Elected Presidency – Cheng Bock in or out?

This must be the question in the minds of many after the recommendations by the Constitutional Commission were revealed. Nothing surprising and all the changes were more or less expected, like a child with all the right DNAs of the conceiving parents. So what is new?

Many are seeing the intended consequences of the Commission and the intended results based on a preconceived idea or agenda of what the Commission was all about from the very start of its existence. And they are not disappointed. Let me point out a few unintended consequences arising from the recommendations that would prove tricky and slimy in times to come.

The first point is the stringent criteria for an Elected President that, and I quote a comment by Chok Tong in the media, ‘We do not want to have a very high powered man who can be your President to be doing nothing for six years.’ This remark by Chok Tong was in response to a suggestion for a Vice President. But it is still very appropriate in the case of the EP whose 6 years would mainly be kissing children and waving at the crowds and shaking hands with the people visiting the Istana on public holidays.

The big question, why is there a need for such a high powered man with a string of stringent criteria? Is the job of the EP more important, more complicated and more demanding than that of the PM? Is the PM’s job so ‘senang’ that any Tom, Dick and Harry could take over without a single criteria on his suitability other than he is not insane? How many of you would agree that the PM’s job is definitely hundreds of times more difficult and complicated and demanding than the EP? It’s a no brainer really.

So, should not the criteria for the EP be made applicable to the PM, and more, make it even more stringent as the importance and complexity of the job demands a bigger superman. It is simply nonsensical for such an important job to be given to anyone without passing the same criteria as the cosy job of the EP. Tiok or boh tiok? If not, then the stringent criteria imposed on the Presidential candidate would become nonsensical as well.

The next unintended consequence of the recommendation is that all new citizens would be equally eligible to be the EP as long as they met the criteria, with no regards to their place of birth. They are eligible the moment they get their citizenship, fresh from the oven, as they said. Is this fair to the rest of the true blue citizens? Any new citizen from PRC or India or anywhere else would have the same right as a native citizen to be the EP.  This is as good as selling out the citizens’ rights to the Johnny come lately. Good, tiok, can, acceptable, never mind?

Another unthought of consequences, ok, I am being intellectually arrogant here to think that the wise men and woman did not think of it, is that Pinoys would stand a good chance to be a minority EP. The Indian Indian new citizens would fall under the Indian category so no sweat, they are eligible if no Indians are elected over 30 years, or an Others ie Europeans could enjoy the same privilege. They must thank God that they are classified as Others and automatically qualified as a minority.

What is this Pinoy thing that is so special? If I am not mistaken, the Pinoys are classified as Malays in their Identity Cards. So they could hitch a ride in the Malay category to be a minority EP when the time comes. Lucky buggers. The Malay pool of eligible candidates for minority EP is thus enlarged and there should be no fear of no qualified candidates. The Pinoys are qualified legally by this classification. OK, this anomaly or privilege for the Pinoys would not be applicable if I am mistaken and they are classified as Pinoys and not Malays. I stand corrected on this.

What other things to consider about the recommendations? Oh there is a point that needs further clarification on the 5 terms and 30 year absence of a minority President. I will touch on this in another post.

Did I miss out on more unintended consequences on the EP issue? Surely there must be plenty. Oh, did Cheng Bock qualify or kena booted out for good? I will address this in the next post together with the 5 terms/30 year criteria.

Elected President - Pandora box or a can of worms?

The minority President issue is now the top agenda of Hsien Loong. From what he said and the publicity given to the issue, the amount of effort and resources poured into this black hole, he is adamant to see it through and there is no stopping it, come what may…unless.

Raising this racial issue of protecting minority representation, and the likely outcome of race being enshrined in the Constitution, is a very dangerous precedent to set. All the works of LKY and the first generation of leaders to make this a multi racial society where everyone is equal regardless of race or religion would go kaput.  Race would become a national issue and be institutionalized and embedded in the Constitution that the pioneer leaders fear to tread and did all they could to keep it out of national politics.

Some may see this as the opening of the Pandora box. Some would see it as the opening of a can of worms.  The big question in everyone’s mind is why now when the PAP had all the time and opportunity to put in a Malay President in the last 50 years after Yusof Ishak? After Yusof Ishak there were Sheares, Nair, Wee, all appointed by the PAP and PAP could appoint any Malay leaders if it wanted to. It was so simple!

Then the next 3 elected presidents with Nathan taking two 6 year terms, why didn’t the PAP deem it fit all these years not to put up a Malay president candidate? Never think of it, it only happened yesterday and now they are thinking how important and urgent this is that it must be done today like a do or die matter?  Is it just an after thought or there is more to it than just a minority president, specifically a Malay president?

The biggest worm crawling out from the can is the argument and the call for a Malay PM.  This has never been talk about before. Why not a Malay PM? And the newspaper’s list of 6 Chinese candidates as the possible PM after Hsien Loong makes the story more uncomfortable and out of sync at this moment. Tokenism or seriousness to want the Malay to play a vital role in the country’s leadership? If the role of Malay is so important in political leadership, to be the EP, why not the premiership? There are voices asking for his PM seat now. More shit is being stirred up in the process. Here is a comment from TRE.

‘PM Lee has hinted that next Elected President will be a Malay.
So why don’t he insist that next Prime Minister be a Malay.
Possible candidates – Yacoub Ibrahim, Zulkifli Masagos, Halimah Yacoob.’ (Spelling error inherent in the quote)

This call for a Malay PM is becoming very uncomfortable and growing louder. This is something the PAP did not expect. It is only heard in the social media but not the main media. What is the excuse of not putting up a Malay PM or a minority PM?  Meritocracy?  Is meritocracy the issue or should race also be an issue? Would it not be better to have a Malay PM in charge to make it really representative?

The more this EP is being discussed and kicked around using race as the raison d’tre, more worms would start to crawl out from the can. And like the Pandora box, there is no way to close the box or seal the can again.  Heed the old wisdom, do not open the Pandora box, or the can of worms. The founding fathers with all their wisdom have worked diligently to seal the can of worms for good.  No race politics!

What is happening today would make them turn in their graves.

What would happen when it is the turn of a Malay President? Would he be rolled out as the best Malay candidate for the Presidency? Or would he be rolled out as the best Singaporean for the Presidency? Next, this is the best Malay President to represent all races? This is the most meritorious candidate, chosen and elected based on merit, or based on race? Meritocracy is not compromised?

What do you think?

Anti China rantings by obsequious pro American running dogs

The self appointed American running dogs are putting a show again of their most anti China rantings every time when the topic of ASEAN and South China Issues crop up. They behave as little USAs and the dangerous thing is that they could be planted USA's fifth columns to undermind and sour ASEAN and China relationship so as to destabilize the whole of the South China Sea region to the intent and benefit of the imperial world hegemony, the Evil Empire, USA.

Each of these American lackeys try to outdo each other in condemning China for the wrong reasons in their savagery remarks and derogatory statements about China. They are even more vociferous than their American masters in wanting to defame and condemn China and putting China in a bad light. They behave as if they are eager to pick a fight with China as proxies on behalf of their American masters.

These shameless American running dogs who could possibly be paid American fifth columns in ASEAN countries are playing with fire in trying to stir up muddy waters in the South China Sea issue and create animosity between China and some greedy ASEAN countries who on the behest of the evil Americans had stolen some Chinese islands in the South China Sea corridor. Also these faceless traitors to ASEAN- China relationship are by their insidious actions and behaviour working to the detriment of ASEAN-China friendship and to the benefit of the underlying American interest of securing full control and hegemony of the whole South China Sea and East China Sea, the ultimate aim of which is the American plan to contain China and prevent her from peaceful development.

These Amertican lackeys and running dogs who work as strategic research writers as well as lecturers in many of ASEAN and Singapore institutes of higher studies in the universities and in the institutes of international political and strategic studies could post a danger to Singapore and ASEAN countries. They could in their lectures poison young minds who are under their lectureship with wrong and bias views and attitudes toward China and this will not bode well for the future of ASEAN-China relationship when these young people grow up to inherit their countries' leadership.

These American running dogs who eat and grow fat at the expense of tax payers' money with very high salaries should be removed and despatched forthwith into oblivion for the safety of Singapore and Asean countries and for the peace and stability of Asia.

Southernglory1
Tuesday, 6th September,2016

Trojan Horses and Little USAs, got difference meh?

The South China Sea dispute has led to the often quipped terms in the lips of the protagonists like Trojan Horses and Little USAs. Both terms are unique in their origins, from Singapore or by Singaporeans. You don’t hear them being repeated by leaders, diplomats or analysts from other Asean countries, not even from the USA. And the way the terms were used, especially Trojan Horses, came with very strong negative connotations.

What about the term Little USAs, are there any negative connotations? It depends on where the person using it is coming from. This term first appeared in an article by Simon Tay. He put it politely and tried not to ruffle feathers knowing where the sensitivity is.

What does the term Trojan Horses mean?  No guessing, it means exactly in the same way as the Trojan Horse of Troy. It means those countries in Asean that were labeled as Trojan Horses of China were the agents of China and out to protect China’s interest in the South China Sea and to harm Asean.

What about Little USAs? Actually Little USAs and Trojan Horses are terms that meant the same thing and doing the same thing, serving their masters and working to protect the interests of their masters. If one is ugly, the other is just as hideous.

The Trojan Horses have been named as Laos and Cambodia. What about the Little USAs, who are they or which countries are the Little USAs or Trojan Horses of the USA? A clue, not the Philippines, not Vietnam. They are open in opposing China and siding with the USA.

While there will be Little USAs versus Trojan Horses to support their masters, Singapore’s relations with China is on the mend with Hsien Loong and Xi Jinping saying that there might be differences but these should not be allowed to affect the strong bilateral ties. So, would Singapore’s civil servants still be allowed to accuse China of trying to divide and rule Asean? Or would they be allowed to call China’s friends Trojan Horses?  If these would continue, then Singapore is really punching above its weight, a class of its own, and China just got to accept it and take the bollocking as sign of strong bilateral relations.

Blood Hounds in Washington Crying Wolf Over South China Sea Issue.

It is ridiculous for the bloods hounds of Washington which had destroyed many countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and badly destabilized the whole of the Middle East and some Latin American countries to tell China to abide by the illicit terms and rulings of the fake and bogus South China Sea tribunal . The latest in the line of these blood hounds like the Clintons, the two Bushes, Senior and Junior Bush is the black hound Obama who during the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou was telling President Xi Jinping to abide by the illegal rulings of the illicit American sponsored bogus South China Sea tribunal. They together with countless numbers of other anti China warmongers and Neo-conservatives in the White House, CIA, Pentagon and in the Congress and Senate like to speak with fork tongues. They talk peace but are always making wars to subjugate other countries. They talk about Human Rights but are the greatest perverts of Human Rights and always run rough shot against other countries to make sure they toe the USA line or policy.

Obama is pushing China to abide by the South China Sea obligations. Why should it be when China's long standing historical rights and sovereignty are being subverted and supplanted by USA and its lackeys Japan, Vietnam and the Pinoys. Under the treaty rights and obligations of the Cairo Conferenced, Potsdam Treaty and the San Francisco Treaty , all the Paracel Islands the Spratly Islands together with many other islands, shoals and reefs in the South China Sea were legally handed back to China by Japan after the Second World War and they were solemnly recognized by USA, Japan Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries prior to the mid 1970s.

Somehow in the 1970s when China was still military weak and with the discovery of oil and gas under the sea bed of the South China Sea, USA cunningly encouraged and urged Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia to stealthily steal many of the Chinese islands in which Vietnam stole 25 Chinese islands, Philippines 9 and Malaysia 7 and they all claim under the false facade  of the UNCLOS Treaty of 1982 basing on the new rule of continental shelf economic rights. USA and its lackeys the Vietnamese and Pinoys wrongly used the 1982 ruling on continental shelf to subvert China's traditional rule and sovereign rights over her own territorial islands and surrounding seas. All of a sudden USA made phoney use of the 1982 ruling to whisk away China's long traditional historical rights and sovereignty.

The world especially USA and its lackeys have an obligation and responsibility to abide by the treaties of Cairo, Potsdam and San Francisco to make good China's ownership and sovereignty over all these South China Sea islands. China should stand firm to her rights and sovereignty and should not yield or concede even one centimetre of her territory. China should and must eventually recover all the islands stolen from her by Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia and should not be afraid of the intimidation by the Evil Empire's show of might.

Southernglory1

Tuesday, 6th September, 2016