Singapore’s PMs growing in stature and power

Sunday 16 Oct there was an article in the Sunday Times by a Chong Zi Liang on 'Spore's foreign policy in a challenging world'. What was written in the two page centre spread was nothing that we do not know. The only thing that gave me a leg up was the quotes of three PMs, one after another, on how Singapore should conduct its foreign policy as a small state. Let me just quote them and show the difference in the thinking and greatness of the 3 PMs and how their views changed over time.

Lee Kuan Yew said:

'Singapore has to take the world as it is. It is too small to change it. But we can try to maximise the space we have to manoeuvre among the big 'trees' in the region.  That has been our approach and we will have to be nimble and resourceful to be able to continue doing so.'

LKY understood that we were a small state and we were price takers of sort. We had to accept the world and to adapt to the world, not to be too swell headed to think we could change the world. We must adapt and try to make the best of the situation by playing along.

Goh Chok Tong said:

'Singapore is a small country, but we do not drift aimlessly. We are not a piece of flotsam.  We have a definite place in the world, and a definite view of life, and of what is right and wrong.

Whether it is 1985 or 1998, I expect that we will be guided by the same basic philosophy that every country, big or small, has a right to be itself. It has a right to live, a right to its own way of life.

From this philosophy springs our foreign policy and our defence policy.  We will be friends with anyone who wishes to be friends with us.  We are not, and will not, be aligned with any bloc, though our ties are closer with the West than with the Communist bloc of countries.'

So you see, Chok Tong is more garang. We would not simply be price takers. We want to be ourself, choose our friends but be friends to everyone who wants to be our friend but not aligned to anyone. But he clarified that we would be a bit closer to the West. Neutrality was still important though a little leaning to the West.

Lee Hsien Loong said:

'Upholding international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes is a vital interest for a small country like Singapore....Nevertheless, Singapore must support and strive for a rules base international order.  We have to depend on words and treaties.  They mean everything to us.  We cannot afford to have international relations work on the basis that might is right. If rules do not matter, then small countries like Singapore have no chance of survival.'

Now can you see the changes? LKY talked about accepting the world as it was and tried to manoeuvre to maximise to our advantage. Chok Tong in a way also accept that fact but would be friends to everyone that is friendly, but slightly aligned to the West. But he still did not dare to think he could change the world to like Singapore.

What is Hsien Loong's position? Upholding international law is a very forceful statement. Singapore now wants to uphold international law, not accepting it as a price taker. Singapore would not accept might is right. Another very powerful statement, meaning Singapore would stand up to it or something like that. Don't push Singapore, we would not allow it.

So, how to fight might is right? Singapore would depend on words and treaties, or military alliances I supposed? Correct me if I did not get this right. The basic position, Singapore would not take things lying down. Singapore will fight for its rights and its principles. You have heard it.

My conclusion, among the 3 PMs, LKY is the weakest. Chok Tong tried to take a firmer middle path. Hsien Loong no doubt is the strongest of the three PMs. He is confident to take on the world, take on any superpowers, to uphold international law and principles. And he would align himself with treaties, no more neutrality or not aligning with any super powers.

Singapore finally has a very strong PM, a strong leader to take on the world, to fight and defend its interests and principles. Singaporeans should be very proud of Hsien Loong, for having the guts to stand up to any country, big or small, on grounds of international laws and principles. His father and Chok Tong both did not have the wherewithal to stand up to big powers. Now you are seeing the real powerful Singapore punching above its weight. Go back and read the news and the comments by our diplomats and you will see how firm and steady they are in defending the interests of small states, defending international laws and principles against unprincipled countries that don't respect international laws.

Singapore has arrived, and Hsien Loong is the One. The strongest of the 3 PMs we have so far. He is now a more powerful statesman than LKY and Chok Tong. Singaporeans got something new to be proud of. Singapore is now an international player that would take a stand, not just a little red dot trying to walk the tight rope. You can expect our diplomats to go around thumping their chests be it China, Russia or regional powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand or the Philippines to uphold international laws, freedom of navigation and to protect Asean unity.

Lim Swee Say – Job mismatch a serious problem

In an article in the Today paper on 11 Oct titled ‘Govt paints dire picture of mismatch between jobs and skills’, ‘…Lim Swee Say cautioned that the low jobs growth could persist and Singapore faces the prospect of rising unemployment if it does not minimize the job skills mismatch and strive for quality economic growth. With the number of locals seeking work far outstripping the number of jobs added by “many things” last year, Mr Lim stressed the need to “maximise the connectivity between job opportunities and job seekers.”’

What is the problem? Mismatch of job and job seekers? Why mismatch? Aren’t the job seekers the products of world best universities, top, top universities? Why got mismatch? Whose fault is it if top, top universities produced graduates that could not match the job opportunities in the market?

Why are the products from Indian universities got no problem with job mismatch? Should not the MPs raise this question in Parliament? Should not the MP recommend the closing down of our world best universities that are producing graduates that could not fit into the market, mismatch? Should not the MPs recommend that we send our young to be educated in Indian universities so that they would not be mismatched and be employable in our job market?

Who is at fault? Who is in charge and responsible for producing graduates that are needed in the market? No is one responsible? No one responsible for our world best university education with world best fees and ended up mismatched?

What is happening? Just shout job mismatch and no not my problem any more. Surely someone must answer to this fiasco. So much money wasted and so much time wasted and our young graduates at a lost, mismatch after spending all those years in the world’s best universities run by the best foreigners money can buy? Should someone be held responsible for ruining the lives of our young graduates, for ruining the hopes of their parents?

Massacre of Native American Indians by European Invaders And by USA. PART 4

Massacre of Native American Indians by European Invaders and by USA.                 PART     4

The decimation of native American Indians was the result of European conquerors' deliberate policy of subjugation and extermination. The European conquerors' brutality was a reflection of the ruthlessness with which white men waged wars in all parts of the world. It was also white men's conviction that natives were savages who should be treated as subhuman. However, ironically the natives of America had highly developed societies just as those natives in Australia, New Zealand  and Africa have. These cultured native societies post a threat to the white men's ambition of conquest and subjugation. Therefore it was common for the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese invaders to raze cities, destroy temples, monuments as well as records and documents. They systematically killed Indian warriors, Indian chiefs and priests and the elites. Eventually the white invaders were able to destroy established Indian communities in North America as well as the empires of Mexico and South America.

In 1632 the British  attacked and invaded Indian territories in Pensylvania, Delaware and Virginia. In 1634 they invaded Maryland and Massacred most of the natives to forestall resistance. In 1644 there was an Indian uprising but it was brutally put down and the result of it was that the Indians had to cede more territories in the West to the British.

There was no limit to British aggression. The march to the West continued with more natives killed when they resisted. White immigrants were encouraged from England and Europe to come to America.

In1675 English settlers encroached on native lands in Massachusetts. The Wampanoags , natives of Massachusetts resisted. The British attacked them with full force and started the Wampanoags war.  The British recruited rival tribes the Mohawks to attack the Wampanoags. Thousands of natives were killed both by the British  and by inter tribes mutual attacks as instigated by the British. British settlements quickly extended to both north and south of Virginia and thus the new states Carolina and Georgia were founded. As more new lands were robbed from the native Indians, England encouraged mass immigration of whites from all over Europe. These newcomers were just as ruthless in replacing and suppressing the Indians. Before long there were millions of white settlers in America. They extended their territories to the land of the Iroquois tribes in the Great Lakes, and Ohio in the 1770s. The Iroquois tribes consisted of five Indian nations via the Mohawks, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga and Oneida. They formed a united confederacy to fight the British and the French invasion. They were sorely defeated and their people were massacred in thousands by the British and the French.

In 1763, to avoid costly wars against native Indians England forbade white settlers from encroaching Indian lands beyond the Rocky Mountains through a proclamation. ( NB: England needed the money for the Anglo British - French war in India ). This was ignored by white settlers who continued to advance westward through the might of their guns and canons. Therefore wars continued between the natives and the whites. The Indian tribes of the Cherokees and others were united under the leader Pontiac to resist the whites. But the resistance failed to stop the whites advance and so millions of new white immigrants were able to march West to illegally occupy Indian territories.

After the War of Independence in 1775 the extreme hostile policy of USA government towards the natives encouraged white settlers to grab native lands indiscriminately and they became even more violent towards the natives in their westward march. They totally ignored the rights and interests of the Indians and treated them with contempt. Thus the fate of the native Indians was sealed with the formation of the United States of America which was even more cruel, ruthless and brutal  towards the native Indians than the British.

USA adopted a policy of contempt of native Americans as subhuman and openly declared that the natives do not deserve to inherit the rich resourceful lands of America. Therefore they have no scruples in carrying out systematic killings, genocide and total extermination of the native Indians.

The whole scenario was a spectacle of European savages destroying established societies in America. It was a case of might is right, a skewed mangle thought of barbaric Europeans in which USA is still adopting and practising without restraint and without consideration to the principle of human rights and democracy of other peoples. USA frequent talk and advocacy  of human rights and democracy is crap cheap and is used as a cover to camouflage its evil intent and ambition of stirring trouble, dissension, choas, destability and conflicts among other countries with the objective of eventually taking over  these countries  under its total control and hegemony.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
USA is now using the same satanic traits of aggression and conquests in the Middle East where their avaricious greed for Arab oil and gas result in the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan with Iran in the pipe line earmark for attack any time in the future.

It is the bounded duty of every other country to stop facist USA objective of subjugating the whole world under USA New World Order of One World Government under USA total control and complete hegemony. Failing to do so will result in the enslavement of all countries and civilise peoples by the facist Evil Empire, USA

Southernglory1

17th October, 2016

Wow, wow wee, Singapore is going from Sin City to Sex City

Sex, sex, sex. Sex is everywhere. Yes, this is no bluff. The message is clear, go and have sex anywhere, anyhow, whenever you like, it is good.  But remember to make more babies. This is the talk of the town. And don’t worry about pre marital sex, not to worry about being married or not yet married, just go have sex.

Wow, where am I, in planet Venus with Goddess Venus spreading love everywhere? Love is in the air in Sin City. Oops, now called Sex City.

Whatever Josephine Teo was saying, it is creating a happy storm I supposed. I like it. She is saying it the way it should be spoken, no holds bar. Why not, this is the 21st century.  No more pretences, no more inhibitions, no need to be shy lah. You want sex, go have it. Sex is fun.

With this new mantra, maybe no need to import more foreigners and we could produce enough babies for the 6.9m population.
Anyone needs help?

Oh, what am I talking about? Go read the happenings in TRE about how good and how fun it is to have sex : ) You would not find such glitzy news in the main media. Now you know why the main media is losing readership. But yes, it is also reported in the main stream media and also picked up by foreign media.

PS. God of Gambling, where are you? Why are you not telling everyone to go and gamble, in the casinos, in the 4D/Toto booths and online? Sex and gambling are a great combination for an exciting place. Don’t think so? Who is the God of Gambling, we are waiting for your permission to gamble everywhere, in small places also ok, hopefully with OPM.

Singapore China relations – Open split?

The verbal war between Singapore and China does not seem to subside and Singapore is upping the ante with another article by Kwa Chong Guan belabouring the point that China has been pressuring Singapore and ‘to influence and shape the opinions and actions of Chinese Singaporeans’. In his article appearing in the Today paper on 14 Oct titled ‘China’s unrealistic expectations of overseas Chinese’, Kwa Chong Guan traced the history of Chinese involvement in the MCP’s fight for the independence of Malaya and Singapore and the subversive role in local trade unions and political movements of the past.
 
Kwa Chong Guan made it very clear that ‘the Straits born Chinese, who did not think of themselves as huaqiao and did not identify with China’ did not agree with the strategies of the MCP. He then went on to relate to the MCP activities of early Malaya and Singapore days culminating in the Non Aligned Movement spat as another of ‘China’s attempt to shape the opinions and interests of the Chinese community in Singapore about Chinese interests’. Kwa drew a clear distinction in the modern Singaporeans and the Singaporeans of yore, that the new Singaporeans have no special affinity to China like their forefathers.
The new Singaporean entrepreneurs investing in China did not go there because of the historical attachment to China but purely based on ‘hard business investment’.  They did their investments not depending on ‘guan xi’, in other words, Singaporeans are principled, abiding by international laws when doing business in China and would not want to be treated differently. Kwa also emphasized that ‘Singapore…has to stand firm against demands by the ancestral homelands of Singapore’s diverse ethnic communities for their loyalty.’
As Singapore keeps on harping on the Chinese govt making demands on Singapore on racial affinity, how would this affect Singapore’s relations and investments in China? Would the trips by Hsien Loong to the USA, Japan, India and Australia have anything to do with the open split between Singapore and China? Is Singapore telling China to lay off and Singapore has other alternatives to invest, in the US, Japan, India and Australia and Singapore and China can go their separate ways henceforth?
The regular display of unhappiness by Singapore seems to be an official position, no longer someone speaking on his personal capacity. And most of the speakers airing this dispute hailed from one school of thought, the Rajaratnam School of International Studies. The notables making tough and flamboyant speeches on the SCS and demanding China to respect the ‘UN backed’ Hague rulings all came from this School.
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policies has been quite silent on this spat. Maybe they are dealing more with local policies and issues and not international matters.  With the tempo of this spat gaining strength, it would be interesting if Lee Kuan Yew is still around and whether he would be wearing his favourite Chinese jacket during important official functions with great pride. Or would he be returning to his suit and tie to show a change in policies to be less dependent on China and more cosiness with the West
 
Lee Kuan Yew was a straits born and every inch a baba. As he grew up he rejected the name Harry Lee given to him by his grandfather. He did not name Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang and Wei Ling with English names like Peter, Simon or Jane. He also sent them to Chinese schools. What did all these said of this straits born Chinese? He was not the banana that one encounters in the island. He was not the typical straits borns. The straits borns are not a homogenous group. There will be the bananas that think highly of everything western, there will be those that are proud of their ancient civilisation.
 
And how would those wanting to be friendly to China be belittled as unacceptable? Being friendly to China is not the same as being a traitor to Singapore, going against the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. The New Zealanders, Australians and many white colonised countries did not feel ashamed to be pro America because they were whites. Why should straits born Chinese feel ashamed to be friendly to China if they did not compromise Singapore's interests?
 
This episode is really Singapore punching above its weight, taking on China head on, demanding China to obey The Hague rulings, to obey international laws,  to protect freedom of navigation and to be principled, as if China is doing and acting to the contrary. Needless to say, diplomatically, it is rubbing China up the wrong side and the open spat would not go away just because Singapore is punching above its weight.
 
Where would all this lead to in Sino Singapore relations?