UN distancing itself from the kangaroo court

These are the comments from the UN on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

‘The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which set up a tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013.

In a post on its Sina Weibo micro blog, the UN said the PCA is a "tenant" of the Peace Palace in The Hague, "but has nothing to do with the UN".

The UN said the International Court of Justice, its principal judicial organ set up according to the Charter of the UN, is also located in the Peace Palace.

The construction of the palace was managed by the Carnegie Foundation, which is still the building's owner and manager, according to the Peace Palace website.

The UN said it makes an annual donation to the foundation for using the Peace Palace.

When asked about the Arbitral Tribunal's case's ruling on Tuesday, Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday "The UN doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits" of the South China Sea arbitration case.’ China Daily

The UN’s comments are a clear indication that the kangaroo court is a can of rotten fish and did not wan to have anything to do with it. The UN simply did not want to have anything to do with the PCA and did not want its good reputation to be tarnished by kangaroos running the circus.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not a court per se but a tribunal where willing parties brought their cases to be arbitrated, with each side choosing a judge and has the right to reject the judges appointed by the PCA. It was meant to be a tribunal that is neutral but not in this case. The judges were appointed by one party, paid by one party, to arbitrate on a territorial issue that it has no jurisdiction and with the other party not participating.

American Race Relations at a Crossroad

By MikoSpace aka Michael Heng

The police shootings of 2 Black men in the US cities of Louisiana and Minnesota are grim reminders of the consequences of losing the never-ending race against racism in the most developed and, arguably, most civilized modern human society. In a direct response, a black sniper-shooter killed 5 white police officers in another distant city of Dallas in Texas. 

In the weeks following Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas, the US race against racism veered off its future destiny of true freedom and equality to run forward towards her bigoted Jim Crow past.

White American racism against Blacks in particular was thoroughly cooked and boiled in the living hells of her past institution of chattel slavery from 1619 to the 1865 Presidential Emancipation Proclamation that freed more than 3 million Black slaves, lasting about 246 years. Their freedom is followed by more than 150 years of systematic and continuous social discrimination and exclusion, as manifested lately by the Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas killings.   

To be fair, American race relations have in fact improved significantly since the 1960s. Many Black Americans indeed have moved up the social mobility ladder through education and achieve prosperous careers as entertainers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, politicians, professioals … etc.  A Black President in the White House for 2 terms should have convinced Black Americans of the abundance in life and social opportunities awaiting them that they have access to. For many Black Americans, these are simply not enough.

Black Americans at 13% is the largest racial minority, compared with 77% of racial majority Whites Americans. Hispanic and Latino Americans together amount to 17% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority. Asian Americans at 5.6% are at a far distance, but more than the 1.2% Native Americans.

Many Black Americans believe that they are singled out for systematic discrimination by social institutions and by the law-and–order systems. Their proportion in prison far exceeds their proportion in over 20 states.  On the whole, they made up 35% of jail inmates and 37% of prison inmates.  Another study concluded that at the time of his birth, a Black American has a 33% chance of going to prison during his life-time.

Black Americans appeared to be trapped and languishing in their own self-perception of a persecuted people who were freed from plantation slavery just to be quickly enslaved by the larger White society. Poverty, unemployment and incarceration reinforced inherently low self-image and perceived lack of economic progress when compared with other better-off non-White Americans eg Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Hispanics and Latinos, many of whom were recent immigrants only in the last 30 years.

   

No wonder White Americans’ stereotypes of Black Americans are reinforced concerning the capability and suitability of the Black man to live and work in the civilized and modern American society of law. This sad state of mutual misunderstanding affects and retards any significant progress in their race relations, and can be attributed to the absence of visionary and courageous leadership in the President, both Houses of Congress, Community and Social Leaders, Black and White Influencers and Business Leaders. 

Leadership failure by both Black and White leaders is culpable and responsible for the American race against racism taking off on a momentum with racism in the lead far, far ahead.      

Know that American society was created with white racism. The earliest white God-fearing Christian settlers in the New World deployed racism as their weapon of choice, alongside firearms, to expropriate Native American Indians of their legacy ancestral lands as a matter of their self-assumed divine entitlement in order to create their own colonies. 

Early American colonies have a disdain for non-White immigrants who were not from countries like England, Ireland, France, Holland and Sweden.  That racism was nurtured and systematically developed by the early and subsequent colonies is baffling since they had migrated to the dangerous New World to escape religious persecution and social ostracism. 

The Chinese who first came to America in 1850s in search of gold and silver fortunes and who later helped built the Great American Railroads, like other non-White settlers, also encountered systemic White racism in the forms of legal and extralegal discrimination in daily living. Considered “the dregs of Asia”, they were prohibited from public schools, from voting, from citizenship and from testifying in courts or legal access. They were instead however legally liable to pay school, property, water, hospital taxes as well as a “permission tax” for gold and silver mining activities.        

The Chinese were only allowed US citizenship in 1943. It is not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act which banned discrimination against voters belonging to language minority groups and provided critically important protections to these and other minority Americans.

We should regard the USA as becoming a young modern democracy only in 1965 using the universal franchise measure for a modern democracy. 

Racism has neither a white or back face.  Racism is an evil that has neither colour nor face.  Racism is learnt.  We learn it from our parents. We teach it to our children.  The motivation to teach racism to our children arises out of our own fear.  We fear what we do not understand what or whom looks different from us.  Our natural reaction to the irritating uncomfortable fear is to retaliate, to defend, to eliminate and to remove the source of the discomfort by causing pain and possibly its death.  Racism counters such fears by concealing these fears.

Racism feeds on a dangerous diet of contaminant ideas and lies regarding race and racial superiority, and regarding the inferiority of other races along various dimensions.  Read for example, the Malaysian Myth of the lazy Malay and the divisive bogus notion of Chinese privilege in racially harmonious Singapore.  

The race against racism is long and never-ending.  We need to conquer the lingering racism in ourselves. Some may believe that we cannot live without racism; for sure, we cannot live within it.  To win the race against racism, we have to first conquer ourselves (quoting Chinese philosopher Lau Tzu).

Yes, it is OK to ignore the things we disagree and focus on those we do, especially that which unite us. Social harmony does not require consensus or standardisation or assimilation. Harmonious co-existence in race relations needs only the respectful tolerance of differences without discrimination or recrimination.  A strong united community can embrace diversities of practice and opinions to allow the innovations of thought and ideas to make for a better future society. 

After Dallas, can America run and stay increasingly way ahead in her race against racism? Only her readiness in truly acting out these responsibilities can begin the end of the long, long race against racism. Over these recent weeks, Americans know now that the mega-thon race against racism is far from slowing down … or over.

Read the Full Article:

The Never-Ending Race Against Racism: American Update

Is our CPF money a pension fund?

What is a pension fund? A general definition from Investopedia for pension fund is, ‘A pension fund is a common asset pool run by a financial intermediary on behalf of a company and its employees, to generate stable growth over the long term and provide pensions for the employees when they retire.’

Is the CPF savings a pension fund?  The money is contributed by the employers and employees but it stops there. There is no financial intermediary to invest the fund on behalf of the company and employees to generate a stable growth over the long term and to provide pensions for the employees.  There are agencies taking the funds directly or indirectly to invest for their own interests, to make profits for themselves, and the returns to the owners of the fund are incidental or secondary. The primary objectives of agencies utilizing the CPF funds for investment is for their own benefits, without the approval of the owner of the CPF savings, without any agreement that they are investing their savings for their benefits. Only the CPF Board has a small role in this direction, by buying govt bonds and to return the proceeds to the owners of the CPF savings. That is far from managing and investing a pension fund.

Chris Kuan has made some comments on Roy Ngerng’s article on the CPF fund. This is what he said.

‘The “funnelling of CPF funds” thingy inferred by Roy is no different from any first world country in the way pension funds invests in government bonds and then how the proceeds move around in the government.

Typically public and private pension funds are required to hold a certain percentage of their assets in government bonds either because it is a regulatory requirement or because it is the prevailing asset allocation strategy. On a regular basis, the government will issue government bonds and a variety of investors buy them including pension funds. The debt proceeds from the issuance of the bonds are then for the government to use at its sole discretion. In most cases, the proceeds are used to cover the shortfall of revenues over expenditures, i.e. used for spending.

However nobody in the first world countries will say that the monies spent are “pension” monies in the same way we should not be calling the monies the Singapore government has given to Temasek or for GIC to manage are “CPF monies”.

So this “funnelling” is not exceptional. The exception is the design of the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) issued to Central Provident Fund (CPF) and maybe the coercive nature of the relationship between CPF and the government but even the latter may not be so exceptional if we think CPF as more akin to a first world national social insurance fund than a pension fund.’

What is wrong with Chris Kuan’s analogy that our CPF fund is similar to other pension funds? In the first place, our CPF savings has never been called a pension fund.  The second point is that there is no direct relationship between GIC and Temasek as the fund managers of the CPF savings. For a long time, both funds even denied investing the CPF funds until quite recently when they admitted to have used the funds indirectly to invest. But there is no agreement or commitment by Temasek or GIC that they are the fund managers of CPF funds and whatever commitments to invest and to return the profits to the owners of the CPF funds. How then can these two funds be recognized as the fund managers of CPF funds?

This is definitely very exceptional for anyone to say that GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of the CPF funds and the CPF is a pension fund managed by these fund managers. They are not. They exist for their own agenda and mission, and have no direct relationship or link with the CPF fund.

What do you think of Fund managers managing the CPF fund without an official agreement and commitments, without any terms of reference as to how the funds will be invested, and how the profits should be returned to the owners of the fund?  I really cannot remember reading any such agreements that the GIC and Temasek are the official fund managers of the CPF fund and have a direct fiduciary duty to the owners of the CPF fund.

Please correct me if I am wrong.  Can we assume that the GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of our CPF fund? Where is the agreement? CPF savings is far from an international fund in the West as described by Chris Kuan. There is no active investment strategies by the CPF Board to maximize profits for the CPF savers other than the rudimentary buying of govt bonds.

South China Sea – An alignment of forces for domination and control

There are good and bad things coming out from this Hague circus and its South China Sea show. Let me start with the bad stuff first. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international institution created to uphold justice and peace, has unfortunately allowed itself to be embroiled in a power struggle for hegemony in the South China Sea. It is in the deep end, having sank into the quagmire for the last few years and unable to extricate itself to come up clean from the mud of infamy. Its decision is likely to compromise the good name and reputation of the institution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the judges involved.  At worst, it will destroy the very reason for the existence of such an international body, a highly respectable, neutral and legal institution to arbitrate and resolve international disputes.

And here is the good outcome from the pronouncement by the Court. I would not call it a legal and enforceable judgment. It is not and it will not be legal but a political statement from an institution that has lost its credibility as an independent and impartial world body. The good outcome will come about when countries with vested interests start to make their stand public to reveal their private agenda.  China would then know who are friends and who are foes.  There will be no need to hide behind a mask anymore.

There will be a new alignment of forces for control of the South China Sea, politically and militarily. The risk of war is real and eminent as the main protagonist will have the countries in the region fighting among themselves, leaving the main protagonists safe and sound from afar. The announcement by the Court would also make China’s choices and options easier. To borrow a phrase from George Bush Jr, it is either with me or against me. There is no need for pretences and speaking in fork tongues.  Asean countries will take their chosen places on both sides of the divide.

China does not need to be diplomatic anymore to appease the hegemon and think the problems of an open military confrontation will go away. China would have to take sides and close ranks with its friends against its foes. It is crisis time and China cannot afford to compromise its position and security to side with the hegemon and its foes against its friends. China must take decisive decision to part ways with the hegemon bent on confrontation. China would have to be resolute and firm and review all its policies vis a vis the hegemon and be prepared to take sides against the hegemon and its allies or be left to stand up against the hegemon and its allies, alone.

The Hague pronouncement is like D Day with the battle line drawn up. There is no more grey area, no more superficial friendship. The forces of the two sides will stand up to be counted and all policies must be realigned to face this new and risky challenge to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the South China Sea.

A new and dangerous chapter in the story of the South China Sea is about to be written. The way forward is military confrontation with the hegemon and its allies upping the stakes in a winner take all gambit.  China’s appeasement policies to avoid war are not working. War is coming to China and the earlier China makes up its mind the better. It is a critical moment in history when China would have to call on all its friends and allies to act together to face the combined forces of the hegemon and its allies.

The only hope for avoiding a nasty confrontation is for the new President of the Philippines to break ranks and to start negotiation with China, to seek for a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution for both countries. Such a decision by the Philippines would be the only way to scuttle the aggressive intent of the hegemon, to give it no reason and justification to push for a nasty and explosive solution in open warfare in the South China Sea.

Would there be wisdom within the Asean ranks, especially those that have no conflicting claims in the South China Sea, to call out and walk away from the battle field drawn up by the hegemon? Or would they be dragged by the less enlightened Asean states into a war that has nothing to do with them and nor to their national interests?

Chas cheaters discussed in Parliament

Dunno how many millions have been sponged by the cheats from the Chas scheme. And the cheats are the medical and dental clinics run by highly trained and professional people that are likely to be in the pool waiting to be picked up to run as MPs in the next GE.

Actually I don’t blame them with a system that is so flimsy and full of holes that a herd of elephants could waltz through. How not to want to take advantage of a scheme asking to be taken advantage of, you ask me lah? But in Parliament some doctor did not think so and did not think the problem is so big and so serious. Seah Kian Peng cannot tahan and was heard saying it is big money, big public money. And it is only the tip of the iceberg. Not his exact words but something like that.

When asked to enforce the medical and dental clinics to itemize the bills, Lam Pin Min was reluctant until an angry auntie blew up. ‘Why is it so difficult, given so many feedback on overcharging?’  Dr Lam, the current Minister of State for Health then replied that the MOH is ‘seriously considering making it compulsory’. ‘Seriously considering’ only mah. To do or not to do still dunno. Maybe auntie should shout at the top of her voice to be heard. We need more fierce aunties in Parliament to get something serious done. Auntie Bee Wah should call on the support of uncles like Seah Kian Peng to make sure things are not forgotten and swept under the carpet. Oh, now I remember the exact words Seah Kian Peng said, ‘These are serious monies that are going out, taxpayers’ monies.’ Did MOH think so and agree with him? This part not reported in the media.

You people out there, you think this Chas cheating thing is serious enough or not? Say leh, must say then they would say got feedback from the people. If not they may think not serious enough and the not so straight medical and dental clinics would continue to be very happy with this Chas scheme. Maybe they will set up a COI to study study first then make the final decision, to itemize or not to itemize.

Being doctors and dentists also chiat lat. Rental so high, how to cover cost? This Chas scheme is really a gift from God. The Chas card holders and pioneer generations would be swarming the clinics for free treatments. Who cares about itemized bills or no need bills, free ok leow. This is the best system so far. Win win for everyone.