Why China must be assertive?

For centuries, China had been the victim of foreign aggression. Many of the neighbouring tribes were lusting to conquer China. The Mongols and the Manchurians succeeded and ruled China for several centuries each. After the Manchus, the tribes came from further afar, the Japanese, Russians and the Europeans and Americans. China was robbed and raped and dismembered to pieces. Till today, many of its territories are still in foreign hands, now given a new title as disputed territories with the Russians, Indians and the Japanese.

Today China has stood up and demanding the return of these territories seized from her by foreign invaders when China was weak. Why are the Americans crying foul, that China is being assertive and even aggressive? What is wrong with a country wanting to reclaim its lost territories? It is a natural right of the Chinese to take back what was taken away from her wrongfully, by force.

Why are the Americans taking this stand, that China cannot take back its lost territories? It is because the Americans have taken away the territories of the native Americans and many other territories belonging to other natives. To the Americans, what had been taken is a done deal. The natives or losers cannot take them back. If the native Americans were to demand for it, they would also be branded as assertive and wrongful to do so, for wanting to change the balance of power, the status quo.

The same would apply to the natives of Australia and New Zealand, Hawaii, Canada and many other pieces of land. These natives would be branded as not only assertive, they would either be put behind bars or be shot, for wanting to reclaim their land from the thieves.

China is only trying to reclaim its lost territories from the thieves, and the Americans are protecting the thieves and even accusing China of being assertive and aggressive. Many people of Asia and the Asean countries have reclaimed their land through the fight for independence. If they have not done so, if they are still a colony, or if their land is still occupied by the thieves, they would be branded as assertive and trouble makers should they dare to demand for the return of their land.

China must be assertive. China has all the rights and reasons to be assertive to reclaim its lost territories. So do the natives of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and many others. There is nothing wrong about assertiveness when one is demanding for the return of his lost territories taken away by the thieves. The thieves are crying foul now, as if they are rightful owners of the natives’ land.

The deceit and trickery of the thieves to want to keep the stolen land as theirs, as a fait accompli, must not be seen as a rightful thing and the natives reclaiming their land a wrongful thing.

Would anyone put themselves in the shoes of the Chinese and ask themselves what they should do to reclaim their lost land?

Kopi Level - Green

Foreign thugs not welcome

A burly Australian cook, Aaron Jeremicjezyk, punched a petite young Singaporean lady for telling him off for scolding a limousine taxi driver. Our pathetic taxi drivers are mostly whims and are often set upon by their passengers, and many got beaten up. They are unable to defend themselves from the thugs, mostly foreigners. So this brave young lady stood up for one of them and got punched in the face. Did the whimpy taxi driver returned the courtesy to defend this young lady?

The story is now in the courts of law and the thug is being charged for causing hurt. And this is not the first time. The sad thing is that it has happened many times and it seems that the law is not having any real effect. To the thugs, what is a fine of a few hundred dollars when they could get their thrill of beating up the taxi drivers for fun. And now this lout even punched a small and petite young lady by the name of Dawn Ho, a musician. What a shameless and cowardly thug.

What would the punishment be? Would the court hand him a deterrent sentence to send a signal to all the foreign thugs and louts that they would be put behind bars for at least 6 months or the maximum of 2 years in jail? Or would it be another light tap on the wrist.

Would there be any politician standing up to defend the docile Sinkies like they stood up to defend foreigners running foul of our laws? When would the law be seen to be protecting the Sinkies from being bullied and beaten up by foreigners? Is this country own by foreigners or the citizens?

In the past there used to be gallant local men standing up to teach all these thugs a good lesson. Even commandos offered their services to give them a good beating for behaving roughly to locals. Sad that such things would not happen again and the small and docile law abiding citizens are left to themselves, to be punching bags for the foreign thugs to practice on.

Sad, sad, sad. Should we advertise this island as one where foreigner can come here and use the locals as punching bags? $1000 for a couple of punches?

What is going on? What is the point of spending so much money to beautify the island with more and more infrastructure to attract the thugs here when the safety of citizens is at risk?

Kopi Level - Green

Top 3 posts in TRE by number of comments

Below are this week’s top three posts in the TRE by the number of comments they have attracted.
 
“Khaw: Best to live with children & rent out flat” - 3rd position
 
“Teo: Degree no longer a ‘one-way ticket to success’” - 2nd position
 
“Lim Swee Say: Cleaners are no longer cheap labour” - top position
 
The article on Boon Wan’s comment has hit 97 at this point of writing this post and is at Number 3 position. Chee Hean’s is at number 2 with 102 comments. And top of the table is Swee Say’s comment on ‘cleaners are no longer cheap labour’ with 107 comments at this moment of writing this post.
 
The comments are very colourful and often borders on PG stuff. When you are unable to sleep, these are recommended readings to keep you occupied.

Kopi Level - Green

Education is the way, the greatest leveler

If you have children, (I have), I will encourage them to study hard, get a govt scholarship, bestest an OMS, or betterer best, a President Scholarship, then come back and join the Administrative Service. That is the road to success. I remember someone said this, can’t remember who. I got dementia. Anyway, I think it was good advice. Maybe it still is. No? Who said No? Kee chiu!
 
Please do not advise me not to send my children to the universities. I will clobber you. I will take my ‘char kiak’ and knock your head. How can you give me this kind of bad advice? If university degree is no good, the MOM and ICA would have stopped taking graduates from other countries to work here. Why you advise our children not to go to universities and keep on bringing in foreigners with foreign degrees and degrees from you know where?
 
I swear I will take the good advice to send my children to universities, to get a govt scholarship and to join the Administrative Service. Don’t tell me this is bad and wrong. I don’t believe you.

Kopi Level - Green

Tan Jee Say’s olive branch to alternative parties

The new kid on the block, Singapore First Party, is taking the initiative to offer an olive branch to all the other alternative parties. In Jee Say’s letter to all the alternative parties, he diplomatically listed the parties by alphabetical order to avoid controversies, he requested to have a cordial meeting with the leaders of the other parties. Below is the text of his letter,
 
‘We are proud to be able to join you in wanting to build a better Singapore for all Singaporeans. You have all contributed much in this effort. As a new party, we can learn a lot from your experiences. Accordingly, we would like to pay a courtesy call on each of you, to introduce ourselves to you, discuss your experiences and find out how we can complement you and work together with you for the betterment of Singapore.’
 
The letter was all politeness and humility, wanting to learn from and to share with the other parties. It is unlikely that any of the parties would turn him down to appear arrogant and aloof. Many observers read this letter as a first step towards opposition camp unity. This is something that has been seen as the Achille’s heel of the opposition and a closing of ranks, to work out a common strategy to take on the ruling party is highly awaited and desired by the voters who want to see a serious challenge to the dominance of the PAP.
 
In many ways this is a daunting task and highly difficult to achieve. Otherwise it would have been done long ago. Understandably every party would have their own views on such a move and many have their own constraints to want to come together. There are misgivings, rightly or wrongly, that would keep the alternative parties apart. But intentionally wanting to keep their party out of the loop, to be a lone hero, may not be seen as a good thing unless they could mount a serious challenge to form the govt.
 
Ideally the alternatives could come to a common agreement and position on how to fight the GE as a united force. Saying it is easy, but doing it is tough. This does not necessarily mean they would not be able to come together. On the other extreme, a very loose form of unity or understanding could be worked out whereby the alternative parties would go for the lowest common factors. This could be just a non written agreement not to fight or contest against one another in a 3 corner fight. It could also mean no attacks on each other’s position if they don’t agree to work together as a united force. There would be a lot of give and take with the hope that the bigger parties be as accommodating as they could possibly be and the smaller parties be as least demanding as they should.
 
The assumptions here are that the alternative parties are willing to talk and do a bit of horse trading among themselves. What would be unfortunate is for some to be difficult and not wanting to talk with the other parties. A lot of goodwill and wisdom is needed here for the alternative parties not to spoil the broth and do themselves in. The big brother at the moment is the WP. Would the WP be a gracious big brother or be an uncompromising one?
 
Is there hope that they can come to some understanding or would it be a big disappointment? In the recent by elections and the last GE, it appeared that eventually wisdom, common interests and not to do each one in could see them rise above the level of mediocrity. If the bad boys and bad attitude come from the smaller parties, things could be easier as they are inconsequential and can be ignored. At worst, among the bigger alternative parties, they must talk to each other for the good of everyone without risking bad blood and someone behaving badly to upset the apple cart.
 
May goodwill and the general good of the people prevail for a resounding and beneficial ending in the coming GE.

Kopi Level - Green