Japan PM apologises to South Korea

Japan PM Naoto Kan apologises to the people of South Korea for the humiliating colonisation of Korea in the early 20th Century. The thought of colonising a people of another country, robbed them of their pride, culture and identity, treating them like animals and murdering them at their fancy, is something unthinkable today. How could any country go around thinking of colonising and subjugating another people of a different country? Such thinking was prevalent during the days of colonialism. Prior to that, hunting slaves was also acceptable in the European world. Though the world has changed since then, the domineering thought of superior race and of controlling other inferior races is still in existence in many countries. And some Japanese are still harbouring this grandeur of their past supremacy. The apologies by Kan has been attacked and rejected by some extreme quarters in the Japanese govt. It is disgraceful to make such an apology as far as this group of people is concerned. They would not apologise for the humiliation and atrocities inflicted on the lesser races, especially to the Koreans and Chinese and other Southeast Asian countries. Would Japan really repent and denounce their past militant doctrine given the fact that there are still many 'conservatives' who would want to relive their past glory? America is encouraging the remilitarisation of Japan as a lackey to wage war with China. Would this foolish act of the Americans, in unleashing the animal in the Japanese psyche, lead to more turbulent times in Asia? There is no honour in war and in invading another country. It is gangsterism at its worst.

We are doing it for Singaporeans

The govt is doing it for the sake of the Singaporeans. This is the most explicit commitment made on National Day by Hsien Loong. We need to bring in more foreign workers for the sake of Singaporeans. Can’t the Singaporeans understand what the govt is doing? What else were done for the sake of the Singaporeans? Higher GST, for the sake of poorer Singaporeans. Higher HDB prices, for the sake of Singaporeans who have bought their flats earlier. Higher minimum sum and Medisave, for the sake of Singaporeans during old age and when hospitalised. Higher medical fees, a world class medical care for the sake of Singaporeans. Higher public transport fare, for the sake of Singaporeans, benefits akan datang. The govt has been doing so many good things for the sake of the Singaporeans. Why are Singaporeans still complaining, whining and griping? Are the Singaporeans so dense that they cannot appreciate what the govt is doing? Look at the foreigners, they know exactly what the govt is doing and know how good they are. And they are very appreciative of what this govt is doing and fully support this govt. The dense Singaporeans should talk to the foreigners and get enlightened. KNN, the $100 levy to enter the casinos is also for the sake of Singaporeans.

Would your parents love you less?

Would your parents love you, or love you less, just because you are a little slow, a little dull, a little complacent? No, parental love transcends all the superficiality of physical perfection or human perceptions of goodness and cleverness. No parents will send their children packing because they are less able, and replace them with other people’s children. It is always children first, under all circumstances, and the more disadvantaged the children are, the greater the parental love and attention. Parents are protective and will sacrifice everything to care for their children. Would parents, deserving to be parents, bring home other people’s children to share the bowl of rice with their children, on the presumption that other people’s children will in the end make life better for their children? And why would other people’s children care for the well being of other competing children? Is this a fallacy or a high falutin theory? No worthy parents would ever think of bringing home better looking or more able children to replace their children, to bestow them with loving tender care. They make do with what they have, their less than perfect children. Most parents would continue to provide more, to make sure their less able children will not be disadvantaged. That is what true and genuine parenthood is all about.

Singapore’s two addictions

Be in Ice or Heroin, an addiction is an addiction. The danger of all addictions is that it takes more and more to get the same high. This means it cannot be stopped or hell will break lose. It is a vicious and very destructive cycle. Our country’s two main addictions are OPM and OPT. OPM comes from statutory boards and the CPF. These money becomes cheap loans to be invested, some called it gambling for big stakes, for high returns. Theoretically it sounds good, borrowing cheap money to invest for big returns. The problems come when the returns are not enough to pay for the low interest or the high operation cost. Then what? Don’t pay back! But this cannot do. The payback can be delayed, even for generations, but the time must come when someone will call for payback time. The Americans have been very successful in borrowing OPM and thinking that it was a good thing. It was a good thing when they can afford to pay back. Now their debt has ballooned to a point that they cannot pay back. It becomes a debt that is too big to pay back and too big to default. The consequences are grave. We are intoxicated by OPM and happily plunging into the same deep end as the Americans, thinking that there is no need to pay back. The truth is that no matter how many spins and schemes can be created to delay the payback, the spins and schemes only add to the gravity of the problem. There is no running away unless we strike lottery. For the last ten years or more we have depended heavily on OPT, Other People’s Talent. We saved a lot of cost to produce these talents and we used them cheaply, making more savings. Our whole economic growth formula is now dependent on OPT. Like OPM, it is another deadly drug. There are side effects to the addiction and there is a big price to pay for. No drugs that give one a high does not come with a price. What is this price and when will be pay back time? For the moment, we only see the good side of OPT and OPM. But like all good things, they are too good to be true. Anything that is too good to be true is dangerous. And the more dangerous part of it is that we cannot see the danger of it. The fundamental economics principles of hard work, thrift, small but genuine profits, not easy profits, high productivity, better goods and better services are discarded for high risks, high returns, for easy profits that we don’t have to work for it. Like the Americans creating all kinds of fictitious and worthless paper products to be sold to the suckers. Worthless notes, toxic notes, derivatives, are illusions that will go pop as they designed to do. OPM and OPT will also go pop one day. They cannot keep piling up with no limitations like turning on the tap and they will keep following. And like all fixes, you need more of them to sustain the next high.

South China Sea, an issue of US Commitment or Interference

Chua Chin Hon, ST’s Bureau Chief in Washington, wrote an article titled, ‘South China Sea issue a test of US Commitment’. The article can best be summed up as a western interpretation of events in South East and East Asia and the role of US to take charge as the undisputed Empire. It touched on how China was staking its claims to 80% of the South China Sea and how this would have rattled the littoral states. It took for granted the US position that 80% of the four oceans are part of their national interest without mentioning how the countries of the world would react to it. Then it pointed to the increasing Chinese military presence and drills as unacceptable developments while the huge military exercises of the American naval fleets in the East China Sea, Yellow Sea and South China Sea as how things should be. What is pertinent in the article is America’s leadership role in Asean. After Hilary Clinton’s attack on China’s position in the disputed South China Sea islands, which provoked a strong reaction from China, the Americans were quick to use this as an excuse to stake their claims to leadership in Asean and their role to lead Asean against China. As Ernest Bower of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS) remarked, ‘If you rattle the cage with China like this and depart, you probably can’t be forgiven.’ And Bower added, ‘To be honest, there’s enough pressure now, particularly with the Chinese reaction, that it may require the Americans to take a leadership role (at this stage).’ This is exactly the intent of the Americans. Provoke a crisis situation and instigate the innocents to be a party to a dispute with the Americans as the undisputed leader. In Bower’s words, ‘I don’t see many Asean countries with the political courage to stand up and take the lead when the elephants are butting their heads.’ The Americans do not see the Asean countries capable of taking on the Chinese in a contentious situation when military is needed. Only they are capable of fighting a big country like China. Would the Asean states be dragged into a confrontation with China instigated by the Americans? The relationship between Asean and China has been one of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation. And Asean was and is able to take on China on an equal basis with no fear of China’s use of force. Would this stance be changed and Asean becoming another SEATO, an extended arm of the American Empire set to pitch against China in a military contest? Or would Asean be wise enough to steer clear of the American scheme of things and remain neutral and independent? The US is coveting a leadership role in Asean and this is the real issue, a test of Asean’s resilience and independence from big power domination. Has Asean been less effective over the years without carrying a mighty sword to the negotiating table and now see it necessary to have the backings of a superpower to conduct its dealings? Would Asean be goaded into a confrontation with China and turn Southeast Asia into a war torn region like the Middle East? This is what will likely to happen if the US is allowed to lead and dictate how Asean shall behave.