Christopher De Souza’s tough questions in Parliament

Responding to Hsien Loong’s call for tough questions in Parliament on the Lee Family feud, MP De Souza submitted 10 tough questions in Parliament. The questions below were from a post in TRE titled PAP MP put forth ‘tough questions’ on familee feud’.
 
Mr De Souza said that it was important to investigate whether the mission of the organs of state were subservient to the agenda of any personality, as alleged by PM Lee’s siblings.

He then put forth the following ten questions to the Prime Minister and to Parliament:
 
1. Is it true or false that organs of state are being used to target Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling?
 
2. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang questioned whether “able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be sidelined to ensure Hsien Loong’s grip on power remains unchallenged.” Is it true that ensuring the Prime Minister’s power remains unchallenged trumps independent political legitimacy?
 
3. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, “a few of the attacks we had to face in private are now public. False accusations, character assassination, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us.” Is it true or false that the Government uses Singapore press to target Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang?
 
4. The siblings have said that they see “many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout public service who are constrained by Hsien Loong’s misuse of power at the very top.” Is it true that public service is constrained by the Prime Minister’s misuse of power at the top?
 
5. Is it true or false that the leadership and direction of the government is directed for personal purposes or any other improper purpose?
 
6. Is it true or false that organs of the state may be used for personal agendas?
 
7. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee is merely a facade that the Prime Minister is able to influence in one way or the other?
 
8. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee never told Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling about options they were exploring?
 
9. On 15 Jun 2017 at 9.25pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, “Hsien Loong’s public statement contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath. Is it true or false that the Prime Minister lied to Parliament?
 
10. On 14 June 2017, Lee Hsien Yang said, “Hsien Loong has asserted to the committee that Lee Kuan Yew would accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road. In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all government decisions involving 38 Oxley.” Is it true or false that the Prime Minister has misguided a ministerial committee to fulfill his own personal purposes?
 
The questions were tough alright. But De Souza put in all his experience as a lawyer to frame the questions in such a way like questioning or cross examining a witness and only allowed the witness to answer yes or no, in this case true or false. Hsien Loong would not be allowed to say but or if or maybe, just answer true or false. He also made it easy for the people reading the tough questions to come to a quick conclusion. 50% false answers, pass, 70% false answers, good, 90% and above false answers, distinction.
 
In a way the questions also made life easier for Hsien Loong, just tick true or false. So simple!
What would happen if Hsien Loong tick all as false or as yes? Who will be the judge, the Parliament, De Souza or the public? To me it is the public acting as the jury. It is anytime better than being the accused, the witness, and also the judge.

China must change its investment strategies in Malaysia

Wan Saiful Wan Jan wrote a piece titled ‘Malaysia’s priority is to manage not stop, China’s investments’ in the Today paper on 11 Jul 17. While many doubters are raising red flags when the Chinese govt is pouring money into Malaysia, Wan Saiful took a slightly different stand, understand the pros and cons and manage it to the best advantage of Malaysia. The money coming in is good if not why ask for the money, but more important is how to capitalize it to the best for Malaysia and its people. Who else is going to give you money?
 
In his article he addressed some issues with the Chinese investments and quoted the experience in Latin America and Africa to offer some hindsight on the pitfalls to avoid. One of the key issues is the repayment of the soft loans for the infrastructure that China is building for Malaysia. Wan Saiful lamented that after the projects are completed, Malaysia would have to pay and pay, ie to repay the loans over 20 years or more, and plus interest some more. This is bad. Ok, pointed noted. China must reconsider this, maybe let Malaysia determine how long to repay the loan. But this is also bad. The best thing that China could do is to offer the loan to build the infrastructure without having to pay back, build them for free, give the loan for free. Now that would be nice. China must seriously consider this strategy then Wan Saiful and his friends would not have to raise this concern again.
 
The second serious concern and I quote, ‘Not only does China get back a substantial portion of its money immediately in the form of payment for work done by their state owned enterprise CCCC, they will also get more money when repayments start, with interest. Ultimately, over the long term, there is still an outflow of funds from Malaysia to China.’ How can China do this? This is no good. China must rethink how not to get back a substantial portion of its money immediately for payment for work done and to ensure that there is no outflow of funds from Malaysia to China. Again, the solution is simple. Build for free, give the loan for free. No need to pay back and Malaysia will be very happy.
 
Another concern, the infrastructure built may not be profitable and ‘the risks and liabilities are borne by Malaysian taxpayers through a government guarantee of the loan.’ Now how to overcome this? Maybe China should guarantee that the project should be profitable and take the risk and bear the liabilities if the project is not profitable. How about that? This is something that China must seriously think over before embarking on the project. It is not the responsibility of the Malaysian govt to ensure that the project is profitable or useful to Malaysia.
 
Another important point raised by Wan Saiful is how Venezuela ended up with huge debts despite China’s soft loans. Venezuela’s mistake was to agree to repay the loans with oil. But then oil price collapsed. With this lesson, China must let Malaysia choose whatever way it wants to repay the soft loan, maybe by paying in ringgit, RMB or US dollars or coconuts. Oops, not a good idea either. The value of the currencies can fluctuate and Malaysia could end up paying more. Maybe China can work out a flexible option to let Malaysia pay in whatever currency or commodities it so chooses without having to make exceptional and unexpected losses. The best way is to leave the option for repayment blank, to be determined by Malaysia as and when it likes. That should do the trick, I think.
 
And another point, not the last, is the transfer of technology. From Malaysia’s past experience with investments from western countries, including Japan, there was always a transfer of technology to Malaysia. Look at how much technology the Proton car has transferred to Malaysia today. Or remember Dunlop, Shell and all the famous western companies that have invested in Malaysia and all the technologies they have transferred to Malaysia and made Malaysia a modern and industrial power house? China must transfer its technologies to Malaysia just like what these western and Japanese companies did before, the Sony, Panasonic, Sharp etc. This should be easy for China, by following what the western and Japanese companies have done before.
 
Oh, one more concern, Chinese companies should not use Chinese workers in their projects. They must employ the Malaysians to do the job. Actually it would be easier and less troublesome if China just offer the money to Malaysia and let Malaysia hire all the locals to work on the projects and all the local SMEs would also have subcontracts to work on. Just give the money to Malaysia and everything will be fine. It would also be easy for China too, no need to do anything. A little catch, would China still be responsible for the completion of the projects and profitability of the projects when Malaysians are doing all the work?
 
Oh, one more very big concern. China is an authoritarian state promoting authoritarian capitalism. If more Chinese investments poured into Malaysia, Malaysia is likely to be influenced and become an authoritarian regime as well. This is so dangerous. How to overcome this? Ok, Wan Saiful concluded with this remark, ‘The responsibility to ensure good governance in Malaysia lies with the Malaysian government and the Malaysian people, not China.’ So China no need to do anything, just invest and don’t try to influence the Malaysians to become an authoritarian state. Don’t try regime change also. Don’t ask questions about 1MDB. I am not sure how easy it is to influence the Malaysian leaders and people to become an authoritarian state just by investing and building infrastructure in Malaysia. I am still scratching my head.
 
China should read my above points carefully and seriously rethink how they could invest in Malaysia without getting back their investment capital. If they continue to do it this way, always thinking of repayment, Malaysia is likely to invite western countries to invest in Malaysia with free loans, no need for repayment. Then China would lose out in investing in Malaysia.

Cheng Bock stands a chance to stand as a minority candidate

The entry of Farid Khan, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, as a possible Malay candidate for the next EP opens up a window for Cheng Bock to get in using the same route. As reported, ‘Although his identity card shows his race as “Pakistani”, presidential hopeful Farid Khan Kaim Khan considers himself “Malay enough” to run in the coming presidential election(EP) reserved for Malay candidates.’ Khan added, ‘I was born in the Malay village in Geylang Serai, the heart of the Malay community. And I adopted the Malay language, and when I studied in school, my second language was Malay.’
 
Farid Khan must have read the provisions of the EP in the Constitution and its definition of what constitute one to be a Malay and eligible to stand. If I can remember, it was something like one needs not be an ethnic Malay but must be accepted by the Malay community as a Malay, or by the govt committee.
 
So, how can Cheng Bock make himself qualified? He must act very fast. Get himself converted to Islam and become a Muslim. Show proof that he is very conversant in the Malay language, which I think he is. Change his lifestyle a bit more to be like the Malays. Get all his Malay friends to accept him as a Malay. If he can convince his Malay friends that he is a Malay, then all the obstacles in his way would be cleared, technically and according to the definition in the Constitution. Then he can tell Singaporeans that he considers himself a Malay.
 
It is not easy. The Malay community may not accept him. But he can try, just like Farid Khan and other non Malay or half Malay candidates. The Constitution is very clear that one needs not be a Malay but must be accepted by the Malay community as a Malay. Correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation of the Constitution. I would not seek a court interpretation on this. I am just a layperson trying to read and understand the Constitution, like Farid Khan and the other non Malay or partial Malay candidates are doing.
 
Thank you very much. How about this, President Abdullah Tan Cheng Bock? (Oops, no offend intended. Just looking at the possibilities. If Constitution can change, every can change to suit the Constitution).

PS. Cheng Bock has appealed against the judgement of the court counting Wee Kim Wee, an appointed President by Parliament, now also read as elected President or no difference according to the court. Appointed or elected, same same, no difference in law. We need to change our dictionary on the meaning of these two words. Would the students pass their English Language examination if they write appointed and elected mean the same thing, sama sama?

Act big or act small

This debate between Kausikan and Kishore continues with Han Fook Kwang chipping in with his two cents worth in an article in the Sunday Times on 9 Jul. Han Fook Kwang was trying to point to the changing circumstances and the need to apply intelligently on lessons and policies of the past. Not every event is the same and it is important to understand the new forces in play before blindly applying past methodology that may no longer be relevant today.
 
One take away from Han Fook Kwang’s comment is his quoting Kausikan, ‘Small states like Singapore cannot allow their sovereignty and national interests to be dictated by others.’ This is sound and good, just like the same saying, ‘Singapore leaders stood up to major powers in the past when they attempted to intimidate them.’ On first glance, both statements are statements of principles and laudable and should be the guiding principles of small states. As such, small states must act big and talk big.
 
However, take a serious look at the statements and understand them a bit deeper. Both are important statements but must be applied cautiously and discriminately and not recklessly or foolhardy. Do not read the statements superficially.
 
Take the first statement about not allowing our sovereignty and national interests to be dictated by others. By sticking our guns onto this policy, we must also put ourselves on the other side and not to dictate on other people’s sovereignty and national interests. Get the point? We do not want others to dictate to us, and we must not dictate to others as well. Yes, do not trample onto others…
 
Similarly we must stand up when others try to intimidate us. There is a big difference between standing up to intimidation and trying to intimidate others, especially when it has nothing to do with us. When the big powers did not intimidate us, it is foolhardy to intimidate the big powers. When the big powers are not infringing on our sovereignty or national interests, it is silly to infringe on their sovereignty or national interests. In the South China Sea issue we are just an outlier, a peripheral party.
 
I think this is as simple and easy to understand as you can get, no need to explain further. The poking of our nose into the South China Sea dispute is not just being a busy body, not only minding other people’s business, but infringing on the sovereignty and national interests of China and intimidating China. We deserved to be fucked. Period. This is applying past lessons and Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking blindly, foolishly and unintelligently. Don’t fuck around with big powers when they did not fuck around with you.
 
There is a time to stand firm, act big when you are intimidated but act small and don’t try to intimidate the big powers when there is no need to. Small states have the right to chart its own course, but don’t be foolish to want to chart the course of big states.
 
A little knowledge is dangerous.

Fake news is a national issue in Singapore

The recent revelation of ‘reputable’ American media printing fake news or alternative truths in their papers came as a rude shock to the ordinary unsuspecting readers who have all the years been made to believe that these media only print the truth, nothing but the truth, with some claiming to double or triple check their facts before printing, to ensure that they print only the truth. And of course some of these media have been ranked at the bottom of the list for their fake news printing prowess.
 
What has happened in the USA may have rubbed off some people in Singapore to realize that there were lots of fake news printed in the media and that these are dangerous. Oops, I must make a clarification on this. Fake news only occurred in social media, not in the century tested, proven, trustworthy and reliable main media. They print only real news, factually correct and nothing else. The govt is starting to get uneasy and planning to introduce more laws to protect the citizens, normally very daft, not sure it is part of the DNA or nurtured, so that they would not read fake news. To do so, people who published fake news would face the wrath of the new laws and may end up behind bars. This is how serious the govt is today, to protect its people from being harm by fake news.
 
The most reputable paper in the island that only published truthful news (please ignore the fake reports that ranked the reputable paper at the bottom of the ladder) has come out to tell its reader not to worry as they would help the people to decide what is fake news from real news. And if the readers are not sure, they can ask the paper for their opinion. I am not sure how the local media are going to do this, probably a hot line to let readers call in to check on the news, is it fake or not fake. This is how caring the govt and local media have become, to make sure the daft citizens of this island would not be bluffed by fake news and taken advantage of.
 
In the past I used to tell myself that when I write a satirical post or a joke, I must add a PS at the bottom of the article to tell my readers that it is a satire or a joke as they are not supposed to know the difference and would take everything as real stuff. And for believing my satire or joke as real, I can be accused of propagating fake news because the readers cannot tell the difference and I did not tell them it is not real. I think from now onwards when I write something I must add a remark to tell my readers that it is real or fake news, not that my readers could not tell but one or two here may have such problems, but to protect myself in case the law comes after me for publishing fake news. I think it should be alright if I print something that is fake, a satire or a joke and state it as so, then I would not be accused of publishing fake news to mislead the innocent and unthinking readers that are supposed to have difficulties telling the difference. When you have a nation of daft, people with low thinking ability despite having tertiary education, it is necessary to take precaution not to mislead them and to protect them. Did someone say they never grow up?
 
So what if more than 50 percent of the population received tertiary education and cannot tell between fake and real news? If they could then the govt and the media would not have such a big headache trying to come up with laws and assistance to help them understand. Dunno to laugh or to cry.
 
Stupidity has no cure. Maybe next time they will teach the people how to have sex and pass law to protect them in case they can’t tell the difference between having real sex and fake sex. Oops, I am walking a fine thin line on posting another piece of fake news. Ok, ok, no such things ok, I am just using an example, not because of inhaling some drugs or hallucinating without the aid of drugs. Ok, ok, I am just another daft Singaporean that needs the protection of the laws on fake news. Thank you very much. Now I feel safer already.