Asean in Transformation

A gathering of small and medium countries, and wanted to be left alone, in peace, to develop their own economies and the lives of their people. That was what Asean used to be, avoiding big power conflicts and staying away from becoming proxies in big power rivalries. That was how ZOPFAN, zone and peace, freedom and neutrality came about. Today, Asean has grown bigger, economically, structurally and militarily. It starts to have wild ambitions, to start bickering with each other’s internal affairs and to challenge bigger powers, and ganging up with big powers to achieve its aims. Consciously or unconsciously, it has accepted the US as the de facto leader of Asean, doing away with its neutral status. Non alignment is no longer its mission. During its days of neutrality, Asean was able to grow peacefully, and also stayed out of big power conflicts. Today, it is inviting big power rivalry into the organization. It courts big power influence and protection to compete with other big powers. For that, it is willing to surrender its own leadership to a big power and become subservient or proxy states of big powers. Would this transformation of Asean lead the region into a state of turmoil and warfare? Has Asean really believe that engaging in big power politics and struggle of power and influence a desired development for the small and medium states? Has Asean grown a head that is too big for itself and wanted to play a bigger role in international affairs which it thinks it deserves? While Asean is being seduced by big power attention and bathing in the limelight, let Asean not forgotten what happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Dancing with the big bad wolf has a disastrous price to pay.

China involved in largest number of conflicts???!!!

‘China, significantly, has been involved in the largest number of military conflicts in Asia. A recent Pentagon report is unsparing: “The history of modern Chinese warfare provides numerous case studies in which China’s leaders have claimed military preemption as a strategically defensive act.’ It then went on to quote the Korean War, (the world knew who brought the war to China’s border), the border war with India in 1962, ( and yes, who started it?), with the Soviet Union, to reclaim lost Chinese territories, and the war with Vietnam, (again, who started it?). China involved in the largest number of military conflicts in Asia? What about the Americans? The professor never heard of the USA? Matilah has this to say, ‘Meanwhile since the 18th century, America has been involved in 200 or so "armed conflicts" all of them overseas -- in "OPC" - Other Peoples' Cuntries.’ Anyone bother to count? Starting from the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Middle East, Europe, not counting Latin America and Europe… And the claim that China is involved in the largest conflict came from a Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. What kind of academic integrity does he have when he can’t even count or refuses to acknowledge the great involvement of the Americans in military conflicts. The scale of the wars waged by the Americans, in any one of them is thousands of times more severe and destructive than all the conflicts the Chinese were involved. And this foolish article titled The Chinese conundrum, appears in today’s Straits Times. By the way, how many military adventures have India been involved since it became independent? How many times had India fought with its neighbours and the little islands in the Indian Ocean?

What’s so great about the Singapore Spirit?

"When I was younger, I was very proud of being a Singaporean. But that was about five, 10 years ago. Five years later, with all the changes in policies and the influx of foreign talent, I don't know what I'm defending anymore. I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth... We don't really feel comfortable in our country anymore." By Lim Zi Rui, a final year Engineering student of NTU The Singapore Spirit is something that we can vaguely remember as the thing that helped to build this city state. There are still fond memories being cherished by the young and old. Is it still there or it is gone? Or it is no longer good enough, that we need the new hungrier spirit of the new immigrants to save us, to give us a kick in the back to wake us up? The official wisdom today is as good as saying that the Singapore Spirit no longer living in the young Singaporeans. We need more vibrant and enthusiastic and smarter foreigners if we are to move ahead. If this is the mentality, then many European countries will end up like the dinosaurs. The truth is that the well managed European countries are those that stay close to their own spirits and not those that are flooded with foreigners and with foreign spirits. The latter are seeing a decline in their quality of life, and chaos and social disorders are becoming a norm, threatening the very system that the foreigners came to benefit. If the fad of new and new spirits is anything to go by, there is no need to visit Finland to learn from them. The Finns don’t hunger nor pander for more hungrier immigrants to lift up their lives and economy. Simply, they don’t need new immigrants. They can make do with themselves and their own spirit of survival and do very well with their own people. They are confident of themselves and their own people. So, what is this Singapore Spirit? Is this something great or something that is best forgotten and replace with a new migrant spirit? Or is this a Spirit that runs down its own people as helpless and goners, and there is an urgent need to find a new Spirit to replace it? Shouldn't the Singapore Spirit be like the matured European countries, believe in themselves and their own people and continuously improving their own standard of living without having to hope or beg the hopeless and nothing to lose dare devils from the lost countries to mess up their systems and lives? When I referred to matures European countries, count England, France and Spain out. They will be destroyed by the foreigners they foolishly brought in.

‘Best losers’ guaranteed seats in Parliament

In his dialogue with NTU students, Chok Tong told them that our Constitutions have been tweaked to guarantee that the ‘best losers’ in a general election will still get to Parliament. At present 9 seats were provided for the losers. Is this a concession, a grace or an effective alternative to having opposition members in Parliament? What is the purpose of having oppositions in Parliament? Personally I do not want to be represented by losers, and definitely not losers that cannot vote when serious issues are at stake. Maybe other people will disagree with me on this. Some may just want to have an alternative voice in Parliament and whether they can vote on issues is not important. Some Singaporeans are smart enough to just want a voice but not to oppose the policies or rock the boat. A little kpkb in Parliament to let out some steam should be enough. After all the govt is doing a very good job and let’s not be too serious in having opposition members in Parliament. There is no need for real oppositions. Consider this as a pragmatic view from some corners of the masses. How many really feel it this way? If they do, then the govt has read the ground well. They may even provide more seats for more losers, as long as they cannot vote. But if this is not the desire of the people, would it make any difference in the coming election? Or would the next general election be a watershed election in more than one ways? Who needs losers by the way?

And we thought George Bush Jr was crazy

The woman was invited to the East Asia summit In Hanoi. Before she even warmed her seat she declared that she was the leader of the summit and she was taking over. And she lectured the Asian leaders on how their territorial disputes should be resolved, in her ways of course. Then she strapped a magnum .457 in between her tights, tugged another behind the back of the Japanese PM and turned to tell the Chinese that she had appointed herself as the mediator for the China Japan island dispute. She did not think the Asian leaders were capable of handling their own affairs and only she has the wisdom and leadership to lead them and solve their problems. The Empire strikes back with a joker. In an era when war between the two superpowers is obsolete, both nuclear and conventional, the Empire can no longer threaten China with the use of force. The silly war games of beach landing belong to the 20th century. Today, any hostile ships within a 200 miles radius of China will be sunk, the bigger the easier. This applies to aircraft as well. The immense fire and destructive power, the sophistication and accuracy of modern weaponry have made war a no option. War is only possible when there is a disproportionate balance of military strength between the two protagonists. Iraq is a good example. China should stand firm and not allow the evil Empire to dictate terms and think that it still controls the world. China should make it know that its territories taken by foreign forces through unequal treaties must be returned, that it will not honoured any treaties signed under coercion during the days of gunboat diplomacy. It is too polite to use such a term. It was a time of gangsterism in international relations when big powers plundered the weaker nations by threats of wars or wars. The injustice should be made right by the light of justice.