conduct war after their defeat in
the Second World War. And they are going to hide this truth.
The lesson in 1962 was not taken seriously, or not hard enough for India
to learn not to trifle with the PLA. In 1962, the PLA was literally a
peasant army, poorly equipped, against the India Army, equipped with the
best leftovers from the British Empire. Still, given the advantage of
modern weapons and several years of preparation in the building of the
4th Army Corp and the element of surprise and initiative, India was
knocked unconscious within a matters of 2 weeks by the PLA.
Today the world is looking at almost an identical situation in the China
Bhutan border. Though again India is claiming that China was the
provocateur like in 1962, the facts today are current and fresh for all
to see. China was building a road along the China Bhutan border, nothing
to do with India except that Bhutan was a de facto protectorate of
India. India claimed that it was Bhutan that was asking India to
intervene though it was obvious that it was India that wanted to
intervene in the dispute. And India took the first step to move troops
into the disputed area but accusing China of doing so. In the first
place the dispute has nothing to do with India.
Now both sides are moving thousands of troops to the region. And India,
like in 1962, is saying that it would not back down, spoiling for a
fight with China. India must not forget that the PLA today is fully
operational and supported by all the four arms of China’s military
might, modern and well equipped that India can never think of matching.
There is nothing that Indians have that is superior or equivalent to
what the Chinese have.
This time the mismatch in the two forces is even more stark though India
as usual thinks it has an upper hand and would want to try its luck a
second time. This time the PLA would not be so gracious and merciful and
the body blow would be hard and heavy. The China of today is no longer
in a state to be nice to India. And if the Indians think they want to
play with fire, with implicit support from the Americans, then they
would be in for a rude shock.
India may think it has arrived, that it is a world power and could do as
it pleased, even to take on China. Go ahead, but don’t regret when
history repeats itself. The first time was ignorance, the second time is
stupidity, to repeat the same mistake. This time the Chinese are well
prepared and no more surprises and sneak attacks. The Chinese will deal
with the Indian forces head on from day one. They are ready, knowing
what the Indians would do from the 1962 experience to take advantage of a
surprise attack against an unprepared enemy. This time China is
waiting.
The govt has been harping on the criticism by Kishore Mahbubani over its
hiccup in its relation with China. The angst over the episode is very
hard to get over with in several quarters meaning that what Kishore had
said must have been painful to the ears of some. Over the last few days
the govt has came out very strongly with its principled position
diplomacy as if it is some unknown gem that must be displayed for all to
see.
The key points were guarding and protecting our national interests and
territorial integrity and also punching above our weight. The message,
Singapore would walk around with a loudspeaker to make sure everyone
heard us, that Singapore is not some little country to be trifled with.
Vivian Balakrishnan even called a townhall meeting and had it
broadcasted over the national media about how big Singapore was and is,
that we are the champion of small states and the interests of small
states and the rule of law. Who is/are the intended audience of this
‘koyok’ selling session? Is Kishore the main target, that he had rubbed
people the wrong way and must be put in his place? Or are the audience
the neighbouring countries or China, the country that was poked, oops,
some denied that we did that, and was not amused?
What did Kishore say that must be straightened out? I heard that Kishore
was accused of saying something like being small we must compromise our
principles and interests, that we should bend out heads and be kicked
around or something like that. I am very sure Kishore did not say such
things or implied either. It is an over exaggeration to put words into
Kishore’s mouth that as a small state we should not speak up and allow
others to trample all over us. Kishore was very outspoken on such issues
when he was our rep in the UN and the US.
In Vivian’s townhall speech I got it that it was all about ‘we’ or ‘us’
and our interest, that these should not be compromised, our principles,
our integrity. No one can dispute such arguments. Even all the smallest
states that have been very quiet in their diplomacy would guard their
interests and principles vehemently. And I think all the big powers
would also appreciate and would accept such a position of small states.
But bully they would if conditions allowed.
In diplomacy it is all about influencing other countries to support
one’s position and interest. Every country, big and small, is doing
this. Singapore too is doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with
this. What is wrong and unacceptable is to reveal what were said behind
closed doors. This is a breach of confidentiality and faith. There is
no need to wash such laundry in the open. Behind closed doors, many
things would be said, there would be horse trading of all shades and
colours. Take your positions or turn down the offers, but there is no
need to kpkb in the open about what was spoken. This country or that
country wanted us to do this or that. This is bad manners and poor taste
in diplomacy!
And in the cause of protecting our principles and interests, it does not
mean that we can go around compromising other people’s principles and
interests. While we are talking about ‘we and us’ there is a need to
know if we have violated or compromise the principles and interests of
other parties. A good example is the hosting of American air and naval
forces here. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in our national
interest to want the Americans to be here. But we need to be careful of
what the Americans are doing to others. And we need to be careful in
what we said and why the Americans are here for. Telling China that the
Americans are invited here to balance their influence is very
unfriendly. Some things are left better unsaid. If the Americans are
using our facilities to violate, intimidate or threaten the interests of
our neighbours or other countries, can we walk around with a halo over
our heads and proclaim we are innocent, none of our business, we are not
involved?
Every nation state would pursue their national interest at all cost. But
while doing so, and it compromises the interest of other states, then
it is not so innocent and acceptable by others and one can expect
consequences. The Americans’ provocative and belligerent behavior in the
South China Sea, and operating from our shores, would not be accepted
kindly and would affect our relations with China for sure. Do not do
unto others if we don’t want others to do unto us. This must also be a
key principle in diplomacy. It cannot be always about ‘we and us’ with
no regards to others. This is elementary. This is decency.
What are the main differences between a peaceful country and a
warmonger? It is not what they said or claimed to be. It is what they
are doing around the world. In the recent decades with the opening up of
China and China’s participation in world trade after its admission into
the IMF and WTO, China has been actively engaged in all kinds of major
infrastructure projects around the world. And China backed these up by
setting up the AIIB and the BRI to connect the Asian countries together
to advance trade and economic activities.
China is not just talking and investing in the BRI projects that joined
the Asian countries by land and sea. China is also attempting to open
another route through the Arctic region. A massive US$20.1b has been
budgeted by China towards these projects. Apart from the high speed
railroads crisscrossing Asia to Europe and Africa, the Chinese are also
building high speed rails in the Americas and Africa. The Chinese are
also intensely involved in the development of ports from Greece through
the India Ocean littoral states, Malaysia and Indonesia and in Papua New
Guinea.
In Malaysia alone, the four key projects of Melaka Gateway, Kuala
Linggi Port, Penang Port and Kuantan Port would cost China US$10.5b. In
Indonesia, the development of Tanjung Priok Port would be to the tune
of US$590m.
Arctic route ports that are in the pipeline are Norwegian port in
Kirkenes, Russian port Arkangelsk in Siberia, and Klaipeda port in
Lithuanian to complete the opening up of an Arctic sea route.
And as usual, asshole thinkers like Jonathan Hilman, director at the
Centre for Strategic an International Studies started to put up a spin
on the possible use of such ports for ‘non commercial activities like
hosting military forces and collecting intelligence.’ Aren’t these
activities the key roles of American military and non military
installations and bases around the world? Further, he did not admit that
these ports are in the sovereign territories of the respective
countries and military activities would not be allowed without the
approval of these independent states.
While China is deeply involved and spending hundreds of billions in such
economic projects, what is the world’s number one warmongering nation
doing? No need to guess. It is building more and more military bases,
forming military alliances, developing and selling more deadly weapons
of mass destruction and threatening other countries with sanctions and
wars. The USA has run out of ideas. It is only interested in wars and
creating tensions around the world. It is spending all its limited
resources in weapons and everything related to wars, about wars and
nothing about economic development and trade. It backed away from the
TTP and even the Paris Climate Change accord.
These are the stark contrasts between a peaceful super power and a
warmongering super power. One is about trade and economic development
and the other is about wars and more wars. What else do the Americans
think they can contribute to the world other than wars and selling
weapons for wars?
How many more pieces of evidence are required to wake up the unthinking
Asians to call a spade a spade instead of being misled by the western
media to believe the Americans are for peace and China is for war? Who
is fighting wars in the Middle East and going to start a war in the
Korean Peninsula and possibly the South China Sea?
MOM, NTUC and SNEF put up a press release on a new manpower strategy for
Singapore. The three main points, one, enhanced internship and training
for new entrants into the industry, two, self help HR portal for
employers and three, provide free HR solutions and expertise to SMEs.
Good, but what about the influx of foreigners to replace Singaporeans?
Would the above three points address the concerns of Singaporeans
looking for jobs? No, non issue? What are the real problems facing
Singaporeans today when many graduates are finding difficulties in
getting jobs here and ended underemployed or unemployed while foreigners
just waltz into the island and found jobs aplenty, almost instantly
employed?
For the last couple of decades, there appears to be a de facto manpower
authority that is setting the agenda and strategies for Singapore’s
employment scene and the authority of this de facto agency is
foreigners. They set the rules and dictate who should be employed, who
is skilled, qualified, what kind of degrees or fake degrees are
acceptable, and in most cases to the detriment of Singaporeans. Maybe
this is a fake issue, that the employment scene for Singaporeans is
healthy and bustling and nothing needs to be done, everything is fine?
Is there a problem? Are Singaporeans being replaced by foreigners and
becoming redundant, unskilled and obsolete? The impression I have is
that the problem is very serious. But maybe I am getting fed the wrong
information by people who are paranoid. Everything is fine. If that is
the case, then the new strategies would be fine. Singaporeans would be
happy with the employment scene and things would even be better, rosier
by the days. Nothing to worry about.
