China’s inexplicable policies in the South China Sea

Everyone is making claims to the islands in the South China Sea. China’s 9 dash line claims it meeting overlapping claims by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Until the dispute is settled, the claimant countries are trying their best to enforce their claims by exerting control of the seas with their patrol boats. No clear cut answers would be appearing in the near horizon.

The biggest teething problem is not land reclamation but the presence of fishing boats in the disputed seas. Chinese fishing boats, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians have often been caught by the patrol boats of respective countries, some held for ransom, some blown to pieces.

Chinese fishing boats appear to be a common feature in being arrested by the claimant countries’ patrol boats, impounded or blown up. And other than some protests from the Chinese government, there seemed to be nothing that China could do to protect or demand the release of the fishing boats and the fishermen.

The fact that Chinese fishing boats and fishermen were arrested by claimant countries is an implicit sign that the fishing boats and fishermen were in the wrong, operating in other country’s territorial sea. It must be. If they are operating in Chinese or international waters they would not be arrested. If this is the case, it is simply a legal matter and rightly China cannot and should not be doing anything to protect the wrongs of its fishing boats and fishermen.

What if the fishing boats and fishermen were arrested in disputed seas claimed by China and other claimant countries. The implications, China has be default of its inaction, conceded that the fishing boats were in the claimant countries’ territorial waters. This would weaken China’s claim of the area under the 9 dash lines. The second implication is that China is a weak power, unable to protect its citizens in its own territorial waters. This point is even more damaging to China’s reputation as a sovereign and big power.

What is China’s stand or what would China do to maintain order and respectability in such cases? A straight forward position is for China to protect its fishing boats in the disputed waters and prevent them from being hauled away by claimant patrol boats. This is the least respectable thing for China to do and to uphold its claim to the sea within the 9 dash lines.

If China does not want to enforce its claims in the disputed waters, does not water to use force to protect its fishing boats, China could simply order its fishing boats to avoid the disputed waters. It would save the embarrassment of them being arrested and blown to pieces.  By allowing its fishing boats into disputed waters and be arrested is bad news, bad publicity from all points of view.

Would China take a firm and clear position on this matter to avoid being embarrassed? It is either enforce the claim or keep the fishing boats from trouble waters. The present situation of no policy and no stand is a bad policy.

The bigger question is would China take a stronger stance against the American provocation by sailing warships within the 12 nm of China’s territorial waters? Not doing anything would only encourage the crazy Americans to think China is weak. The latest report said China had scrambled fighter aircraft to intercept the ship. Is that enough or would China have to do like what Putin did in the Baltic Sea by screaming pass the ship at low level or more?

The attack on China continues

Tang Siew Mun, Head of Asean Studies Centre at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, continues the attack on China by calling on Asean to stick together to confront China in the South China Sea dispute or be hanged separately. I think this must be his personal view and not that of the Institute or the govt.

Let me quote what he said in his article, ‘Hang together or hang separately?’ published in the ST on 12 May.  I think as an academic his comments would not draw another strong protest from China for meddling with China’s internal affairs and not having to qualify that he is speaking in a personal capacity.

‘Asean has to take a firm stand on the SCS not because it wants to favour one claimant over another, but in order to protect the integrity and unity of the 10 member organization. If Asean shows that it is susceptible to any kind of external interference, it would lose its credibility and in the process declare itself “fair game” to any external powers.  Benjamin Franklin’s advice that “we must all hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang separately” is particularly pertinent for the Asean leaders.

The above comment emphasizes integrity and unity of Asean and the assumption that Asean as a united block can take on a big power as an equivalent of a big power.  Talking about integrity of Asean is laughable since Asean discarded the concept of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. When Asean countries started to become allies of big powers, providing military facilities for big powers to exert their influence in the region, signing military alliances with big powers, engaging in warfare on the side of big powers, the integrity of Asean as a neutral block of countries is already a big question mark. 

Asean unity? Asean as a united block too is an aspiration rather than a reality. There are the pro US and pro China camps within Asean.

What is more naïve is to think that Asean, acting together as a block, would be a force to be reckoned with against big powers like the USA, PRC or India. Such big powers would give Asean a kick in the arse when they deemed fit and when their interests are challenged. The insanity of small countries thinking that they can punch above their weight or a small half past six regional block taking on the big powers can only be found in Asean countries. Some wanting to go to war with China, some wanting to push China out of the South China Sea. The most realistic of the Asean countries, and the most powerful militarily, having fought and defeated the Americans and a border war with China, understood what it is like to take on China in war. 

The only chance for Asean to hang together is to add on the American factor, to hang together with the Americans and go and fight wars all over the world with the Americans. Other than this reality of joining the international gangster, punching above your weight is only possible when the big powers graciously allows you to do so, partially also to cater to their interests. When their interests are at stake or violated, you will be punching a hard rock. And the weight of a mustard seed against a big rock is not difficult to comprehend.

Singapore is praying very hard to hitch a ride on the Chinese economic locomotive and is best not to be too cocky and indiscreet in taking sides when China’s core interests are involved. Yes, Singapore is a non claimant state in the SCS. Why is Singapore crying out loud everyday when the other claimant states are lying low?  Oops, it is not Singapore that is ruffling the feathers of China, but individuals speaking in their private capacity. And pray China would not because of these casual remarks by individual Singaporeans and cut off Singapore from the Chinese gravy train.

Where are these anti China rhetoric coming from? What is the agenda?

LKY’s hard truths outdated

There are many thoughts of LKY but not many are outdated. Many are still valid and would be valid for a long time to come. I am just referring to a couple of his thoughts or hard truths that have been superceded by recent events, proving that they are no longer valid.  The first is the belief that Singapore is not ready for an Indian Prime. This is no longer true. From my observation, Singaporeans are ready for an Indian PM plus an Indian President simultaneously. Singaporeans are even ready for a cabinet filled with minority ministers on the principle of meritocracy. As long as they are meritocratic, that is all that Singaporeans want to know and will accept them. Black cat white cat, can catch mouse, good cat.

The second thought, that Singaporeans would vote based on their racial identity, the sole justification for the need for GRC, is coming to question as well. In this case, LKY is partially right, or his thought is still valid to some extent and circumstances. I will use the Bukit Batok by election to support my case.

Let me start with voting by race. How could a minority candidate win an election competing one on one against a majority candidate in a constituency that has 75% of the majority race? This simply says that the majority did not vote by race. Otherwise Murali would at most be left with 25% of the votes presuming all the minorities voted for him and the majority voted for Chee. And throughout the election you could see how popular he was with the Chinese voters, from Hsien Loong down to the grassroot leaders and ordinary voters.

In this by election, very likely the Chinese votes were split 50:50 or 60:40 in favour of Murali. If this was not the case Murali would have no chance of winning. In the case of the Malay voters, it could be the same pattern. The only part of LKY’s thought that is still valid is that the Indian voters would likely vote along racial line, ie more would vote for an Indian candidate. This is the only portion of the thought that is still holding true.

The most important thing, the by election dispelled the basis for the continued existence of GRCs. The majority Chinese would vote based on meritocracy or on party track records. They are colour blind. So, this LKY thought is not wholly true today. And the same argument should also be applicable to the Elected President.

The reasoning and voting on merits among the Chinese is now the dominant force in their thinking or no thinking. The Chinese have embraced meritocracy like it is the golden truth. Race is no longer an issue. They are only capable of thinking on one single factor, nothing more. They are incapable of thinking of other factors like social and political considerations. They could not see anything further than today. What is going to happen tomorrow with the full force of meritocracy is beyond their grasp. Look at how they accept the huge influx of foreigners into the country, how Singaporeans are conveniently being replaced by foreigners in work places for all the wrong reasons? As far as the Chinese Singaporeans are concerned, their mindset is already stuffed with the word meritocracy, and if they are replaced at work or forced to leave this country, it is meritocracy.  They would not think that they have been cheated. Some even concede that this island belongs to anyone that comes here, and everyone and anyone has the right to take over this country as long as they are ‘good’ or ‘betterer’ than the daft Sinkies.

With this kind of mentality, to be generous, one can say the Singaporean Chinese are politically naïve. To be honest, the Singaporean Chinese are political idiots. On this ground, I conclude that the Singaporean Chinese are ready for an Indian PM plus an Indian President at the same time and with minority ministers in charge so long as they are meritocratic. I am not sure if the Malays would think like the idiotic Chinese and accept the same development.

So, the Bukit Batok by election has confirmed two things or thoughts of LKY. The Chinese would not vote on racial grounds. The Chinese are ready for an Indian PM and more. Having an Indian or minority President is not an issue. Many minority Presidents have been appointed and ‘elected’ as well.

The USA continues to raise tension in the South China Sea

The Americans continued with its third ‘freedom of navigation’ provocation a couple of days ago, this time sailing a warship within the 12 nautical miles of a Chinese island. This is an aggressive act, intruding into another country’s territorial waters, and would be expelled if not for the restraint the Chinese were exercising on their troops. It was an intrusion into another country’s territory by a warship without permission.

It is a matter of time when an impatient Chinese soldier will pull the trigger ‘accidentally’ and sink one of these warships and all its naval crews, just like the American ‘mistake’ in striking the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with a cruise missile, in time of peace and under no provocation. The Chinese will not forget this hostile incident, an act of war, and will wait for the opportune moment to return the compliment. American naval military personnel on such ‘freedom of navigation’ or aggressive intrusion into Chinese waters must be prepared to be buried in the South China Sea, a matter of when. The Chinese must be calculating when would be the best time to commit a ‘mistake’ by a low level gunner that doesn’t normally think too much.

The crazy and belligerent Americans must be warned, the families of these sailors must be warned, it is a mission waiting to happen, and their fathers, sons and daughters, and husbands, may not come home, or if lucky, come home in black plastic bags. American exceptionalism does not confer the Americans the right to infringe and violate other country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the Chinese have all the good reasons to make such a ‘mistake’. 

With Belgrade vivid in their minds, it is a convenient target to avenge the humiliating attack on their Embassy. A tooth for a tooth. When China is ready militarily, an American tooth would be extracted to pay for the Belgrade Incident.

The American people must send a message to the crazies in the White House and the Pentagon that the game has changed and China is about to take a tooth back from the Americans unless they stop their hostile acts in the South China Sea. You cannot go on provoking another big power in their homeland and think you can get a way with it. The whole world is watching this American provocation and military adventurism in the South China Sea. Aggression will not pay, will no longer pay, especially when the other side can hit back.

The USA must repent, now before it is too late.

Why is Singapore educating, feeding and enriching foreigners?

We built universities to be staffed by foreigners and the places to be filled by foreign students. We brought in foreign lecturers academic staff, paid them handsomely and housed them in very good accommodations. All paid by tax payers’ money. We brought in foreign students, gave them scholarship to live better than Singaporean students who either laden their parents with debt or themselves in debt for borrowing to pay their own tuition fees. The foreign students got it all for free, paid by our taxpayers. We rejected our top students in medical and law schools, forcing them to go overseas, many ended not returning, but in their place recruited half past six foreigners to be doctors and practicing lawyers here.

We created two supposedly ‘think tank’ institutions on top of ISEAS, to be staffed with many foreigners, to be paid handsomely by tax payers money, for what? What are the returns or benefits?  Justifiable or for show? Or are we doing charity or do we owe these foreigners a living, to pay for their education, to pay them damn well to work here? Are we responsible for the well beings of foreigners or to our taxpayers and their children, the citizens of Singapore?

We keep giving generous grants and scholarships to foreigners to improve their qualifications, to gain experience and expertise, to gain credibility, from taxpayers’ money but neglected our own talents. The grass in the neighbours’ lawn is greener? Sowing wild oats and forsaking our own children? No need to grow our own timber, take short cut, no need to nurture our precious seedlings?

Hope Leong Sze Hian could do a compilation on the billions wasted on training, educating and feeding foreigners instead of our own children. Wastrel? Anyone know the meaning of wastrel? Or profligate, squanderer?

The so called elite realm of existence is now filled by foreigners with doubtful credentials when they should be filled by our very own citizens, paid by our taxpayers’ money. We keep paying the foreigners to be better but not to our own, preferring to force our own away to foreign shores.

Historically anti people policies were prevalent during the reigns of a ‘hun jun’ or 昏君, marking the end of a dynasty, for forsaking the interests of the people.