Eng Hen – A rude awakening

Was it the seizure of the armoured vehicles or was it the newly elected Trump Presidency that prompted Eng Hen to have a rethinking of what he said about the rise of China in Simi Valley, California?  The containment of China, provoking and inciting Asean to put pressure on China, bad mouthing China and selling the story that China is a destructive rising power were given a new twist in Eng Hen’s speech at the Reagan National Defence Forum over the weekend.

Before this forum, all the arrows were aimed at China and nothing good was said about China, a country that did not respect or live by international law, against freedom of navigation, bullying small nations when the truth was that little puny countries were trying to bully the sleeping dragon.  Eng Hen was telling the US and those at the forum that all these silly propaganda and provocation need to change. There were several takeaways from his speech which would be upsetting to our foreign minister and his MFA officials.

The first point, it was ‘“neither possible nor strategically necessary” to contain the Asian giant’s rise’. Of course the Americans would deny that, they would even swear in the name of their grandfathers that they were not trying to contain China with a blank face.

The second takeaway, ‘It is clear that China needs the world as much as the world needs China, and I think this interdependence will grow, not diminish.’ Now who wrote his speech? Definitely not from the MFA. This is likely a speech coming from the analysts in Mindef and would make many in the MFA very uncomfortable and unhappy. But Eng Hen is not going to hold back after his armoured vehicles were impounded in an embarrassing incident in Hong Kong and the likelihood of his boys training in Taiwan being scuttled by the MFA’s position on China.

The third takeaway, ‘that Singapore is “very careful and in fact, constructive” in adhering to the “One China” policy’. Would the reemphasis on adhering to the One China policy at this stage help in his boys training in Taiwan or is it too little and a bit too late after all the poking by the MFA at China? How constructive was Singapore towards the rise of China in the last few months, and would there be a change to go back to earlier days before Vivian took over the MFA and allowed his team to go wild to heckle China?

And another takeaway for the Americans, ‘There are many areas that (US) can focus on that are productive,’ he said. So the cat is out of the bag, the US had been counter productive in its treatment of relations with China, put it in a polite way without saying it, like telling China to abide by international law implying that China was not. Eng Hen added, actually reported as stressed, that a ‘US presence in the Asia Pacific “based predominantly on security is uni-dimensional and structurally brittle.”’ I am not sure how his good friend the hawkish Ash Carter would swallow these advices from Eng Hen in his policy of containing and isolating China by military means and alliances?

Eng Hen is the first minister to take a different view of relations with China following the recent fiasco by Singapore that led to the rub and snub by China.  The point is whether this is just his personal view, speaking as a private individual, or a Mindef view, or the view of the govt? Whatever, it is a first sign of fence mending with China, a job that the MFA has fouled up so badly that nothing they said would help. MFA better shut up and shut the mouths of its officials if Singapore wants to improve relations with China. Perhaps a few sacrificial lambs like the retiring of some of the more vocal anti China voices may soothe the nerves in Beijing.

Can the Americans still think they could contain and isolate China with the help of some silly Asian cronies? Would Eng Hen’s advice be taken seriously and lead to a rethink in American policies in the containment of China? Is Singapore rethinking its position and trying to do some damage control at this critical time? Is Eng Hen’s view a solitary view, a departure from the official govt’s view?

Singapore's Great Expectation - India

With the Terrex seizure still dangling like a hot potato and the equally hot comments from the Singapore side, relations between the two country is likely to take a dip into the longkang. The corollary will be trade and economic cooperation. All the projects in the pipeline would likely be left on the backburner for a long time to come. No one in Singapore would be able to go to China to reverse the course of this divide. No one in Singapore would have the guanxi to reach Xi Jinping to resolve the differences. No one would be able to make the right phone call or contact. The Philippines have Ramos to bridge the gap. Who could Singapore rely on to do this job, Chok Tong, Boon Wan, Kan Seng, Chee Hean or Eng Hen? Or should they depend on Vivian and the MFA to mesmerise China with their diplomatic skills?

It is not too far fetch to say that Singapore has just burnt its bridge to China. Some hopefuls are still dismissing the Terrex incident as a joke, nothing serious and everything will be back to normal soon. And better still, Singapore can still have good relations with China, calling China old friends that we can be frank, transparent, throw the book of law at each other and everything will be normal. And better still, still can conduct military training in Taiwan. I think this last part is a high possibility, and Xi Jinping would say, over my dead body.

Now that China is off Singapore's list of good friends, or Singapore is no longer in China's list of good friends, Singapore would not be able to ride the Chinese economic engine of growth and would have to look elsewhere.

How about the USA? Obama is still in office and could be the link man, provided Trump still bothers to talk to him. If there is anyone for Singapore to hitch on to the American 1% growth engine, it could be Hillary Clinton, definitely not Trump. Unfortunately Hillary is out on a limp, irrelevant, history. So Trump is the only hope. Hsien Loong is reported to have invited Trump to visit Singapore. The big question is whether there will be a meeting of eyes. The agenda and policies of Trump and Hsien Loong are diametrically opposed and unless one side is going to compromise, both would go off tangentially, if they ever met. Singapore is unlikely to change its principled position, so what more is there to talk about. Trump would be too busy minding his own business and bring jobs back to the USA, including those in Singapore. Looks like the USA is a no go as well.

What about Japan, the third largest world economy? Sure, Abe and Hsien Loong are like brothers, same thinking, same agenda and same interests. They are like inseparable twins. A slight problem, what can Singapore sell to Japan? I would have a hard time thinking of anything that the Japanese would want to buy from us.

Who is left to give Singapore a lift in the economic gravy train? The next biggest engine of growth is likely to be India, the emerging super power and economic powerhouse. Europe is too embroiled with its own economic problems and would likely breakup. So looks like India is Singapore's only hope, an economic train to hitch a ride to more economic growth. Singapore can invest in a big way in India. And to get the deal, Singapore can offer to sign an even more comprehensive CECA and hopefully India would be grateful and open its legs wide wide for Singapore businesses to get in. Just don't throw in conditions like all the top management staff must be Indians for any investments and businesses in India. Singapore does not apply such conditions to Indian companies in Singapore. India nationals are all welcome to all the top management positions in Singapore companies here.

Yes, India would be Singapore's Great Expectation for the next 50 years. George Yeo and Chok Tong can play the midwives once again in the opening of the Indian market to Singapore and Singapore to India. Nevermind if there is no China, no USA, no Japan. There is always India to lend a helping hand. All the great people to people relations built over the years with so many Indian professionals and influential Indians coming and going will make doing business with India a walk in the park.

Singapore's future is made riding on the Indian economic growth engine, soon to be double digit growth. The govt, especially Chok Tong and George Yeo, have great foresight for cultivating India and tapping on India's talents to build bridges.

Rule of Law versus guanxi

Anyone heard of the word ‘guanxi’? This word has been spoken umpteen times by our leaders from their experience in dealing with China. Guanxi is very important to them. Some even bragged about the who’s who they know in China and can use this guanxi to get things done fast.
 
What is the difference between the rule of law and guanxi? Guanxi is about human relations, there is a human face involved though the necessary procedures under the rule of law still apply. Sometimes because of guanxi, some things or rules may be overlooked and procedures expedited. Guanxi does not mean lawlessness.
 
What about rule of law? Rule of law is all about law. No human face. The law says yes or no. Nothing to argue about. Don’t tell anyone how big is your face or who you know. Rule of law is faceless.
 
The issue of the seizure of the Terrex is all about the rule of law. Is there a violation of the law? If there is, play by the law. This has nothing to do with guanxi anymore. Like they say, play by the book.

This may be the reason why several of our senior politicians are all keeping quiet and out of sight, They know that since everyone is bragging about the rule of law, don't anyone try to get pass it by quoting guanxi. Singapore leaders going to China to strike deals can forget about guanxi forever unless they want to be slapped right in the face. A rule of law country, depending on principles, incorruptible meritocracy, must not have second thought about guanxi. Everything is transparent, above board, no monkeying around behind closed doors, no double talk.

Wang Gungwu – The consumate gentleman historian

Professor Wang Gungwu was at his best when interviewed at the Straits Times Global Outlook Forum on Singapore China relations and China’s One Belt and One Road Project. It is not just the depth of his understanding of the subjects in question but how he disagreed but saying he agreed with opposing views and still put out his views in a very pleasant and amicable way. To all those he disagreed, he told them he agreed with them and then told them his views that are diametrically opposed to those that he disagreed with without ruffling feathers.

He praised Singapore for all its positive contributions to China’s rise and economic growth and kept silence on the negative things Singapore have been doing to China. He praised Vivian Balakrishnan and said he agreed with him and his views but came out with his own views that were obviously not the same as Vivian’s.

While many still live in the past and think that China is still a hapless poor country that needed their help, this historian is living in the present, in the future, and telling them that the China today is a country that many needs to go to for help.  This is the strangest part of the interview with the Straits Times published on 1 Dec, a historian living in the present while the politicians and analysts living in the past.

Wang Gungwu dispense his understanding of the Singapore and Asean relations with China in as frank a way he could, diplomatically. He encouraged Singapore to play a leading role in Asean, music to the ears of some, but to unite Asean to be useful to China or at least not against China. An Asean that is united and useful to China or neutral would be to the better interests of Asean and its members.
He also reminded those that kept harping about China expecting the Chinese majority Singapore to be helpful that this should be good for Singapore as well. Why not, why not be helpful and chose to be unhelpful? It is nothing to have such an expectation as if for Singapore to be helpful is a dreadful thing to do.

The other point he raised was to dispel the unthinking that were made to believe that China is against freedom of navigation.  He said ‘China is now committed to a global economy and, needs freedom of navigation, freedom for ships to wander around, because the maritime economy is basically what China has benefited from for the last 40 years and they know that. He did not elaborate on who is selling the idea that China would curb freedom of navigation and the clowns that believe in this lie. He added, ‘This is totally different from the past, and I think they appreciate that for that maritime economy to be pursued consistently and successful from now onwards, (you must) have peace in Asean and Asean can be most helpful to ensure that China’s development continues.’ This piece of wisdom hopefully will go down well to those who have been told to think that China is an expansionist country and wanting to dominate the world through wars.  Would this piece of wisdom go to waste among the silly unthinking leaders in Asean?

Wang Gungwu also touched on China’s One Belt and One Road and how important it is to have good relations with all the countries along the Belt and Road. The cooperation of all the countries is critical to its success for any one of these countries could derail the project.  China needs to be friendly to all the countries and not otherwise. A China dependent on peace and cooperation with all the countries cannot be aggressive and unfriendly if it wants others to work with China. Now where are the sillies that are still living on the delusion that China would be unfriendly, expansionist and up to no good?
The very difficult region of Central Asia is where China has done best diplomatically to win their confidence to come on board the OBOR. This is where China has great success through peaceful means and diplomacy. Anything short of that would be a disaster.

In the sea, China was not there to challenge or oppose the American dominance. China wants to work with the Americans to ensure that the sea is safe and there is freedom of navigation for trade and cooperation.

In the whole interview, Wang Gungwu was saying all the good things and leaving out all the bad things that the unthinking and conspirators were doing against China.  His diplomatic answers to the issues that have blinded many unthinking leaders and led them to misbehave badly may or may not change much of their thinking. But for the readers with an open mind and clear thinking would find them useful to dispel the negative myths spun around China by the liars and trouble makers plotting to contain China and disrupt the peaceful rise of China.

China wants to turn Singapore into its mouthpiece

Bloomberg News reported on 1 Dec some comments by Bilahari Kausikan on the recent spat between China and Singapore.

“This is not the first time Singapore ships equipment from Taiwan through Hong Kong,” said Bilahari Kausikan, an ambassador-at-large for Singapore. The fact this particular consignment was picked up shows China wants to “send a signal
not only to us, but to all” Southeast Asian nations. China’s long-term strategy is to turn Singapore into an ally and “mouthpiece” for its positions, he said.

I am not sure whether Bilahari said the above in the capacity of an ambassador or as an ordinary citizen. The comments are likely to irk China again and may draw some flakes. At this point in time, with the heat still on, Singapore officials especially diplomats and ambassadors should be more careful in what they said. Maybe there is already an official position to take.

There are two schools of thought on this. The more garang and brave group that could not understand the meaning of ‘牛存不示虎’, literary translated as little calf did not know what is a tiger, would be egging the govt to be strong, to stand up, look China into the eyes, to tell China we cannot be bullied. The more mature and sensible group would recommend not to aggravate the situation by talking cock, oops, I mean talking tough. Talk reasons in a reasonable and respectful manner and try to resolve the issue as amicably as possible. But looking at the tense situation, this is unlikely.

If Bilahari is speaking in his capacity as an ambassador, it is likely that this is an official position and his choice of words was precise and intended. If he is speaking in his private capacity, then he can talk all the cock he wants and Vivian would just say in Parliament when questioned that he need not have to waste his time discussing about what a private citizen said.

Would China send a note to the MFA demanding an explanation and would Vivian said, stuff it? Whichever, these comments are not helpful except to prove that Singapore got balls to stand up to China, to punch above its weight. The consequences for such bravado would be for the people to bear.

There is a time and place to be tough and principled. There are times when talking cock would look silly and incur strong reactions. Without good men in charge, the lack of wisdom is glaring.