Another patronizing western view on what is good for Asians

‘Asia must rebalance not build banks’, an article by a Jonathan Holslag, a professor of international politics sat the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in the ST telling China/Asia not to build new banks to challenge the western dominated banks like IMF/World Banks and Asian Development Bank but to change them. Reading his other book titled, ‘China’s coming war with Asia’ you can tell where he is coming from. He would not know that he is speaking from the point of what is good for the West must be good for the Asians.

It is not right and not a good thing to build a new Asian bank like the AIIB. China is doing it for its self interests and at the disadvantage of other Asian countries for influence and creating more demands for Chinese goods. What he is saying is that the IMF and World Bank and the ADB were created not for the interests of the Americans/West and Japan but for altruistic goals, to give money to Asia and the world.  They are so selfless and generous. The AIIB is not like that?

Really, why is it necessary for China and other Asian countries to want another bank if the IMF, World Bank and ADB were out there to serve them and not western interests? Why is it necessary to work with these old western establishments to rebalance them and not to create new banks? Have not the Asian countries been trying to work with these establishments for change for the last 5 decades and not making any headway and forced to build their own banks?

This is the admission by Holslag, ‘The AIIB is a master stroke of economic diplomacy. The debate about its possible benefits distracts from the imbalanced economic partnerships to the  vague benefits of influencing it from inside and the bad habit of the United States and Japan to cling to their privileges in the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB.’ Despite this admission that the Americans and Japan would not yield an inch to accommodate the rise and interests of Asian countries, despite saying that they looked pathetic and China looking magnanimous with the AIIB initiative, he must sneaked in another blow that China is ‘seeking to advance its own selfish interests’.

And he wanted Asian countries to work harder to reform the IMF, World Bank and ADB? After 50 years of working from within, from a position of weakness, the Asian countries were totally ignored. And this is the exact reason why Asian countries have given up on trying to work with them and wanting their own banks, and with a bigger voice to serve their own interests, not the interests of the West and Japan. It is too late. Why didn’t the IMF, World Bank and ADB agree to reform and change to accommodate Asia earlier?

They are willing to change, to serve Asian countries and not their own interests? Please remove your tinted lens and look at yourself and how the American and the West in collusion with Japan have been exploiting these old establishments to serve their own interests first and foremost and Asian countries are there for show and to be exploited.

Now Asian countries have their own banks and their own voice. The loudest voice is Asian and Asians are calling the shot in their own banks to serve Asian interests. Is that not acceptable, bad? You want the IMF, World Bank and ADB to continue to exploit the Asian countries at your terms? If they don’t change, they would be history. And the change must come from them, voluntarily. The world has changed and Asian countries are rising and want a say in these organizations serving western interests.

Can the professor see this?

Did Roy damage Hsien Loong’s reputation?

Roy said no, ‘that his blog’s reach was too low to hurt Mr Lee’s reputation….Mr Lee did not suffer a lower standing in the eyes of the public as a result of the defamation’. It is interesting to know if Hsien Loong’s reputation did take a plunge, that in the eyes of the people, he is no good or not as good as before. The question is how to determine this point. Should someone conduct a straw poll or a survey to check on Hsien Loong’s reputation before and after Roy’s article? If not, how is one to know the effects of the article? And if these cannot be determined, how then to decide on the compensation for damages?

A second point is the allegation by Davinder Singh, ‘that Roy’s allegation of “misappropriation” undermines Mr Lee’s ability to “lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC’. Must this allegation be proven, that after Roy’s article, Hsien Loong’s ability to lead the country is undermined, affected, losing confidence of the electorate and unable to discharge his functions as a Prime Minister? These are very broad allegations and claims but how to prove that these are happening?

I have heard of accident victims claiming all kinds of sickness, fainting spell, dizziness, cannot eat and sleep, cannot shit, pain here and there, nightmares, hallucination, fear, bouts of frightening flashbacks that affected their lives as a result of the accident to claim for more damages. Some even walked with crutches and put on neck support.  A lot of drama. This kind of things can be supported by medical and psychiatrist reports. In the case of undermining ability to rule, confidence of voters etc etc, medical psychiatrists reports would not be applicable.

It would be interesting to see how Davinder proves that Hsien Loong’s reputation has taken a hit and how his confidence and ability to perform as a PM are affected. Would Hsien Loong be walking around with his head hanged low, afraid to look people in the eye, would the people be distancing themselves from him, giving him dirty glances, would he be trembling in fear, wetting his pants and afraid to go to work?

How would Davinder prove that Hsien Loong is no longer the man he was and a lesser man as a result of Roy’s article? How would he prove that the article has a sweeping impact on the people that they no longer trust Hsien Loong?  No, no need to prove anything, just allege, assert and claim to be so?

Like dat can or not?

GE 2015/16 issues for the voters to consider – Issue 5 – Do you want to give your country to foreigners?

Maybe there are now 50% new citizens among the Singaporeans and with many more as PRs or Employment Pass holders. This is as good as giving away half of the country to foreigners who are now new citizens. And if the population goes to 6.9m or 10m, we are as good as giving our country away, have been occupied by foreigners, now holding pink ICs.

Is this what you want to happen to your country? We own this country. Our parents and grandparents built and willed this country to us and our children. Why are we giving our country away to foreigners for free and giving them additional rebates, subsidies, national bonuses and financial incentives to occupy our country?

Amos Yee – Heckling special needs children

When special needs children were in the wrong place, many cried outrage, vile, vile, vile. How can people heckled children with special needs? That was the kind of reactions from caring and righteous people out to protect special needs children. What a show of nobility and compassion.

Would a boy suffering form Autism Spectrum Disease be called a special needs child?  Would such a child need the protection of caring adults from wicked people out to do harm to him? Got diminished responsibility or not? Any clever lawyer wants to comment?

What if such a child is snatched away from his mother, pronounced mad and thrown into a mental hospital where serious mental patients are locked up? Is it vile? Is it the right thing to do? Is this to help the child, to protect the child, to save the child? What would a child affected by ASD ended up in the company of mental patients?

And the child is screaming for justice. Would anyone listen and offer a helping hand? While the child’s plea gone unnoticed, abandoned by the caring and righteous men and women with halos above their heads, a lonely mother cries. The world turned to look the other way.

First World or Third World?  What happens to human decency? Where are the people of kindness, the people of God or Gods, the angels and immortals?

After this shameful ordeal, would anyone dare to talk about moral high grounds, about righteousness, about kindness, about compassion, about a caring society?

And a mother cries.

Freedom of expression at its best in Sin City

Many of you may not have noticed this. Freedom of expression is the new thing in Singapore. Everyone is freely expressing himself in the freest way unmatched by any other country in the western hemisphere. And this is not confined to just foreigners expressing themselves with their special privileged positions as the darlings of this island, the most sought after talents from the world, and must be handled with care and sensitivity in case we offended them and they choose to go to our neighbouring countries where the conditions are more hospital than this piece of rock.  Cannot rock the boat and see them fleeing.

Let me offer a few examples of freedom of expression by the citizens. One guy said he would cut off the cock of a boy and shaft it down the boy’s throat. Now there is another guy saying he will pay someone to rape a boy remanded in the mental hospital. The price for such freedom is quite cheap and did not bother them. They can afford to pay for it. Was it a stern warning?

Another guy went even further by exercising his freedom of expression and slapped a boy outside the court house in front of the media. Stylo milo. One was caught talking about shooting the PM but released and given a stern warning. Where else can you find people so daring and bold in expressing their feelings so freely? Sin City got no freedom of expression? Cannot be right? These are clear daylight evidence that freedom of expression is alive and practiced freely here. What about Amos? What Amos?

As for the foreigners, they even have more leeway in expressing themselves. They feel very free to mock or insult the citizens, calling them stupid and daft, poor, no talent, and the citizens were chided not to take it out on them personally. Beating up a foreigner, taking the law into one’s own hand, will be dealt with harshly by the authority. We are a rule by law country. Violation of the law is unacceptable unless one is mentally insane. Then one could enjoy the comfort of a mental hospital stay with tender loving care from all quarters.

What else did the foreigners enjoy? When they are unhappy with the taxi drivers, if the taxi drivers got the audacity to insist they pay the taxi fares after a drunken spree, they simply expressed their unhappiness at the taxi drivers by beating them up. Again, the price for such freedom of expression is cheap. They can afford to pay for it.

Freedom of expression is flourishing and well at a small price and many would be encouraged to express their feelings freely. Would there be a time when someone say he will pay for a hire gun to take out someone he is not happy with?