The objective thinkers in red dot

The absence of Kishore Mahbubani in political debates has exposed a glaring big gap in the number of objective thinkers in the little red dot. Many are passing their subjective and one sided political narrative as intellectual thinking when they appeared nothing more than little brats trying to appease their masters in the West. There seems to be no one else out there to challenge political thinking from objective and intellectual thinking for quite a while.

Fortunately this gap is increasingly being filled by Simon Tay who started to present a more neutral view in the intellectual debate and on what is good for Singapore without becoming a little USA while calling other states as Trojan Horses. Do they know what is a Trojan Horse when they see one, or is one themselves without knowing it?

In his latest article in the Today paper titled ‘How will S China Sea dispute affect business in Asean, Simon discussed the mutually interdependent relationship between Asean and China and how China is taking the initiative in the AIIB and OBOR to improve connectivity and infrastructural development in Asia that would benefit Asean as a whole compare to the military buildup and dangerous provocations by the Americans and Japan that would lead the region to war. Which is the better option going forward, to promote more trade or more wars?

China needs peace and Asean as much as Asean needs peace and China for the good of everyone. Why would Asean take an increasingly hostile stance against China? Why would Asean increasingly align itself to the Americans to promote American military domination in the region?  There are great economic and strategic benefits both for Asean and China with more cooperation than antagonism.  According to Simon Tay, Asean does not need to be anyone’s puppet but be a worthy partner to key players in the region.

Asean benefits most by being neutral, taking advantage of big power rivalry to improve Asean’s bargaining power and interests. Asean would be doomed if it takes side in the big power conflict. Asean’s recent position, to throw itself into the American camp against China could be a short sighted gambit. By going against China and sucked into the American embrace, what would happen should Donald Trump become the next President and closes its door to Asean in an inward looking policy? Where or who would Asean turn to then? China would be happy watching the fallouts without offering a helping hand.

This is the first time that Asean is taking a non neutral position in big power rivalry against the wisdom of its forefathers. And the champions of taking sides, to be little Americas, are gaining grounds, unchallenged. Is Asean digging its own grave, led by American Trojan Horses strutting around as little USAs?

Simon Tay said these in his concluding paragraphs: ‘Asean can only remain central by pairing its political centrality with economic dynamism and moving ahead with integration. This is the way to better manage bumps and controversies, even sensitive concerns such as the South China Sea, and move ahead on an agenda for integration and reform that all – governments, businesses and ultimately Asean citizens – may partake and benefit.’

More laws to protect who or against who?

I am sure no one would miss who the new sub judice law is protecting. The learned judges of course. Don’t be rude or scandalize the judges, that is contempt of court. But you are allowed to speak up as NMP Kuik said, ‘Whatever you want to speak up on, keep speaking up on it without fear. If you see an injustice, speak. If you see a cruelty, speak.’ But, ‘However, she warned that comments that could be construed as influencing a witness in a pending case or slandering a judge would qualify to contempt of court.’ What she is saying is as good as you know what you should say and what you should not say. Speak up, speak up, but be warned. Just do not be too clever in case your comments are so good that the learned judges are influenced by them, then it would be bad.  But to do that you must be an exceptional talent, more talented than the judges, that the judges could be influenced by yew. Sorry typo error. Should be you not yew.

So the judges are now protected from being insulted or attacked by slanders. The judges are also protected from being influenced by the public and ended up making stupid decisions.

Who else are protected by our laws? I remember that you cannot follow, shadow or stalk a minister. Not sure if this applies to MPs. There is a law that would criminalise people following the ministers as they move around the island. I think this law is good given the threats of terrorists and disgruntled citizens that could set them on fire.

And there are also laws to protect military officers from acts that caused the death of Dominique Lee, an NSman.  Dunno if got laws to protect teachers or police officers when they handle mischievous children like Benjamin Lim.

This island is looking a bit dangerous for people in public office and more laws are likely to be introduced in the future to protect them. Would there be a lese majeste law to be introduced sometime in the future? Ok, this is a red herring, not possible unless the island is turned into a kingdom. If not lese majeste what about lese immortals?  Looks like the judges have been elevated to the realm of immortals.

What is more important is the likely victim. Who do you think would be the victim or victims of this law? Who do you think the laws are targeting at?

And there could be a new law coming into effect following the Presidential Commission that will protect the elite to be the President of the island.  This mostly ceremonial position will now be out of reach of the ordinary peasants and workers. Only rich and powerful people will be eligible to stand for election to be the President. All men are equal, but some are more equal than others? What happen to justice and equality in our national pledge?

Would there be new laws to protect the ordinary citizens and their rights to stand for election as the President of Singapore among other things, like their jobs, like their CPF money, like not being bullied or beaten by foreigners?

When the majority do not represent the majority

How can this be? The majority must always represent the majority or else they can’t be the majority. This is not really true in a democratic system like Singapore.  How many really believe the majority, or the politicians elected by the majority of the voters really, represent their interests?

Take the recent sub judice bill passed in Parliament. The media was trying its best to tell its readers that 72 voted for the bill and only 9 from the WP voted against it. So we have the majority 72 saying yes to the bill. The 72 MPs voted are representatives of their constituencies and technically represent them. But are the majority of the voters of these constituencies in favour of the sub judice law? In a worse case scenario, other than  all the good reasons Shanmugam said about how necessary is this law and how important is sub judice , and the 72 votes, the law could be used to silence the voice of the people as the WP has said in Parliament. And Lee Wei Ling also urged the people to speak up against this bill, now law, that it is not in the interest of the people, that it’s aim is to ‘muzzle public opinion’. This may be just her opinion, but could also be the opinion of the majority, not the 72 that voted for it.

If the majority of the people are against this bill, would not the 72 MPs, a big majority in the Parliament, not be representing the majority of the people when they voted for the bill?

What do you think? Did the 72 MPs represent the interests of the majority of the people? They could, if the people are so daft and so happy to have their mouths zipped.

Singapore ready for rocket attacks

I read this from David Boey’s blog. David Boey is a military expert and a spokesman for Mindef and should know what he is saying as he is accessible to information Mindef would want the public to know and information that the public did not know. Here is what David Boey wrote:

Response to plot by Batam terrorist cell to fire rockets at Marina Bay

Thanks to steady investments in defence capabilities - some of which have yet to be unveiled - the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) can detect and destroy artillery projectiles such as rockets in mid-flight.

The SAF has amassed several decades of experience operating radars designed to locate enemy artillery positions by tracking shells or rockets to their point of origin. Five types of counter battery radars have been fielded over the years by the Singapore Artillery and, in recent years, by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF).

The RSAF counter rocket artillery and mortar (C-RAM) radars are operated alongside guided munitions that can be launched in quick succession, in all-weather conditions and at very short notice to intercept aerial threats like rockets. This new capability underlines Singapore's ability to anticipate and respond to a wide spectrum of security threats.

We are heartened by MINDEF/SAF's proactive and resolute stance in defending Singapore.

Posted by David Boey

I remember reading an article about the how the Palestinians attacked the Israelis with their hundreds of $30 homemade rockets that rained into Israeli territories. These were very cheap DIY rockets made from makeshift metal pipes and explosive material plus whatever shrapnel they embedded to penetrate the Iron Dome. Even if the radars could detect them, the Israelis just did not have enough anti rocket missiles to match the incoming rockets.

The Israelis defended these rocket rains with their expensive anti missile missiles that cost a million or more a piece. Fortunately or unfortunately many of the makeshift rockets broke through the defensive shield, or mosquito net, of the Iron Dome, there were just too many of them to take down. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, the ISIS cells in Batam or nearby would not have the critical mass to rain rockets into Marina Bay or into other parts of Singapore. It would be a real test of our radar detection system and how many missiles we have and could launch to take them down, and how many would sneak through and give us a nightmare.

It is always comforting to know that our defence is intact and in good hands. Would someone be asking for THAAD? Just a couple of billion dollars only, to protect Singapore from ICBMs from God knows where?

How the main media play rogue media?

Many readers tend to assume that main media are responsible institutions run by responsible people, the editors, the journalists and reporters, to report news as factually and truthfully as they are as responsible people. By now, many readers must have learnt the truth, that many truths in the main media, particularly the western media, were anything but truths and many were outright lies. The main media has done the dishonourable thing, to discredit themselves by telling fabricated news, lies and half truths to mislead and to misinform to serve their agenda and political interests.

 

A very good example is the South China Sea dispute case. It was very obvious that the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague was a private and commercial organisation set up specifically for willing parties that voluntarily elected to seek the Tribunal to mediate their disputes but not a compulsory organisation of the UN. The institutions of the UN are the ITLOS and the ICJ. But since the Arbitral Tribunal made its one sided decision on the South China Sea dispute, the main media, especially the western media or those that have vested interest to want to toe the line of the American/Japanese camp have consistently and continuously been reporting that The Hague was a UN backed institution. What does this UN backed institution mean? Is it a representative of the UN? Obviously not. The UN has its own legal institutions and the Tribunal in Hague is not one of them. So why and what is the purpose of harping this line of thought in the main media when it has no legal purpose?

 

The main objective is to create a false impression in the minds of innocent readers that it is backed by the UN and thus authoritative and not abiding by its decision is violating international law or not respecting the UN. The truth is far from it. If it is so, the UN would have made official statements to demand that China respect the rulings of the Tribunal. The UN has taken an unusual silent stand on this issue, nothing to do with it. That speaks a lot about the legality of the Tribunal and its so called "UN backed'' status.

 

What is mischievous about the main media is how they glossed over the biased, unfair and unjust constitution of the Tribunal and the whole process. The main flaw is that it is an arbitration court of choice by the parties in disputes and must be neutral to both parties, agreed by both parties, before it would be accepted to arbitrate a dispute.

 

In the South China Sea dispute, China did not agree to the Tribunal as the arbitrator or mediator. This alone would rule out its role as a court of choice.  The second important point is that both parties must choose and approve the constitution of the court, ie, appointing the judges that they have confidence to be fair and just. In this case, the judges were appointed by a Japanese unilaterally without the consent of the other party. And it was clear that the process of picking the judges was to ensure that the judges would rule in favour of the camp appointing them. And the judges were also paid by one side of the camp in the dispute.

 

How can a court constituted in such a contrived manner be fair and fit to arbitrate between two parties of which one is unwilling? The main media chose not to expose this fraud and played on as if nothing was wrong with the whole process and the appointment of the judges by one party and paid by one party. This totally exposed the evil scheme of the main media and the parties behind them to mislead its readers to believe in a scam. This is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and an injustice committed by the main media, a very shameful act for an institution that is built on the foundation of trust and honour.

 

The main media has lost all its credibility, integrity, trust and honour in the shameful way they conduct themselves in reporting distorted and one sided truth to mislead its readers. It is despicable for the main media to think it can continue to tell lies and half truths to its readers and to be able to get away with it. They could if the readers are unthinking and chose not to question the half truths in the main media. Anyone that cannot see injustice, unfairness, and fraud and go about shouting that it is right, just and fair got to have his head reexamined.

 

The main media have not stopped its untruthful reporting and are still reporting the rulings of the Tribunal as legally binding and backed by the UN despite the unfair constitution of members of the court. When the main media chose to report a kangaroo court as an honourable and fair court, it subjects the integrity and credibility of the main media to question and public scrutiny..