Japan deserves an apology for the Atomic bombs?

Three articles appeared in the Today paper on 25 May discussing the merits of an apology from Obama to Japan. The three forumers looked at the issue from different perspectives. All referred to an earlier article ‘Atomic bombs unnecessary as Japan had plans to surrender’. 

A Japanese, Shigeru Ichige and a Mohammad Ali Aziz, took on a similar angle though the Japanese brought in the point that Russia had invaded Manchuria and Japan was about to surrender. Mohammad’s main point was the loss of innocent Japanese civilian lives. What is the important factor to both was the face or personalities involved.  To Shigeru, it was important that the Emperor’s title was safe and he was pleased that the ‘United States’ foresight to safeguard the emperorship’ that ended the war, with the help of the two Atomic bombs.

In the same line of thought, Mohammad said that if Obama were to apologise, he would be elevated to the same ‘stature of great leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy.’ So for fame and stature, Obama should apologise, not because of the loss of innocent lives or the right or wrong of the whole savage affair of invading Asia and SE Asia by the Japanese Imperial Army that led to 24 million lives loss against the few thousand Japanese cooked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans.

Both took a very narrow view of the war and totally ignored the brutality of the Japanese, their acts of war and the killing of millions of innocent lives and destruction of the economies of countries affected by the invasion.

The third writer, Chen Jun Yi, gave a more rounded coverage of the whole issue, about the great loss of lives and how the countries were greatly affected and more lives would be destroyed should the war continue. He quoted, and many must have forgotten or not told, of tiny East Timor that lost 70,000 lives out of a population of 480,000 to the Japanese. Did anyone care about these innocent lives or did the Japanese bother to apologise to them, and the 24 million killed and many more millions suffered by the savages from Japan? Not important, no need to bother. The innocent lives of the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more important?

And why should Obama apologise? Did anyone understand the state of mind of the Americans and their leaders like Roosevelt when the innocent Americans were bombed while still in bed, having their sweet dreams in Pearl Harbour?  From the day Pearl Harbour was bombed, the incensed Americans were fuming and waiting to avenge that darkest hours in their history, to deliver the same dessert to the Japanese in Tokyo.  The Americans were preparing for it since to avenge the death of their innocent fellow men. Anyone still think Obama should apologise? Obama would be kicked of out the White House in disgrace if he did that. There were more American boys and girls killed as a result of the unprovoked war inflicted on the Americans and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour.

Commenting on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without understanding the unprovoked aggressive invasion of Asia and SE Asia by the Japanese Imperial Army and the atrocities and hideous crimes committed to the innocent people in these countries, the destruction of their lies, homes and countries, resulting in 24 m death and more millions maimed is like a three season man claiming that there is no winter. The savage crimes committed by the Japanese cannot be atoned by the two Atomic bombs. And the Japanese got the cheek to ask for apologies and ignoramus agreed that this is so.

Bilahari Kausikan's caustic speech at a policy forum in Tokyo

Bilahari Kausikan caustic speech at a policy forum in Tokyo

Singaporeans should take umbrage to Bilahari Kausikan's speech as Singapore's ambassador at large at a policy forum in Tokyo. If he was speaking in his personal capacity it was bad enough. But he was speaking as Singapore's official representative and that was a disaster .

Singapore officials should be very careful and more guarded in their speech when they touch on matters, relations or issues concerning big powers especially involving China, India, USA, Russia and Japan. This is diplomacy and what is expected of diplomats is to be diplomatic. You have shown the dark side of your mind , your biases and prejudices when you lash out at China though in a veiled manner. In your speech you have used innuendos and insinuations to unnecessarily paint China in a bad light. It is especially unnecessary for you to claim arrogantly that small countries like Singapore, Cambodia, Brunei and Vietnam should dare to challenge and go against China vis-a-vis the hegemonic warmongering Americans and at the same breadth shamelessly claim the need to get along with China hoping to supplicate China's help for economic survival.

Kausikan's speech is clearly pro American and openly hostile and anti China. Yes, Singapore is not a Chinese State as he frivolously state and by the same token we want to remind him that neither is Singapore a state beholden to any state.  Singaporeans are smart enough to read between the lines and smart enough to know you have agendas in your speech and are very riled with it. As a diplomat, a representative of Singapore, it is good that you stick to diplomacy and be diplomatic when dealing with foreign powers.

Southernglory 1

 

Wednesday, 25th May,2016

BSI – Would Singapore teach the Americans how to run a clean financial system?

‘This will send a chilling message to bankers here, pushing them to ensure robust anti money laundering and counter terrorism financing strategies are at play as  otherwise the risk of losing their regulatory licences is now more pronounced. – Nizam Ismail, Head of Regulatory practices in Singapore law firm RHTLaw Taylor Wessing.

This statement came after the shocking closing of BSI by the MAS and the revoking of its banking licence for its part in the 1MDB case. It was also fined for $13.3m.  Several of its top executives including the CEO are now under investigation while one executive is facing several charges. Some have resigned and some suspended.

Could Singapore do better or just do what the Americans have been doing against rogue banks, not rogue bankers? The Americans have been finding the banks hundreds of billions of dollars for money laundering and improper criminal business activities. And the US govt is pocketing the money happily, hundreds of billions after so many banks were caught with their pants down. And the CEOs and top management of fraudulent banks are also happily continuing with their business, continue to do the same, not guilty of any crime and not having to resign or pay any fines. The heavy fines are paid by the banks, ie shareholders’ money.

Singapore in this case did a few things different. Find BSI a miserable $13.3m but closed the bank. Also one executive is facing charges, ok this is the same in the USA, junior executives would be charged. No big fish involved.  Would Singapore go further to charge the CEO and top executives? They must have known what was going on and approved the dealings. No?

Now, how would this affect this island’s financial system and reputation as a squeaky clean country?  According to a veteran market watcher Mano Sabmani, ‘the problem at BSI are not likely to be contagious…”It is probably the main rotten egg and the entire basket is not necessarily contaminated”.’ I like his confidence in the system. This is like there are negligible foreigners here working using fake degrees or forged credentials because so far only one has been exposed and accepted as no fault, just a slight error in judgement. And the few hundreds caught, small matters. With 2 millions working here, a few hundred is probably all the problem there is. The rest are clean.

So this thing is not contagious. The rest of the banks and bankers would not be caught for such vices. The system is sound and intact, like there are no more foreigners working here under fake degrees and forged credentials. Not to worry. If there is anything different, maybe the CEO and top executives in BSI may not get away too easily in this case. Other than that, all is fine. Singapore is a fine city. How can Singapore’s reputation be dragged down into the mud as one of those money laundering countries? This is only one rotten case.

Who would lead Singapore in the next lap after LKY?

Some may think that we have had 3 generations of leadership in Singapore. To the discerning, Singapore has had only one leader. Now there is a vacuum waiting to be filled. Who would lead Singapore into the next lap of development? I really don’t know. When you see a leader, you know that he is a leader.

China has gone through a few changes of leadership since the days of Mao. Two leaders stood out among the few men that led the country. Every PRC Chinese and people of the world would know Mao and Deng. The rest are just administrators holding the fort for the next leader to take over the rein. Now there is a new leader appearing in China in Xi Jinping. Yes, you know a leader when one steps up on the stage to be recognized.

Where is the next leader that would lead Singapore forward? Not from the opposition camp for sure though a few of them really think they were great leaders of the opposition. They forgot about the story of the land of the blind. Every one eye jack will shine and think he is a leader. If there is a leader in the opposition camp, he has yet to appear or in the process of being forged. A new leader in the opposition camp is sorely needed to lead and maybe to replace the ruling govt should the time come.

In the ruling party camp, everyone thinks he is a leader and the best man or woman available to lead the country. And everyone has a second opinion. You know a leader when you see one. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them. Some think they are great and sincerely believe they are leaders.

Anyone think he has seen one? Maybe. But do not mistaken an administrator as a leader or someone given the title leader.  And yes, do not think a robotic conductor is the conductor leading an orchestra.

The shortest path to aristocracy

The general impression of aristocracy is a class of people that are rich and powerful normally by birth. They inherited their titles and wealth from a line of good fortunes. I am not sure what is the right definition of natural aristocracy? Is it natural in the sense of being an aristocrats by birth, by inheritance, or they achieved their status or nobility by merit?

This term natural aristocracy appeared quite recently in our vocabulary that used to be inundated more with terms like coolies, washer women, seamstresses, taxi drivers, or the slightly better off teachers and civil servants. The history of most Singaporeans, other than the babas, dated back only for a generation or two and were mostly of humble origins. Many babas too were from humble origins, leaving China to look for a better life but several generations earlier than the coolies lot. Some made it and prospered but would still not consider themselves as natural aristocrats, like the pioneers of this country.

So maybe this is a new beginning for this breed of people. From what I can gather, this term must be in reference to the political elite, not the old rich babas. They became rich and powerful in one generation in political office.

In Singapore it is one of the rare places where one can become a natural aristocrat in one generation, and from very ordinary beginnings, can be faster, two terms in political office would qualify one to be a natural aristocrat I think. The normal path is to get a scholarship, become a top civil servant, general or police commissioner, then join politics. No need to depend on birth. Oops, join politics must be joining the right political party. I don’t think opposition politicians qualify as natural aristocrats.

And like all nobilities, a natural aristocrat comes with many privileges but more important is the badge of integrity, of flawless character, honour, dignity, selfless devotion to public duty, to serve the people in public service. These qualities cannot be found in opposition politicians.

What are the privileges? The right to wear all white is one, a symbol of purity and aristocracy.  And once a natural aristocrat, one becomes omniprescient, all knowledgeable and all knowing and all powerful. Many would then become automatic advisors to anything, any organizations, or chairpersons or directors in organizations, private, public, commercial or social, even clans and sports associations or clubs.

It is too early to tell if this natural aristocracy is hereditary and will be passed down from generation to generation as this is just the beginning of an aristocracy class in this little republic. By the look of it, it will be. Once a natural aristocrat, forever a natural aristocrat, by birth, by hereditary, it is in the DNAs.

Would this be the beginning of a kingdom and more will be knighted as princes, lords, earls, dukes, barons, counts or what not in the tradition of European nobilities?