Red line over Hong Kong

On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China, President Xi Jinping gave a keynote speech to the elites of Hong Kong society reminding them of the enduring and uninterrupted Chinese Civilisation and the confidence of building a new and prosperous China for its people, including the Hong Kong people. In this journey, Hong Kong could walk with China towards a glorious future of great opportunities and possibilities.

On the inaugural ceremony on the handover and the installation of Carrie Lam as the next Hong Kong Chief Executive, President Xi got down to more serious business to warn of a divisive and disruptive Hong Kong society that could undermine the story of a new China. No one, no country, not the dissidents of Hong Kong, would be allowed to challenge the national sovereignty and security of China that the continuing growth and prosperity of Hong Kong depended on. Anyone attempting to disrupt the social order of Hong Kong would not be tolerated. President Xi drew the 'red line' for handling relations between the mainland and Hong Kong, and warned, "Any attempt to endanger national sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the central government and the authority of the Basic Law of the HKSAR or use Hong Kong to carry out infiltration and sabotage activities against the mainland is an act that crosses the red line, and is absolutely impermissible,".

This message came down hard and clear, a warning to the protesters harping on more autonomy and democracy. This is the biggest paradox of Hong Kong today. The louder the voice of protest and street disturbance for more democracy, the greater would Beijing want to exert fuller control over Hong Kong. On the contrary, the lesser the protesters politicised issues in Hong Kong and took to the streets, the more Beijing would be confident to let Hong Kong to have more leeways to govern itself. 

There is a bigger picture that the protesters are not seeing and struggling to understand, the story of the growth of China into a big economic and military power. China's peaceful rise is founded on a stable and peaceful international environment, internal stability and a united China. But there are many external forces that would want to use Hong Kong to destabilise China and cripple the Chinese growth machine. Hong Kong would not be allowed to be that poison pawn to be exploited by external forces to cause a breakup of China and to trip China in its path for economic growth and prosperity. 

To the protesters and the many young people of Hong Kong, they would need to learn and understand the history of China and the difficult period China had gone through under foreign invasion and humiliation. Some Hongkongers have forgotten what it was like when they were the subjects of the British Empire. China would not allow history to repeat itself and the young people of Hong Kong would be best to understand this bigger picture to know when not to cross the red line. 

China would assist and support Hong Kong to be a rich and prosperous city under the one country, two system policy. Hong Kong and its people could choose a path of economic prosperity with the full backing of China or could destroy it with their own hands by indulging in divisive and disruptive politics that undermine China's security and sovereignty. They could choose between a win win formula for both China and Hong Kong or it could mark the end of Hong Kong and the political agenda of the dissidents and protestors. The Hong Kong people have been warned of the 'red line' and cross at their own risk. The common good of 1.4b Chinese people cannot be compromised by a few demonstrators in the streets of Hong Kong.

Lee Kuan Yew’s will – A better way…

I desist from using the word wayang. What about a better way to handle the issue with a win win for everyone, especially for Hsien Loong? It can be easily done. For the moment, other then all the allegations from Hsien Yang and Wei Ling about abuses of power and govt organs, Hsien Loong is also being accused of being unfilial. All these could have been avoided with the govt gazetting the property and Hsien Loong still coming out looking good and very filial, and his siblings could not to anything about it or to accuse him of all the allegations.
 
Here is what I thought would be an easier and nicer way for Hsien Loong to have his cake and eat it, ie keep the property from being demolished and do whatever he wants with it and looking very, very filial and honourable and maintaining Singapore as a rule of law country. There is no need for the Ministerial Committee to go asking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling funny questions. Just get the National Heritage Board to put up a case to gazette the house as a historical and national monument.
 
Hsien Loong can then go to Parliament and make a plea for the demolishment of the property, telling the House that as a filial son, it is his duty to fulfill his parents’ last wish. He could even shed a few tears to make it even more emotional, to tug at the heart strings of people when the session is aired on TV plus a few photos on the front page Straits Times and other local media. Then he can let Parliament to put it to a vote and knowing that all the ministers and MPs would want to keep the house and would vote for it, he could then say his father is not above the law and he would respect the law no matter how filial he wanted to be. He would then reluctantly agree to let his father’s last wish past as the decision of Parliament is about the rule of law, above a private citizen, and he cannot go against it for personal interest. He could even make a last plea for Parliament to reconsider its decision, maybe a second voting after 3 months or 6 months of cooling off period to think it over and over again. This is what a filial son could do to try to fulfill a father’s last wish, die standing for it.
 
By then, whatever the decision of Parliament to keep the house, he would be seen as a filial son, honouring his father, and also respecting the law of the country. No abuse of state organs or power, just following the normal process of Parliament. Wouldn’t that be nice? And his siblings cannot accuse him of any abuse of law or being unfilial. Swee swee.
 
What is so difficult about this, why mess around with a Ministerial Committee and having so many ministers voluntarily standing up to run down the will of his father and at the same time running down LKY in the process? All this is so unnecessary.
It could have been done better surely, and quite easily done too.

PS. An after thought. How nice it would be if the will was put to a vote and Hsien Loong, after declaring that he has a vested in it to grant his father's last wish voted to demolish it while all his ministers and MPs voted to keep it. It could then be used to tell the world that democracy works in Singapore when the ministers and MPs dare to vote against the PM. Damn good PR for Singapore.

Kishore Mahbubani – Telling the unpleasant truth is hard to do

When Singapore was beating its gongs and blowing its trumpets during the South China Sea claims by the Philippines and screaming that the fake Tribunal was ‘UN backed’ and China must obey or be seen as not abiding by the rule of law, I thought Kishore would say something to cool down the hot heads in the Foreign Ministry and the Rajaratnam School of International Relations. He did not.
 
Perhaps he was still recovering from his ops. Or maybe he was just folding his arms and standing by the ring side, telling himself it was better for the hot heads to learn the lesson the hard way. Subsequently the teacher did deliver the lesson. Whether the hot heads have learnt anything, this I am not too sure, and I think not likely though they kept a very low profile for a while, probably gagged from doing more damage to Singapore China relations.
 
Finally after a long wait, Kishore opened up. The School of Lee Kuan Yew did not share the youthful or naïve enthusiasm of the Rajaratnam School. You see, today information is everywhere, knowledge is everywhere, at the finger tips. There is no need to go to the library and bury oneself in tomes of literature to gather knowledge and information. The difference between two persons having the same store of knowledge is the wisdom in understanding, interpreting and applying the knowledge. That separates the boys from the men.
 
When there is an eclipse of the moon, some will take out their gongs and drums and beat to their hearts content for the moon to reappear. The wise and knowing will just wait for the truth to show up. Everyone is concerned, but beating the drums and gongs like crazy would not help but to make one looked crazy in this modern world.
 
What Kishore said is the hard truth, the painful truth, but the stubborn and arrogant would not want to understand. It is difficult and painful to be told of the unpleasant truth. Singapore was what it was during the time of LKY, being a big mouth in everything, was not because Singapore was principled or strong, but because of LKY. He was the senior statesman that achieved a lot in his life time. He was the oracle, the Jedi master that green political leaders would come to beg for some pieces of enlightenment. He could say anything he want and they would defer to him. Singapore’s politicians then rode on his coat tail to talk big. Now he is gone. No one could fit that shoe and think he could talk like LKY and people around the world would listen to. 

Some arrogant nuts would think otherwise, that they are as clever and influential as LKY and demand respect from leaders of the world, to listen to their cocky stories.
It is painful to delve further into this silly mindset that Singapore must blow its trumpets and beat its gongs on grounds of principles. Kishore reminded the hot heads that Singapore went against its principles to join the Americans to invade Iraq without the consent of the UN. Why, to serve Singapore’s interest, to join the world’s number one bully to invade a smaller country and think it was safe to do so? Kishore was warning the hot heads that Qatar too did the same only to be turned against and dropped by the Americans.
 
Yes, Singapore was not a tame dog to the Americans. Would it sound better being the barking dog, the attack dog of the Americans? Singapore could talk big during the time of LKY on two important factors. One is the LKY dominant presence. The second was to be in the American camp with the Americans standing behind it. Today LKY is gone. Singapore still can talk big with the Americans standing behind. But be careful. This big bully has many interests and should its other interests rule to favour others more than Singapore, than it is going to screw Singapore in the back.
 
Oops, I think everyone has been chirping that there is no permanent friend but permanent interests. Is this so difficult to understand? Should Singapore throw everything into a relationship and cut all other options loose, and keep shouting and bragging about its ability to punch above its weight with a big bully standing behind, or standing on the shoulders of the big bully? Isn’t this dangerous, like riding a tiger and unable to dismount? Is this good for a small state?
 
The contest for wisdom, not ideas, between the Lee Kuan Yew School and the Rajaratnam School has started. If the latter has its way, we can expect to hear more shouting by Singapore and China would not be too nice to Singapore again. If the former’s wisdom rules, then the hot heads would be kept in a tight leash, not allowed to bark crazily thinking that the more they shout, that only they have principles and others did not, it is ok, that Singapore may be small, but Singapore can punch above its weight, with big bully around to protect Singapore.
 
I think the Rajaratnam School would triumph in this match as they have more hot heads and is better at shouting down their opponents. Kishore is going to be alone in the Lee Kuan Yew School as no one would have the dare to shout back except to apologise for Kishore’s excesses in his ideas.
 
China, please respect Singapore’s principles, abide by the rule of law and listen carefully to what Singapore is going to say about the South China Sea, all over again.
 
PS. Would Singapore be able to punch above its weight, to talk big and loud without the Americans standing at the back?

The story of loyalty in Red Dot

Until the death of LKY in 2015, loyalty in Singapore is synonymous with LKY. From the politicians, party stalwarts and the common people in the streets, loyalty means loyalty to LKY. The final show of loyalty was the last day of his funeral. No Singaporean leader has ever come close to the kind of relationship and intimacy between LKY and the masses at large. There was a bond between him and many people out there, young and old.
 
During the GE, this loyalty to LKY was somewhat transferred or inherited by Hsien Loong and the PAP as LKY’s party. Loyalty to LKY, to PAP and to Hsien Loong was never tested or challenged till the current feud between the siblings. There was no occasion to choose loyalty to who. With Hsien Yang and Wei Ling taking sides against Hsien Loong, this loyalty is now in question. Would the loyalty to LKY be just to Hsien Loong or would there be people who would split this loyalty equally among the children of LKY, 1/3 each?
 
The loyalty to LKY has never been questioned or doubted at least among the PAP members and among the MPs and ministers. This appears to be cracking and apparently some PAP politicians have openly threw stones at LKY, showing scant respect to him while defending his son Hsien Loong and attacking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. There is a new loyalty to Hsien Loong. There is no indication that these people care two hoots about their loyalties to LKY or even gave it a second thought. LKY is history and there is a new loyalty to pledge to.
 
There is also the loyalty to Chok Tong. Chok Tong is still around and kicking on the side line. I think some must be quite close to Chok Tong and were beneficiaries and recipients of Chok Tong’s generosity and largesse and would be loyal to him especially when LKY is no longer in the equation.
 
Another element is the DPMs or senior PAP ministers. Do they have their own following and loyal supporters within the party or in the masses? This has never been an issue so far but when the moment comes when people and party members are faced with a choice, put in a position to make a choice, would the splintered loyalties to the different leaders become an influential factor in the fate of Hsien Loong or the next PAP leader? Or would they play down their loyalties to other individuals, suppressed them in favour of one leader like during LKY’s era and pledge their loyalties to Hsien Loong?
 
Would the different loyalties be fractious enough to pose a challenge to Hsien Loong’s position as the undisputed leader of the PAP or would the present fracas throw up a new leader to challenge Hsien Loong’s leadership? Is his command and control of the PAP as dominant as his father LKY and continue to rule unchallenged at least for some time to come?

The price of filial piety - $24m or $36m

There have been many guesses as to how much Hsien Yang paid Hsien Loong for the property at 38 Oxley Road. All that was known was that he paid at market price plus 50% or 150% of the market value of the property of about 12,000 sq ft. Some have made an estimate of $2,000 per sq ft for the land or approximately $24m. This is how the $24m number is being tossed around.
 
Why did Hsien Yang want to pay so much for this piece of property? For all we know or read, he wanted to fulfill his father’s last wish, that is to demolish the property when Wei Ling decided not to stay in the house. As simple as that. Of course some people have made many other inferences of his motive and intention, like he wants to build a multi storey condo on it and make a big profit from this deal. Hsien Yang has disputed this by saying he has offered to turn the property into a memorial garden for Lee Kuan Yew.
 
Both Hsien Yang and Wei Ling are fighting very hard to want to grant their father and mother their last wish, to demolish this house. This kind of filial piety is normally immeasurable. But in this case, at least one can put a monetary number to it as the minimum value of filial piety. It is $24m or $36m, a handsome sum they have paid, or Hsien Yang had paid, as a filial son.
 
How many people can afford or willing to pay so much money to show how much they respect and love their parents? Filial piety does not come cheap. It is rare that one can attach a value to it. This is the least Hsien Yang has paid.

The price I paid for the house was simply a price I paid to ensure my father’s wishes are honoured' Lee Hsien Yang