Dispelling the myth of an expansionist China

By Chua Chin Leng (chinadaily.com.cn)Updated: 2015-11-13 17:48

The world has been misled into believing that China is an ambitious and expansionist country coveting the land of neighboring states. This myth has been hyped by the western media for several decades so that the undiscerning now accept this view uncritically without bothering to confirm if it is true.

The South China Sea territorial disputes have been used by superficial academics or those with an agenda as proof that China is indeed expansionist. Without understanding the facts, many have been gullible to accept the disputes in the South China Sea as the proof they needed that China is claiming the islands of the counter claiming parties. The truth is that these countries are claiming islands that China has claimed long before these countries were formerd and were recognized as countries.

There is historical evidence to show that modern China was and is never has been expansionist. There were 3 incidents or wars that China was involved in after 1949 where China could have seized the land of neighboring countries that it had occupied. Take the case of the Korean Peninsula. After the armistice China withdrew completely from what is now North Korea without leaving a single soldier on Korean soil.

It could have stayed on, on the same false pretenses the Americans used to continue to station troops in South Korea. More than 60 years after the Korean War, the American troops are still in South Korea and will not leave.

A similar situation existed in the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962. Chinese troops were deep into India and could have stayed on the newly occupied land. However, China did not want any Indian territories.. They had all the excuses to stay and stake their claims. They withdrew completely out of the Indian lands it had conquered during the conflict. Why would an expansionist country with designs on its neighbor’s land voluntarily return the land it had fought for and won?

The third incident was the border war with Vietnam. The Chinese troops marched deep into Vietnam and could have sat on Vietnamese land with the Vietnamese looking lost and frustrated by the Chinese presence but unable to do anything. An expansionist country would have done just that. Again the Chinese troops withdrew back into China and allowed Vietnam to move back to the border with China.

In all three incidents, China could have taken advantage of the conflicts to seize the territories of its neighbors. Why not, since Chinese troops were occupying the disputed lands? So, is China expansionist when it could hold on to the territories the defeated neighboring states had lost? Since the end of the wars, China has not given trouble to its neighbors on their borders. Why then is China being accused of being expansionist?

Ask the North Koreans, the Indians and the Vietnamese for proof that China is coveting the land at their borders. Ask the rest of the 17 countries with borders with China if China has been attempting to seize their lands. Many of the 17 neighboring states of China were small and militarily weak and would not be able to resist a land grabbing China. No, they all live peacefully with China with no violation of their territories.

   

Whose problem is ISIS?

The West cries for the blood of ISIS following the Paris attack. The French launched more air strikes in Syria in vengeance. The rest of world condemns this uncivilized attack on civilians in the streets of Paris. I am not going to harp on the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians killed by the smart bombs and drones of the Americans and their allies without any condemnation by anyone, without any leader saying he feels sad about it. The big question is, whose problem is ISIS?

A Sulaiman Daud posted in his facebook to acknowledge that it is a Muslim problem. His full article is posted in the TRE titled, ‘ISIS is an Islamic problem, we Muslims must confront this reality’. And I quote a couple of paragraph from his post,

‘ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that….ISIS is not America’s problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq’s problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can’t admit that, you’re not really a good Muslim either.’

I would agree with Sulaiman that it is a Muslim problem but it is also not a Muslim problem. In the ST on 17 Nov 15, there was another article by a Mohan J Dutta titled, ‘Violence and terror…’, where he described the Western narrative as the conventional truth that the barbaric ISIS is the scourge of modern civilization. But Mohan also got into a bit of the history of how ISIS came about, who created them, trained them, armed them and financed them. No need to guess for the answer. For the sake of the ignoramus, the mother of ISIS is none other than the Americans and their allies. They created this Frankenstein to do their dirty work in removing Saddam Hussein and now in the process of removing Basher Assad.

ISIS is the work of the West. Period.  So, whose problem is ISIS? Is ISIS just a Muslim problem or is it an American or Western problem? I say again, those who lived by the sword will be killed by the sword. The sword is swinging back at the Americans and their allies.

Sulaiman Daud should not be too hasty and liberal to accept full responsibility. The responsibility lies squarely on the big devil that created ISIS. Islam is just a collateral in the Americans’ devious war on regime change in the Middle East. They let out this monster ISIS and could not put it back into the bottle.

The saddest part of it all

The unthinking are now feeling so remorseful, so guilty and responsible for the killings in the streets of Paris. Did they ever want to know who were the real devils behind the carnage in Paris? Iraq, Libya, Syria and many Middle Eastern and North African countries are in turmoil, a plan conceived and executed to perfection by the Americans, to destabilize these countries and agitate them to keep on fighting and killing each other, to be bombed to Stone Age. As long as these people are killing each other, their countries will be in ruins, their lives will be in ruins.

Now who are the greatest beneficiaries of the war in these countries? No need to think so hard. If you still cannot figure out, think Americans, their western allies, the Israelis and of course the arms merchants of war. And the devils are partying in Washington, seeping wine and whisky with caviar without any sense or remorse or responsibility, without any sense of guilt.

On the other hand the unthinking around the world are feeling so responsible and guilty and wanting to kill the ISIS. Yes, the ISIS is evil and must be destroyed. What about the devil that created them, trained them, armed them and financed them?

The devil is now in the South China Sea trying to destabilize the region and inciting the unthinking to start another war. And some of the unthinking would be joining the ranks of the devil. And when war starts, when their countries are bombed, when their people died, they will blame everyone else except the devil and themselves.

The lost sheep are the unthinking, being manipulated to hate, to kill, and the devil is smiling from afar, offering more arms, more aids, more training, and more bombs, for the unthinking to kill themselves, or feeling guilty and responsible if not doing so.

Kishore is serious about public public transport system

Our privatized public transport may be due for a change if Kishore Mahbubani has a say in it. Oops, he definitely has a say in it but not sure if he can decide on it. Yesterday at a symposium on Future Mobility he repeated his call for the nationalization of the public transport system to include the buses and taxis.

Kishore said, ‘Singapore’s public sector is world class. But its private sector is not. So if the country wants the best public transport system in the world, shouldn’t the public sector be in the driver’s seat?’  It is so logical and so simple. Now where has Kishore come from? Has he been away for too long that he forgot the original rationale touted by the govt that the public transport must be privatized in order to be efficient? That the public transport ran by the public sector in the past was just too inefficient, in other words the civil servants were not able to run the public transport system efficiently. Come to think of it, was the privatized public transport system ever been run by anyone from the private sector other than the period under Saw?

Actually Kishore knows and I quote why, ‘He said the country should not “remain a prisoner of old economic ideas”, such as the notion that public transport should be privatized.’ He is so polite. He blamed it on an old economic idea and not some wise ones who touted the idea that the public sector people are duds, cannot run a transport system efficiently. Anyway it is good to praise the public sector as world class and this may be very well received. With this as a starting point, the world class people may now be brave enough to challenge the old notion that they were inefficient, so it is time to take back the public transport system to prove that actually they can run the public transport efficiently.

Would anyone be objecting to this notion that public sector is unfit to run the public transport system? Khaw Boon Wan has rolled up his sleeves and wading deep into the MRT problems with his public sector chief and engineers. Luckily he did not go to the world to look for some experts to come here to solve our transport problems. Kishore can quote this as testimony to prove that the public sector can do it.

There is a little snag. It was reported in the media that nationalization of public transport was a clarion call by the Workers’ Party for years. Would this cheeky comment be a game changer not to nationalize the public transport system no matter how clever the arguments Kishore put up? If Kishore is successful in his say, the public transport system will come full circle, from public public transport system to privatized public transport system and back to public public transport system. I think the opposition party camp would be calling this flip flopping.

17 countries in Vienna to decide the fate of President Assad of Syria

What an irony with 17 countries attending a meeting in Vienna to determine the fate on who should be the leader of the Syrians. They are going to decide the fate of President Assad, not the Syrian people. The meeting was understandably led by the Americans and their allies in another of its plan for a regime change. The Russians too were there to make sure the Americans would not have their way to remove Assad, a Russian ally.

China was also represented by it Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong while the Americans were represented by their Secretary of State John Kerry to take on his Russian counterpart Sergio Lavrov. China’s low key presence was like a watching brief as China’s policy is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of another country. In the meeting China’s position was for the Syrians to determine their own future and to help in the reconstruction of Syria after the war.

The interference of the domestic affairs of another country is fair game to the Americans. Any country watching this sad episode should be aware that their fate would be similar to the Syrians once the Americans take an interest in their affairs and decided for a regime change. Malaysia seems like a good candidate with Najib under siege now that Myanmar is out of the picture. Who else would be a potential candidate for regime change in the Asean region? Indonesia or perhaps the Philippines should there be a challenge to Aquino’s leadership or a big tussle in the next Presidential election, or should the Muslim rebels in the south provides a good opening for the good Americans to step in?

Would another 17 countries be meeting somewhere to decide the fate of an Asean country and their leaders?

CLOB’s disappearing act

Can anyone remember what happened to those Malaysian CLOB shares that were once listed in our Stock Exchange? Yes, first they became penny stocks, then super penny stocks, that consolidation from 1000 to 1 and from 100 to 1 and ended with practically nothing. This magician act of turning a mountain into a mole hill and then to a grain of sand is going to be repeated in the Singapore Stock market once again.

Many stocks in the mainboard were allowed to be split, just like the CLOB shares to penny stocks and eventually turning into super penny stocks. Who said history does not repeat itself? Only people who did not know history would repeat the mistakes of the past.

The penny and super penny stocks have been given a dead line to consolidate by 2016 or face being delisted. We cannot have a Mickey Mouse stock exchange. Who said so? How come we don’t know and allow our market to be turned into a Mickey Mouse stock exchange? Did we see it coming? Did we see how damaging it will be to allow the value of stocks in the mainboard to become penny stocks by splitting and splitting? Whose great idea was it and what was the purpose of this great idea? To facilitate computer trading or to encourage children to play in the stock market?

So now someone thinks it is not a good idea to have penny and super penny stocks. What about reducing the board lot size to 100 shares or later to unit share? To provide liquidity or to facilitate computer trading again? Again I would like to ask, whose great idea is this and what is the purpose? Oh, more liquidity so that little children can buy with a few dollars in their kitty banks.  What then is the difference between a Mickey Mouse stock market with penny and super penny stocks and a Mickey Mouse stock market with unit shares that cost a few cents or a few dollars to trade?

Got difference meh? Got. Ok, I surrender. Someone said, LPPL. Does anyone want to remember the history of CLOB shares and penny stocks and where it will end up?