bite the sand

Bite the sand In the face of unruly behaviour, Singapore might as well bite the sand, or bullet, and stop all importing of sand and granite from Indonesia. Go for new sources, pay a bit more, slow down a little in the pace of construction, spread them out by a year or two especially those projects that are not really that urgent. This will do a lot of good to relations in both countries.

nkf story - perjury can be fun?

Perjury in court? 'He (David Tan) was accused of lying and of fabricating stories, in order to help out long time associate TT Durai, the NKF's former chief.' Today paper reported. Now is that a serious accusation? If proven, does it mean that he can be jailed? Does David Tan know the consequences of what he is saying? And he had been reminded to tell the truth, which now becomes a mess of contradictions. Maybe truth is just like that, a big contradiction.

sand smuggling or breaches of regulations?

No ban on granite. Some of the barges were alleged to breach regulations. So the Indonesians told George Yeo. What do all these meant? There were barges who did not breach any regulations. So have they been released? Then what do they meant by breaching regulations? Smuggling sand is not a simple breaching of regulations. It is smuggling. And if they did smuggled, they have to pay the price. But breaching regulations? What regulations? Too many crews on board or too few crews? Some crews did not have immigration papers or what? If the breaches were minor and have nothing to do with smuggling, why are the barges still detained? Charge them or fine them and the commercial activities must continue as per regulations. What if, after finding out that there were no smuggling of sand except some minor breaches of regulations, and the Indonesians persist to detain our vessels there at their pleasure? Then what? We are talking with international forces to set up a task force to combat piracy. Who are the pirates?

rules of law

I was in a discussion with two anonymouses in the threat on hostile acts by Indonesia. And they were exasperated by the notion of rules of law which they found it so difficult to accept. To them, when a foreigner is in Indonesia, they are at the mercy of the authority. You do not need to commit any crime or violate any laws, or be completely innocent, but they can arrest you at their whims and fancy. And to these two anonymouses, that is an acceptable way of life. That is their system and how they do things. In countries that operate under the rule of law, no one can be arrested, citizens or foreigners, if they did not breach the law of the country. Their rights are protected by the constitution and upheld by the authority. How fortunate Singaporeans are. Even in Malaysia, if you are hauled up by the police for speeding, you can ask for evidence. If the police did not catch you on radar and have no proof, they are likely to waive you off. You will not be fined arbitrarily. Malaysia also practices the rule of law. Not the rule of might and warlords. In countries where you have corrupt people, corrupt system, corrupt culture and corrupt ways of life, there is no rule of law. The strange thing is that these are so invisible to themselves that when it is their own kind, they cannot see anything that is corrupt. But when you add the word 'Chinese' to Indonesians, everyone and everything they do is corrupt. Every Indonesian Chinese that is rich is corrupt. On the contrary, not a single Indonesian is corrupt. And they can live happily ever after with their loot which they robbed from the people and country. I would like to assure them that if they are foreigners and living in Singapore, our police or authority will treat them with full respect and all the rights of a free individual. They will not be arrested for no rhyme or reasons. We don't arrest ships in our territorial waters just because we feel like it.

The praising continues

The praising continues Alvin Tan wrote an article on the exemplary MPs in Parliament, praising them sky high, that they have done a great part in fighting for their constituents. And of course the opposition MPs failed miserably. This elicited a response from a Jeth Lee who said that for that they said, it is all about debate and saying something in Parliament. And Jeth quoted Tan Cheng Bock saying that for as much as he spoke against an issue, he still would have to vote for it. The issue that is in question is whether the MPs should put the party's interest first or the people's interest first? In a bi party system when there is a strong opposition, taking sides with the opposition is unthinkable. But in a near monopolistic position, when PAP MPs are speaking for themselves and not the opposition, taking a stand that is different from the party cannot be seen as for the opposition. It would be seen by the people that the MPs are speaking up for them or for a position that they strongly believe in. There lies the difference in a one party system, or an almost one party system. The ruling party MPs actually have more leeways to vote for their own convictions without being seen as anti party. And the party will be seen as being objective, open and not obsessive of domineering over opposing views within the party.