Malayan Railway land swap – A win win solution

When the Point of Agreement(POA) was signed, despite no agreement on the land development charges, it was touted as a win win agreement for both Malaysia and Singapore. Yesterday, when the issue of development charges was settled by an International Arbitration Court, despite the ruling in favour of Malaysia for not having to pay the development charges, it was again touted as another win win solution. All in all there were 4 wins to be shared by both parties.
 
In the first instance the 2 wins were equally shared in the sense that both parties have reached an agreement to break a 20 year impasse on the use of the Railway land. In the second instance, it was again a win win but it looks more like Malaysia getting the 2 wins. And the best part, Singapore is so happy with this win win settlement when it lost the right to collect $1.4b of development charges on 3 plots of the land swap. It could be a case of Singapore’s generosity and magnanimity. It could be a case that Singapore did not think it could win and the judgment was what it had expected all along. It could gain more goodwill and save some legal fees if it just waived it earlier without going through the motion.
 
Why is Singapore in cloud nine, a kind of happy like ‘fxxk’ feeling when losing a legal dispute or disagreement? I can only make a few guesses. The joint company MS with a 60:40 ownership between Malaysia and Singapore would be making the payment for the development charges. So with this ruling, Singapore only gives up 40% of the estimated $1.4b. No big deal really. And according to another MP’s comment, the accrued profits from the joint venture would benefit Singapore more? I am still trying to figure out how when Singapore’s share is 40%. Is there something that the public do not know? This statement could send the Malaysians wondering and many sleepless nights.
 
Of course there is tremendous goodwill to gain from this process. Both parties would now be more comfortable going for international arbitration with Malaysia feeling that it is not necessarily a one sided affair, that Singapore with all the top legal minds would always win. So Singapore would have more chances to take the Malaysian govt to court in the future with international arbitration an acceptable option. This could be a case of a very long term view, losing a case now is worth paying for winning more cases in the future, provided there are future cases to be won.
 
No matter what, this is one of those rare instances where the losers in an arbitration were laughing themselves crazy and probably popping champagne in celebration for a ‘win win’ situation that it gets none of the 2 wins. For goodwill and good long term relationship, it is always good to let the other party win and feel good about it when one can afford to lose in monetary terms. What is a few hundred million?
 
A cautionary note, maybe Singapore should play down on this good news and cut down on the celebration. It may trigger the overly paranoid Malaysians to start wondering whether they did win this case or losing something big that they did not know. Historically they have been losing to Singapore in many tussles and knowing that Singapore always want to win, so how can they be losing in this case. And how can Singapore be celebrating when ‘losing’?
 
Fishy right? Just kidding. I say just kidding ok, can take a joke or not?

Kopi Level - Green

Aljunied GRC – Who will be sacrificed?

Aljunied is going to be the most feared GRC in the next GE. Who would PAP send to do battle against the WP? Whoever they are going to send would be most revealing of what is in the PAP’s mind. For instance, if they think it is a goner, they may send in a kucing kurap team of newbies and those that can be sacrificed like what the opposition commando squad sent to Teck Ghee with little chances of success. Not sending a team is not acceptable.
 
If they are very confident of taking back Aljunied, they would definitely put in a very strong team to mean business provided the biggies would not be risked in a losing battle.
 
The problem is that they are not sure. Then how? Would any minister be gungho enough to volunteer to take Aljunied? Or shall I rephrase that, would any minister be stupid enough to want to go to Aljunied? Or if there is no volunteer, who is going to decide the team to go to Aljunied, and how many ministers or ministers of state would be put in jeopardy?
 
Whoever is being asked to go to Aljunied is not going to be happy. Maybe they would draw lots to see who would be fielded, after taking out the few that should not be risked. I think this is going to be a very difficult task for Hsien Loong or whoever is tasked to be the strategist and to do the allocation. Then there will also be the two single wards to face the same problem. But in the case of single wards the PAP could be dealing with smaller fries or newcomers, so not too stressful.
 
It is when a minister or a few ministers of state would be arrowed to do battle in Aljunied that it would become a problem. Would any of them decline to go? Would any minister threaten to resign if directed to go to Aljunied?
 
Never has PAP faced with such a difficult position and dilemma. Tough. Why must there be an Aljunied? What if after the next GE there were more Aljunieds?
 
PS. The last team that contested Aljunied had two ministers, a parliamentary secretary and a minister in waiting. Watch out for Redbean’s choice for PAP’s Dream Team in Aljunied.

Kopi Level - Green

Singapore joining coalition against Islamic State

Just reported in Parliament, ‘To combat the militant group, Singapore will contribute assets that were previously deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen says. CNA.
 
The unavoidable happens. There is no way Singapore can avoid joining the coalition once it is in bed with the Americans. The Americans would make sure that it will happen or Singapore would be accused of taking a free ride. But Eng Hen assured the House that it would be a contribution in assets, with the assets now in Iraq and Afghanistan redeployed to the new theatre. No ground troops would be In Iraq or Syria. All precautions and necessary training would be provided to our soldiers to keep them from harms way. How effective would this be is yet to tell when the war zone could expand and contract and cover anywhere.
 
What is more dangerous is back home or Singaporeans happily travelling all over the world on business or as tourists. This war against the IS transcends all national boundaries. We need to warn Singaporeans everywhere, including stepping up vigilance back home. This is no ordinary war and violence can pop up anywhere. Australia and Canada have a taste of it in the heart of their homeland. It is a war without borders.
This is Red Alert.

Kopi Level - Green

GE – Freak or no freak?

Tham Yuen C picked up the discussion on the freak election revisited by Ho Kwon Ping in his article in the Sunday Times yesterday. Many people thought Ho Kwon Ping was being polite and saying the right thing. Tham Yuen C spoke to several academics to feel the pulse once again. Tan Ern Ser, Viswa Sadasivan, Pauline Straughan and Bilveer Singh were all consulted on their views on this freak issue. Wondering if they were as polite as Ho Kwon Ping, but all agreed that a freak is unlikely. But they qualified themselves by saying that under certain conditions, though a freak is very unlikely, could still not be ruled out.

Tan Ern Ser said PAP would do everything possible and would adopt policies that are sustainable to stay in power. He even suggested that PAP would win by default as the ageing population would not want change. Sadasivan read that the ground was a lot sweeter than before but cautioned whether the changes in PAP policies were due to seeing the light or a matter of survival. Pauline Straughan was more hopeful that the PAP would continue on its momentum to talk to the people and to keep talking to the people, then the next election would not be shocking, like a freak election. The PAP would still win unless it does something spectacularly unpopular. The idea of PAP doing some, thing silly to lose its legitimacy, like rampant corruption, is unlikely. Bilveer Singh added that the electorates were sensible people and would not allow a freak to happen. All in, they agreed that PAP would still win but at most losing some popularity vote.

Based on the comments of these experts, all things are normal and PAP would be in power for the next 10 to 15 years as forecasted by Ho Kwon Ping. But would PAP do something spectacularly unpopular to do itself in, like not holding to the one goal lead but went for an all out and reckless persecution of opposing views? They are now tweaking many policies and the CPF sacred cow is not being spared. The only danger is that the above comments become positive feedback and give the PAP a false sense of confidence to continue with what it has been doing, more tough or hard headed policies, and the same tactics of fixing the opposition and dissenting voices.

There are signs of panic and strange behaviours from the PAP and its apparachiks. The most obvious is the relentless effort in charging of Roy and Hui Hui. Would the PAP read the kpkbs in social media and kopitiams as noises from the lunatic fringe or would they take it seriously as feedbacks from the ground up? Would PAP continue to deal with oppositions and opposing views like in the past and think it can get away with it? Or would the PAP take heed from these feedbacks that the old way of tackling dissent cannot work anymore and if pushed through in a high handed manner may lead to the freak election result being prematurely brought forward instead of another 10 or 15 years?

There is now a confluence of factors and events emerging in the political theatre that could make the freak come true. Smaller and less spectacular events, but cumulated, could be that something that is spectacularly unpopular. Maybe the PAP is so confident that nothing has changed and the next GE is already in the bag for another 2 or 3 terms, and it can do as it has always done before and swing the sledgehammer freely at anyone in its path. Can the PAP continue to do unpopular things? Would a few careless straws, added together, break the camel’s back?

What do you think?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Democracy 2014 – Hong Kong Chapter.

By MIKOspace

What Hong Kong Protests Taught Hong Kong, China and The World.

Democracy is Not Easy.  It is learnt only through failures and errors.  The Lessons are perpetual with endless emergence of newer Lessons.

After nearly 5 weeks of “pro”-Democracy sit-downs, disruptions and infringements of the natural “democratic” rights of other Hong Kongers, the protesting crowd simply fizzled and dissolved as it depleted itself of non-existent political sustenance, as well as the folding goodwill shelter of Democracy’s Umbrella.

It became blatantly clear that in spite of increasing thousands of nightly cheering spectators and bystanders, the HK student protestors were UNABLE to establish a connection with the larger HK Community to develop a critical collective identity for sustainable political action to obtain the greatest good for the largest number.

In the end, the HK Students and their political and financial supporters were exposed to be just another noisy and mischievous rabble that were merely opinionated with deep prejudices but no convictions; and that while they had energetic determination, they did not possess any credible political will because they, albeit a tiny group, had only wanted for themselves instead of incorporating the greater good that the vast majority of other Hong Kongers may prefer.  Democracy is for the Whole and not just for a few persons in Society, no matter how vocal and destructive the few may demonstrate. 

The Absence of a Collective Hong Kong Identity further explained the failure of HK student protestors to establish a connection through their protests with the vast majority of other Hong Kongers. They occupied, stood and sat ALONE on major public roads, property and space, becoming increasingly an unnecessary nuisance to fellow Hong Kongers who rightfully demanded the legitimate return of their shared “public space” so rudely expropriated weeks earlier by the students for purposes which were never articulated in the language and terms of the public good. 

The Protestors’ insensitivity to the growing economic plight of their fellow Hong Kongers betrayed the fragile absence of the perequisite social norms of trust and reciprocity necessary to promote civic co-operation in a Democracy.  There were no shared bonds of affiliation and trust between the Protestors and other members of Hong Kong society.

Hong Kong politics is NOT about Beijing vs Democracy. Hong Kongers, have to choose between its future as a prosperous Chinese city vs being an unstable anti-China bastion. 

Kopi Level - Yellow

Read the Full Article:

Democracy 2014 - Hong Kong Chapter