If China shuts its door to the Little Red Dot

Up to the 70s, Singapore citizens could not visit PRC freely. There were conditions like being seniors or getting special approval from the govt should Singaporeans want to visit China. Likewise it was not easy for a Chinese citizen to visit Singapore unless being sponsored. What we have taken for granted today, the free movement of people and trade are not normal during the days of Cold War when communism was Enemy Number One and China was a communist country, and also very poor.

Things changed in from mid 1970s and after the visit of Deng Xiao Ping in 1978. Diplomatic relations took a dramatic change with LKY making visits to China and a special relationship and rapport were developed between the two leaders. There was an understanding to work closely for the benefits of both countries. Singapore was a shining example of what a new country could do and to transform itself into an economic miracle. Many Chinese delegations came and gone, to study how Singapore did it, and Singapore delegations too visited China to share our experience.

Singapore was special to China and Lee Kuan Yew and his senior ministers had very close relationships with their counterparts with Goh Keng Swee stationing himself in China as special economic advisors after his retirement from political office. Today, both these men have gone. Relations between the two countries are still very good. But no one in Singapore has the same kind of rapport and relationship that LKY had with China’s leadership.  There were a lot of admiration and respect and deference to LKY when he was still around.

With the departure of LKY, would the relationship between China and Singapore still be on the same level or plane, that China would still have a special place for Singapore, to listen to what Singapore is saying? LKY could say anything he wanted about China, encouraging the Americans to be in the region to counter the influence of China to the chagrin of China’s leadership. They kept quiet and at times gave a silent smile to the position of Singapore, standing up to China and snuggling closely in bed with the Americans. Could this state of affair continue without LKY?

If we are to read the media and the speech by Bilahari Kausikan, the position of Singapore towards China and the balancing act with the Americans are still the same, business as usual, only the personalities have changed.

In the absence of LKY, in the absence of that special rapport between the top leaders, is Singapore taking China for granted, that this lovely state of affair, the special place of Singapore, to stand up to China and expect to be embraced warmly by the Chinese leadership will continue? Who in China is going to embrace who in Singapore, to be able to engage in deep four eye discussion at the highest level on the most sensitive issues?

Would the new China leadership turn around and say that things are getting out of hand, that Singapore is taking them for granted, that Singapore thinks it can still ruffle up China and challenging China’s core interests, taking the side of the Americans, that this has to stop? LKY could get away with anything he said and done. He was no ordinary off the mill politician or political leader. Leaders of the world listened to him and tried to make out what he was saying, not necessarily agreeing with him. Does Singapore today have the same kind of politician with the same stature and deference to say the darnest things, and get away with it?

IS War of Words

The IS and terrorist organizations are getting smarter and making full use of modern technology and cyberspace to conduct wars cheaply and very effectively. Eng Hen’s disclosure of the IS training children from Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, burning their passports and taking up arms and the message that these countries are potential targets of these young terrorists have a lot of implications. In the first instance, it shows how sophisticated the terrorist organizations are in the art of psychological warfare.

The revelation of the presence of these young terrorists from the three countries is to give notice to the countries that they better take the threat seriously. And these countries have no choice but to bolster up their defensive mechanism and organisations to prepare and counter the threats. Manpower, equipment and time would have to be allocated to prepare for the inevitable, and as they said, it is a matter of when. So, a simple act of flashing the video in cyberspace would have the effect of making countries tying down their resources and manpower for something in the dark that may or may not happen and without any idea when or where they will hit. The IS is having the upper hand, they have the initiative, when and where to strike.

On the international scale, such wars of words would put big countries like the USA and its allies, participants in the Coalition of the unWilling shitting in their pants. All IS needs to do is to post a few threats in the net and their anti terrorist organizations would be kept very busy shadow fighting. And it would be worse when the threat is more specific, with time and place revealed.

This psycho warfare could drive many countries crazy, wasting time, resources and manpower for apparently nothing. The cost to IS and other terrorist organizations is practically negligible, but not to the countries they are targeting. No country can ignore the threats and Singapore is deploying the Army boys and the Home Teams and NSmen and whatever available to be ready, and cannot afford to be caught with the pants down. Then everyone will be pointing the finger, they told you. Why didn’t you do something?

Obama, the great ‘White’ leader of the US

Obama, in his own way, is really a great leader. To those who did not know him or the history of American violence and excesses they would believe in everything he said in Vietnam. He is a black President who could tell a white lie and still did not turn white in the face.

This is what he told the Vietnamese, ‘Vietnam is an independent and sovereign nation, and no other nation can impose its will on you.’ And the Agencies in its report cheekily sneaked this in, ‘And despite a history in which the US tried violently to impose its will on this nation, Mr Obama said no other country should try such a strategy.’ Maybe Obama was saying it out of the experience of Americans trying but failed to do so.

But he did not give up. He added, ‘the US was not trying to impose its form of government on Vietnam but said some values were universal.’

Did he managed to convince the Vietnamese of the American virtues or was it a case of two countries finding a common enemy and a common interest so everything is fine and lovely? Did the Vietnamese say ‘walla, walla’ behind his back? But that is not important. The media are all praising how successful his trip was to Vietnam, to bury 50 years of war trying to impose an American rule over Vietnam.

Oh Obama also said inter state problems must not be solved by wars but by negotiation. Who is starting wars, agitating wars and fighting wars all over the world? No prize for guessing the right answer. And Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being a President for Peace! Stop laughing ok?

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