crooked bridge: a defence perspective

Not only is the bridge a crucial deciding factor of Johor’s future, other analysts believe there’s a defence reason for Malaysia, too. Since former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew declaring years ago that in an event of Malaysia’s unilateral cut-off of crucial water supplies to Singapore, Singaporean tanks would move in to defend the Republic’s survival.He said If that happened, he would not wait for United Nations to intervene because by then it would be too late. Unlike the Causeway, the new replacing link will have a drawbridge that can be raised at intervals to allow ships to pass under. So even a crooked half-bridge would have a defence value for Malaysia. A raised drawbridge could stop the Singaporean tanks from crossing into Johor in the unlikely event of war. above posted by seah chiangnee in littlespeck.com we have been discussing all the economic, social and political aspects of the crooked bridge. now there is this defence angle to look at. chiangnee's view is that the malaysians are concerned that in the event of a war, the most immediate concern of the malaysians is the tanks rolling across the causeway. sounds reasonable after quoting what lky said. as for the issue of a war between the two nations, it is a possibility that both countries would avoid and would not attempt to get into. the destruction and loss of lives will be too costly for any decent thinking leader to even contemplate. war is not an option unless they are prepared to get into a brawl that will last a few generations. both will be destroyed in the process. just tension alone is disruptive enough to bankrupt the two countries. for a small country like singapore, it can never afford a war with anyone. it can only work to prevent war. assuming that it happens, and assuming that the tanks rolled across and occupied the state of johore, what next? the state of hostility will be perpetual. and there is also the element of the indonesians. there is no way for singapore to flirt with such a thought unless it is provoked, like chen shui bian provoking china through a declaration of independence. what can malaysia do to force singapore into a hobson's choice? is there a reason for malaysia to fear tanks rolling across the causeway? only one. and that is the cutting off of water supply by whatever means or pretext. do the malaysians have any such schemes up their sleeves to worry about provoking singapore to make a death plunge? now that is a good question to ponder over.

nude squat, snoop squad to botak squad

the nude squat and snoop squad incidents have barely faded from people's memory and now botak squad is the latest that surrounds the infamous police of malaysia. is malaysia returning to the medieval age? with the death of the msc and the waning of mahathir's drive to 2020, a modern malaysia, the dreams are fast fading away. the comfort of returning to the behaviour of kampong chiefs are easier to adapt to. what is all these difficult things called human rights and international behavioural norms? why must the police behave like decent and sophisticated law enforcer, as protector of the citizens? the police is the power to be used to deal with whoever they liked. even giving the dpm a black eye. so shaving bald the heads of innocent citizens having a little fun in the privacy of closed doors is the right thing to do. it is the duty and responsibility of the police. it is a big operation executed in the most professional way with the full force of the police paid by tax payers money. the country is so crime free that the police must find something better to do. will we see people being publicly whipped or burn on the stake? akan datang.

charisma in leadership

leadership comes in many forms, but the strongest and most influential of leadership is perhaps the personality of the leader and how this is projected and perceived by the people. a powerful and charismatic personality is undeniably a tremendous asset to have. we have seen many such personalities in the past. they carried themselves around as undisputed leaders, man of man. they do not have to shout or keep telling people i am the man. they are natural leaders. they have developed a certain aura around them. unwritten, unmentioned, but felt. lky, keng swee, chin chye, raja, pang boon, sui sen, chok tong, teng cheong, tony are among the names that will just pop up when people asked about the leaders of singapore. and in an election, throwing their names will be as good as winning the election. such are the qualities of leadership that cannot be explained, and cannot be taught. the academics may be having courses in grooming leaders, telling people what are the qualities and characteristics of good leaders. they can go as far as identifying them. but to transfer these qualities into another person who just don't have it will only fail. we have many new leaders among the ministers. how many have such qualities? many are outright no. as simple as that. remove the title and they will be lost, unrecognised by anyone in the street. will people stand up and listen to them when they talked without wearing the title? that will be the real test of a leader. that is the quality of leadership. the impression is that what we are having are administrators or leadership by virtue of position or title. the leadership comes with the job or title. remove the job or title, nothing is left. a few have the potential, but too new and yet to be truly felt. somehow, for these latter batches, this aura of power and leadership takes a bit longer to form. you can see them in say hsien loong, tharman, boon wan, chee hian, who else? scratching my head to feel that kind of dominance of personality as the leaders of the people... given a bit more time, maybe a few will grow and develop their influence while in their jobs. but as of now, throw some of them to lead a grc and it does not mean anything. they do not carry the weight to give the impression that with their presence, the grc is as good as won.

racial harmony or peaceful coexistence

a forumer, michael heng, wrote in the straits times lamenting that his son did not have a malay friend in his school. he is worried that his son will not be able to understand his malay friends and their culture etc. such atrocious situation shall not have happened. such parents must send their children to a school where there are more malay students so that their sons will grow up in the company of malay friends. if they did not do so they will undermine our objective of racial harmony and peaceful coexistence among the different races. and if they are stubborn, like michael heng, and keep their sons in such schools, they should be caned. and schools that have few malay students must make special effort to recruit more malay students or students from minority groups into their cohorts. or the principal must be made to explain why they have failed to do so. now am i making sense?

general election: prelim round 5

after the initial exchanges of a few blows, all has quieten down. both sides are reassessing their positions. who has done the right things and is on the upper hand after the brief encounter? pap started by attacking the wp manifesto as a time bomb and a poison and demanded condescendingly that the wp must change its manifesto or else. it is a talk down tactic by the strong against the weak and it puts the wp on the defensive, giving the impression that wp has erred seriously and pap knows best. this immediately drew response from the opposition as a high and mighty attitude and undemocratic. a bullying tactic. how are all these gesturings being perceived by the voters? would the voters bite the pap reasoning and say yes wp is dangerous and up to no good. cannot be trusted to be given the vote. or would the voters said, well, all these are political stance and may even say, stop the bullying. if the later, then it will put the pap in a not so comfortable start. a big bully small contest. and then there were some follow up comments that pap sure win. would this be taken by the voters as jumping the gun or taking them for granted? arrogance? the issues are simmering and probably both parties are discussing their positions after the initial standoff. anyone gains an upper hand?