Terrex – Enemy armoured cars landed!!

Many people are trying to pooh pooh the seriousness of the 9 Terrex armoured vehicles on the shore of Hong Kong as if they were toy cars, no weapons, so very safe and innocent. It is really a non issue and Singapore’s relation with China would go on as per normal. Singapore can still demand China to abide by the rulings of the NOT UN backed Hague Tribunal, China must abide by international law, China must ensure freedom of navigation in the SCS, China must not split Asean to divide and rule. Singapore politicians can sleep very well and not going to lose any sleep over the incident. How about 20 machine guns or rocket launchers without the rounds instead of the Terrex? Safe and innocent?

The 9 Terrexes are claimed by Singapore and were on an innocent passage through Hong Kong. What if, the armoured vehicles belonged to some terrorist groups or a hostile country? No country would allow such war machine to land on their soil without permission or without their knowledge. In a worst case scenario, the armoured vehicles could easily be armed and run through the city firing at anything on site like a suicide mission or a point assault group clearing the way for the main force to move in. How much damage can 9 armoured vehicles do to any city or country once landed? Think about it.

In this case, was someone testing Hong Kong’s custom alertness or a procedure to land military vehicles into Hong Kong, a trial run in preparation for a military op? Who knows, the incident is claimed to be so innocent. Was there any intent by some nebulous party testing out their plans to back up Nathan Law and the other silly girl to create a state of street violence when the opportune time comes? It is not necessary that they would use the Terrexes, the perpetrators could be more ominous and dangerous war machine like tanks could roll in when street demonstrations go berserk. An innocent passage of the Terrexes through Hong Kong with proper papers and declaration would be just another non event. Why were these not done?

Once a procedure like this is proven to be feasible, workable, the planners could use the same modus operandi to turn Hong Kong into a mess. Do not take such an operational slip lightly. No one knows for sure who was behind it and what was the real intent? Don’t just pooh pooh it as just an administrative slip by APL.  

Sure Singapore is likely to be an innocent party but its vehicles could be made used of by some unfriendly party without Singapore knowing it. Sure, Singapore has no such ill intention against Hong Kong. But that does not mean other parties did not harbor a threat with evil motive against Hong Kong and China.

Were the landing of 9 armoured vehicles onto Hong Kong soil, or in Hong Kong port, transiting or otherwise, with no papers or declaration, without the knowledge of the Hong Kong govt, be that innocent or a sign of things to come?

Everyone is looking at it from the political perspective, a ruse between China and Singapore, China sending a message to Singapore in a deteriorating relationship. No doubt China has cause for doing so, and wanting it to be so. Beyond this, could there be something more devious behind an incident that should not have happened at all. This is not the first time such cargo is being shipped. Why so many holes in the incident? Why so many unnecessary and avoidable lapses?

What do you think?

Terrex Incident – Daft Sinkies or stupid govt?

Why is the Singapore govt quarrelling with China over the Terrex Incident? The Singapore govt consigned its Terrex armoured vehicles to APL with a simple order, deliver them to Singapore from Taiwan. How APL navigates, visits whatever ports, how APL handles the documentations are not Singapore’s problem.  All Singapore is interested is for the armoured vehicles to be delivered to Singapore on time and in good condition.

Now APL detoured to Xiamen, to Hong Kong and found not filing the proper documents and the Terrex armoured vehicles were off loaded into the port in Hong Kong. Why is this a Singapore problem? Why is Singapore sending a team to Hong Kong to negotiate and to retrieve the armoured vehicles? Why is the Singapore govt quarrelling with the China and Hong Kong govt? And by so doing, gave China the opportunity to screw Singapore, to complain about Singapore not abiding by the rule of law?

Should not Singapore just be dealing with APL and let APL deal with China/Hong Kong? APL shitted and why is Singapore running all over the place behaving like the guilty party, as if Singapore shitted?

Should not Singapore just keep quiet and tell APL to deliver the armoured vehicles or be sued for compensation and damages? And by so doing, China would have no reason to point the finger at Singapore and accused Singapore for any wrong doing.

What is going on? Don’t we have the best legal talents to tell the govt, look, this is not Singapore’s problem? This is a problem between APL and China/Hong Kong. Singapore is just a customer of APL. Singapore has nothing to do with what APL did in Hong Kong and how APL handled the armoured vehicles. If APL commits murder, what has that got to do with Singapore? Why is Singapore responsible for APL’s crime or wrong doing?

Is this so complicated to understand? This is strictly a commercial assignment between Singapore and APL. Why is Singapore in the thick of action in this political fiasco?

Do you think Singapore could avoid this diplomatic row by just keeping its mouth shut? Who is the daft one?

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.