Hillary and Trump need to visit the Istana

The US Presidential Campaign is getting momentum and the two candidates are telling the Americans what they would do and what they would not do. One of the casualties that both candidates have in common is the Trans Pacific Pact. Hillary want to renegotiate the terms. Trump simply did not want to have anything to do with it. He wants to tear it to pieces.

Holy cow, these two are sounding like idiots. This TPP is the best thing for America and the Americans. How can they be talking so shallow? Did they know what is it in for the Americans in the TPP? If not, if they have not read them and not briefed, they  need to be briefed in details how good this TPP is. Maybe they are not super talents, did not have super talent minds and could not see the good things and the wisdom of the TPP.

I have a good suggestion for the. Please pay a visit to the Istana and get a piece of good advice on the TPP. They should if they want to know what is good for them. But if they are so stubborn not to come, then Singapore can send out super talent team to Washington after the Presidential Election to brief the new President on the TPP. Singapore knows exactly how good this TPP is for the Americans, and must also be good for Singapore as well.  Maybe should also bring a knuckle duster along in case the new President is too thick to understand good advice.

Who shall we send to Washington for this very important task? Should Hsien Loong make the trip himself, or should it be Hng Khiang or what about Vivian? Both or all three have been there to tell the Americans about this great piece of scroll, like the Holy Grail before.  We are doing it for the good of the Americans.

From the look of things, the daft Americans, or the daft new President of the USA, no matter Hillary or Trump, it does not matter anymor. They are too foolish to know the goodness of this TPP package.  They only have themselves to blame for not listening to the wisdom of Singapore and to cast the TPP into oblivion. Singapore will be very disappointed if the TPP fails to take off but it would not hurt Singapore too much. It is the USA that will pay the price for its failure.

Cambodia KO Vietnam and the Philippines

Would this headline be more representative of the battle within Asean in Laos, or the headline in the Today paper yesterday, ‘Cambodia blocks Asean consensus for second time’? The main paper title gives the impression that Cambodia was against the whole of Asean in the South China Sea issue. Or was Cambodia, the Trojan Horse, resisting Little USAs or American lackeys in Vietnam and the Philippines?

The American lackey camps would want to bulldoze their master’s voice in a joint Asean communiqué to claim that the ruling of the kangaroo court in The Hague was the rule of law and not a fraud. And they were frustrated by Cambodia and Laos for not wanting to be members of a fraud or to become Little USAs. Finally Asean delivered a joint statement but without the scandalous and fraudulent ruling of the kangaroo court in The Hague.

The American lackey camps are furious and now some are even floating the idea of kicking out the Trojan Horses and turn Asean into a house of Little USAs. Alternatively they would want to tweak the rulings so that the American lackeys could do as they pleased and issued all the statements they wished even with the objections of the Trojan Horses. Which American lackey is floating this idea?

What has Asean become today, a neutral regional bloc or a little USA bloc? There are now two competing camps within Asean, the Little USAs and the Trojan Horses and a majority of bystanders.

China’s interests in the South China Sea are constantly being challenged by the Little USAs. As China has changed its policy of appeasement to confrontation with the USA, it may be wise to consider taking the Litlle USAs out, one at a time and to stop their pretence of being neutral. The Little USAs are anti China. Period. China should consider cutting out trade and business opportunities to one or two Little USAs to mean business. It cannot continue to be a nice guy and let the Little USA punks to play behind its back. This is a problem that China must confront and the time is now, no more pretences, use the economic clout to whack them into place. China should deal with the Little USAs at arms length, reduction of economic cooperation for a start.

Smart nation, stupid people – Too big to lose

There is this saying, if you owe the bank a few hundred thousand, you are in deep trouble. But when you owe the bank several million, the bank is in trouble. This same analogy can be applied to organizations or countries bringing in too many foreigners to take up jobs within. A few foreigners can be an advantage, cheap labour or special talents that are scarce or needed by the organization or country.

When the foreigners become a majority, the problem will become too big to lose them. The foreigners will now become indispensable. Removing a substantial number of foreigners would undermine the efficiency of the organization or even cripple it.  The foreigners will be in charge when the number gets too big.

How could the number of foreigners grow to become the controlling factor, that the organization or country will be held to ransom by the foreigners? One possibility is an intentional policy of bringing in the foreigners at all cost, unthinkingly or irresponsibly. Another possibility is to lose control, to allow the foreigners to bring in their own kind, while the organization or country fell asleep and did not know what was happening.

Whatever the reason, the table will be turned against the organization or country, and soon the inevitable will happen, the foreigners will be in charge and taking over the organization or country as theirs. This happens to many organizations, especially the MNCs or organizations run by fools. 

This has yet to happen to countries except little islands like Hawaii and some in the Indian Ocean. Would it happen to the little Red Dot? Are there organizations, private and public that have been swarmed by foreigners and now de facto taken over by foreigners in this smart nation with stupid people?

The kampong boy grew up

The kampong boy grew up, worked very hard and was successful in building a small fortune for himself. He is now big and financially able to further develop his business empire. He looked around his backyard and saw a large tract of waste land, neglected, undeveloped and overgrown with secondary forest. Then he remembered what his father told him. The land belonged to the family for several generations, dating back to his great, great, great grandfather. But their family fortune had waned and they were unable to do anything to that piece of land.

The boy, now an entrepreneur, started to redevelop the piece of land handed down by his forefathers. The secondary forest was leveled and several new estates rose from the piece of land. It was a big piece of land and still have potential for many developments.

In the neighbourhood, several young punks also grew up and formed gangs among themselves. Seeing the young man developing the land, these gangsters began to have ideas to have a piece of action, a piece of the land. They too started to build houses on the land nearest to their respective houses. They simply claimed the land belonged to them in view of proximity. The land next to their houses must be theirs since no one has claimed ownership of the land, ignoring whoever was the original owner.

Disputes soon broke up when the young man went on to claim rights to the land but was rebuffed. The gangsters simply asked for proof of ownership. But the young man had difficulties as during the time of his forefathers, it was a time when documentations were not the norm and also many evidence of ownership were lost over time. The only evidence could be the markers left on the land, like tombstones of family members and some rundown huts.

The gangsters set up a kangaroo court with the help of bigger gangsters, hired their own middle men as mediators to decide who have the rights to the land. The young man refused to participate in the kangaroo court. The gangsters were cunning enough not to take the case to the official courts of the land.

After paying the middle men/mediators, the latter ruled in favour of the gangsters, that since the young man could not produce any documents, the whole piece of land is now no longer his and all the gangsters have the right to claim the whole piece of land. The gangsters even accused the young man of encroaching into their land illegally. The gangsters bought advertising space in the local newspapers to claim that their kangaroo court’s ruling is legal and binding and arrogantly sat on the lands they took from the young man’s estate and now are claiming for the whole piece of land as theirs.

The young man would now have to stand up to the gangsters. But the local media kept reporting that the kangaroo court is legitimate and the young man is a bully, has no right to claim his inheritance from his forefathers. The gangsters are very successful in buying the local newspapers to play up on the issue and keep repeating that the kangaroo court is a legitimate court and not one is willing to talk about the official courts of the land that could rule otherwise.

The issue of ownership as far as the gangsters are concerned is settled by the kangaroo court. Now the young man would have to take matters into this own hand, to reclaim the land he lost to the gangsters and more to lose with the ruling of the kangaroo court. The gangsters won the first round with the local newspapers on their side, making farcical news and comments against the young man.

The ball is now in the court of the young man, to use his financial muscles and whatever to chase out the usurpers of his grandfathers’ land.

British experts urge arbitral tribunal to review position to avoid being joke in legal history

LONDON - Two British experts said lately that the arbitral tribunal in The Hague should not have agreed to hear the South China Sea case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China.


The government of former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III filed the arbitration against China in 2013, ignoring the agreement his country had reached with China on resolving their South China Sea disputes through bilateral negotiations. The tribunal issued its final award on Tuesday, sweepingly siding with Manila's cunningly packaged claims.


"There is a current anticipated crisis in the South China Sea prompted by a Court of Arbitration decision to hear a one-party claim to a part of the South China Sea," said Stephen Perry, chairman of the 48 Group Club, in a recent interview with Xinhua. "Arbitration is defined in the dictionary as a dispute where the parties have agreed to settle it by arbitration. Clearly China does not accept arbitration to settle the dispute, so the Court should not have agreed to hear this dispute presented by only one party," he said. Noting that the two nations should pursue other means they agreed to settle their dispute, Perry explained that "the dispute cannot be settled ... by a process which only includes one party. It is not an arbitration." "I have been involved in many hundreds of arbitration and always both parties agree on arbitration, or there is no arbitration," added the businessman.


Shahid Qureshi, London Post's editor and political analyst, said the fact that "the tribunal has allowed the case to go ahead in spite of its lack of justifiable jurisdiction" poses a big question mark to the tribunal's "intention" and "interest." "I am of the view that the tribunal must review its position and jurisdiction for the sake of institution it stands for; otherwise it will become a joke in the legal history as they did not follow the due process of law," Qureshi noted. He pointed out that the Philippines, filing the case without consulting with China, failed to fulfill its obligation stipulated in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), a document signed by China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations including the Philippines in 2002."I think under the terms and conditions stipulated in DOC, the Philippines seems to have jumped higher than necessary and must review its position," he said. Stressing that "local solutions" are always the best, Qureshi argued that "the Philippines could talk with China about the matters arising about the situation in the South China Sea."


The analyst also said the real reason behind the so-called "militarization" in the South China Sea is the military involvement and "war profiteering" of the United States, which in recent years has sent military jets and warships on close-in reconnaissance in the nearby waters and air space of China's islands and reefs. "The US has a policy of creating wars or disputes within the countries and also in the neighboring countries of the targets (based on its long term objectives), starting from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq," he explained. "One can ask a simple question to US officials: 'What are you doing in my neighborhood in the first place'?" Qureshi said.