When Asean states are transparent and irrelevant

The Shangri La Dialogue came and gone. What happened? It was a forum for bickering between the two super powers, the US and China and how they compete for control and domination of the South China Sea. Where is the voice of Asean and Asean states in the Dialogue, hosted by Singapore and supposed to be a forum about Asean countries and their interests?

The Americans were telling the Chinese that it was all about freedom of navigation when freedom of navigation was never an issue in the first place. But freedom of navigation was an excuse for the Americans to threaten the Chinese with consequences and vowing to take actions should China continue to build structures in their islands. And China responded by saying it does not create trouble and fear no trouble, 无事不找事，有事不怕事. China is reclaiming land from the sea and building infrastructures inside its own territories. None of the Americans business.

And into the fray came more secondary powers or bit players as Sam Bateman called them, from all corners of the world from as far as Canada, France and the European Union and neighbouring India and Japan, all using this opportunity to claim their right to conduct military patrol in the South China Sea. Whose South China Sea is that? What about the littoral states of the South China Sea, what about Asean, the countries with EEZ in the South China Sea? Do they have a say in who should be patrolling the Sea?

With all the clouds and haze being spewed all over the South China Sea by the Americans, a country far far away and has no territorial interest in the South China Sea, the Americans and distant and near countries now conveniently claimed the right to the South China Sea, wanting to control the South China Sea militarily with no regards to the Asean countries, without having to ask the Asean countries for their opinion and their consent like the South China Sea belongs to them.

Such insolence and arrogance can only come from the European powers and young upstart second rate Asian powers  or bit players thinking that they are now military powers and can bulldoze their way all over the South China Sea. The blame should be placed squarely on the Asean states for their ignorance, foolishness and their reticence, for inviting the foreign powers to meddle with affairs in their region, and not protesting. They did not even know that they have served the South China Sea in a silver platter to the powers of the world and given up their interests in the Sea.

Asean is no longer relevant or material to the South China Sea. It has been hijacked by the big powers from far away under the guise of freedom of navigation, and taken over control of the South China Sea. Asean states are now transparent to the issue. Everyone is here to grab a piece of the sea to divide among themselves leaving Asean in the cold.

Do the Asean states know what is happening to their South China Sea? Most appeared to be like innocent school boys attending the Dialogue without knowing that their lollipops had been snatched away right under their noses. Stupidity has no cure.

China showing its anger with Singapore

The Global Times is China’s official media and what is printed in that media is the unofficial official view of the Chinese govt. When articles in the Global Times attacked Singapore for siding with the hegemonic power of the USA, it is China’s way of telling Singapore that it is unhappy with Singapore . And Stanley Loh, the Singapore Ambassador to China has spoken up to refute China’s criticism of Singapore.

Stanley Loh dragged out all the economic cooperation and projects as his proof that Singapore is supporting China or is friendly with China. He side stepped Singapore’s military cooperation with the Americans, providing a military base for the Americans to launch warships and warplanes into the South China Sea to challenge China’s claims to the islands. He also did not mention the political rhetoric or statements by our diplomats against China that are more vehement than even those from the Philippines and Vietnam recently.

On the economic front, Singapore wanted all the cooperation and benefits from a growing Chinese economy. But on the political and military front, the position of Singapore is anything but friendly. The comments by Bilahari Kausikan in his speech in Tokyo and his lectures must have ruffled the feathers of the Chinese govt. Would Bilahari or Stanley Loh think the comments were fair, neutral and positive for Singapore China relations?

Singapore is sticking its neck out, too far out for comfort, by taking a pro American line. The local media too were putting up almost on a daily basis, American views of the South China Sea dispute that were unflattering to China. How would China view these actions from Singapore, supposedly a reliable and close friend with a lot of economic cooperation, economic projects and a lot of legacies of LKY when he was around? Would China be seeing a major shift in Singapore’s policy since the demise the LKY and a Singapore that is increasingly partisan and anti China instead of walking the tight rope, not to be seen to favour either super power?

What would Singapore’s position be like should the Americans open a war front in the South China Sea against China and Singapore providing a military base for the Americans to attack China? Would Singapore maintain its neutrality by closing down the American base here, or would Singapore say it is ok and it is neutral and still a friend of China and allowing the Americans to launch military attacks at China?

Is the rude and undiplomatic comment that China is attempting to divide up Asean in the South China Sea dispute helpful when the other Asean countries were diplomatic enough to keep mum when they have vested interests and stakes in the dispute while Singapore did not?

The complaints in the Global Times are just a tip in the iceberg of the souring of relations between Singapore and China. There could be official complaints to register China’s unhappiness that were not reported in the media.

Singapore is now in a fix, and would have to make its stand clear to China. Is it going to be neutral or more pro America, more anti China on matters that affect China’s core interests and how would Singapore’s relation with China proceed from here? A diplomatic storm is brewing and it does not look good for Singapore. Singapore may be left out in the cold in China’s OBOR projects and other economic cooperation as well.  Trying to hang on to China’s gravy train and taking unfriendly positions against China would not work. Singapore cannot have the cake and eat it.

There is no LKY to smoothen things out in our relations with a China that is growing in strength and confidence to deal with small countries. Don’t try to punch above your weight when dealing with China or any big powers. That is a myth. When the big powers refused to give you face you will look silly in the eyes of the world if you try to punch in their face.

China no right to be world cop?

A Japanese, a diplomat I think, by the name of Shigeru Ichige, commented that Chinese Admiral Sun Jiangguo ridiculed the international communities by saying that China would ignore the verdict of The Hague on the Filipino claims on the islands in the South China Sea. And because of this, ‘China cannot and should never be a world cop able to maintain the world order as the United States does.  This kind of Japanese half truth logic is no longer passable when the world is fully aware of all the facts of past and present.

What this Shigeru did not want to mention is that the United States were the one that set the precedence of ignoring the verdict of The Hague when it ruled against the US in the past. The US even committed an act of contempt of The Hague by tearing to pieces the verdict in full media coverage. What Shigeru also refused to disclose is that The Hague has no jurisdiction over territorial issues under the UNCLOS. And what Shigeru also did not disclose is that the US refused to sign as a signatory to abide by the rules of UNCLOS. The US is NOT a signatory of UNCLOS or is not willing to abide by the laws of UNCLOS. This is the biggest American hypocrisy, demanding other countries to abide by UNCLOS rules when it refuses to do so.

So is USA more suitable as the world cop? Or is Japan more suitable as the world cop? The Japanese must remember the crimes and atrocities committed by Japan in WW2 against the whole of Asia and South East Asia by their invasion to conquer and rule over these countries.  On record at least 24 million people were killed by the Japanese, not counting the wounded and maimed and the destruction to their country’s economies and the lives of their people. And Japan is everywhere pitching to be a peacekeeper and potential world cop. And some stupid Asean leaders agree that it is alright for this beast of a nation to be a peacekeeper when their people were massacred by the Japanese, their countries conquered and colonized by the Japanese. They got to thank the Americans for dropping the two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war and save their skins.

By the way, China is not interested in being a world cop and has no desire or intent to be a world cop. The term world cop in reality is more like an international gangster, using might to control and intimidate smaller countries, to conduct regime change and to provoke and conduct wars. How virtuous is this international gangster to be called a world cop? How many thousands or millions of innocent lives have been killed or destroyed by the current ‘world cop’ and the world cop aspirant in Japan during the invasion of Asia?

Both are the most unsuitable candidates to be world cop when bullying and conducting wars are their modus operandi, their way of conducting international relations. They conduct wars instead of keeping peace as a cop should be doing. And no need to bother about China wanting to be world cop. China is not interested. Only aggressive warmongering nations would want to assume the role of ‘world cop’ to rule over other countries, to bully countries that refused to toe their line.

The world does not need a self appointed world cop. If there is to be one, it should come under the banner of the United Nation, not the United States of America.

MH370 wild goose chase coming to an empty ending

More than two years of ghost chasing, hundreds of millions spent, hundreds of thousands of manhours wasted, the ridiculous mad hunt for MH370 in the Antarctic Ocean is finally coming to a dead end. All the stupid theories were just that, stupid theories. Now they are all exposed, as the biggest wicked fraud of the century, when evil people hatched a scheme to mislead the desperate victims and their govt to go in search of the aircraft in a God forsaken place when they should be searching at other more likely places.

The evidences of the fraud are appearing in bits and drapes but taken with all sincerity and hope by the Malaysian and Chinese search parties. From the early days when the Australian PM was thoughtless enough to announce he knew where the aircraft was, and the flimsy signs, to the bits and pieces of flotsams in the African coast with their little signs and markings showing that they came from the lost aircraft, the coincidences are not strange or funny. Not many parts of an aircraft are imprinted or etched with markings and numberings to tell they belonged to an aircraft. But the few pieces coincidentally had all the markings and numberings that gave clues that they were carefully selected and scattered to be found to tell a false story.

Haven’t there enough fake and nonsensical evidences and signs and circumstantial evidence to prove that there is a conspiracy to misdirect the search parties to look at the wrong places of all places?

Should Malaysia and China start to take up legal actions against the hoaxers and fake information providers to prolong this tragedy and the lost of 239 innocent lives? This is an evil crime against humanity and the perpetrators and their conspirators would hope that no one would remember their crimes and time will erase all memories and the case be forgotten.

This case must not be forgotten and justice must be brought to the evil men and women behind the crime.

Tharman’s comment on freedom

Actually I wanted to use the title Tharman – Once a dissident, but some may misunderstood its meaning. Like Once a Rebel being used on Ho Kwon Ping, both titles are actually badges of honour for someone who had crossed the line as young idealist and survived and became successful in their own right. They had been there, done it and lived to tell their story. When Tharman told the students that he was once a dissident, it was in this context, had been a youthful idealist and went through the baptism of fire.

Why is that important and what has that got to do with his comment on freedom? Let me repost his comment here, ‘Society has to find the right balance and some freedoms have to be curbed for it to evolve in a way that advances other freedoms, he said. “Every society faces this. We haven’t found the perfect balance, and we have to keep evolving.’’

I first misquoted Tharman by saying ‘We have found the perfect balance’ which has a totally different meaning. Now let’s look at his statement once again. His two key phrases, ‘we haven’t found the perfect balance’ and ‘to keep evolving’. The ‘haven’t found it’ is like saying it could be better and the ‘evolving’ can only be evolving for the better. This is what an idealistic dissident mindset and a govt critic, a bit like me, would be like. It is not there yet and can be better. And hopefully it will evolve over time, maybe not in this regime but some time down the road.

It is also important to understand what Tharman is thinking, what are his values and whether they are going to be more pro people, more freedom or otherwise. If it is his destiny, and if Singapore is going to have a non Chinese PM, no other non Chinese minister can stand near to him. Tharman’s view is therefore important as he could possibly be the One. There is some silver lining in his, ‘We haven’t found the perfect balance, and we have to keep evolving.’ Having been in a position when his freedom was curbed, he would have a better appreciation of what freedom is all about and what is the better or perfect balance to be.

What do you think? How would the perfect balance be like under his watch if that day becomes a reality? How much of his youthful idealism as a dissident is still with him and how would this impact the freedom of the day some time in the future?