Some of you here cannot tahan my hard truth about the westerners and
their century old smear campaign against Asians in general and China, N
Korea, Iran and a few others in particular. Just read the daily verbiage
in print in western media and unthinking stupid Asian media allowing
themselves to be used by the westerners to rubbish Asians and you will
understand why. They will keep repeating their lies and over time many
unthinking readers would believe that they are truths. Some are so used
to such rubbish as part of their lives and thinking that they are gems
and truths and will parrot them around.
There was an article in the Today paper by NYT on 13 July attacking the
North Koreans for sending their people to work overseas as slave labours
with the govt confiscating their income for the state. I will just
quote the silly things they said and readers here should be able to
relate them to the conditions of foreigners working here, including
Singaporeans that are no difference or could even be worst off, but
never reported so negatively as slave workers.
1. North Korean labourers helped build a new soccer stadium in St
Petersburg…a project which at least one of them died. They are working
in central Moscow, where two North Koreans were found dead last month in
squalid hostel near the construction site. (Try to compare this with
the death of foreign workers in Singapore, including the maids).
2. Most of their earnings are confiscated by the state. (Got such thing in Singapore or not?).
3. …his highest paid workers now lose half or more of their monthly
salary through confiscation, while the leader of each construction squad
of about 20 to 30 labourers takes an additional cut of about 20 per
cent in return for finding painting jobs for his men. (Familiar? This
NYT author must be living in a well).
4. Quoting a North Korean painter, ‘I hope I can come back’ to work
again after his work permit expires. (Think what our maids and foreign
workers are saying here when their WP expired).
5. The Russian boss said North Koreans work “crazily long hours” without
complaint and call him at 6am, even on weekends,…They are basically in
the situation of slaves.”(Think of the working hours of the maids here).
6. All the same, he added, North Koreans will want to work in Russia,
where, despite the hardships and confiscation of a big chunk of their
‘CPF, oops’ wages, they can live better and freer than they do at home.
(Sound familiar?)
How much difference are the North Korean foreign workers’ fate in Russia
compare to the foreign workers and the maids here? Why the constant
attack against North Korea with such rubbish distorted news?
Shall I stop writing about the western media farce but let them continue
to write what they want since the last couple of centuries? What they
wrote daily are acceptable, reputable and respectable media, what I
wrote now and then are not acceptable, fake news?
PS. Singaporeans cannot distinguish between fake news and facts. It would be worst when fake news are officially sanctioned as real news by govts to spread their lies.
7/15/2017
Public protest at Hong Lim today 4pm to 7pm
The issues, allegations of abuses of power by Hsien Yang and Wei Ling.
The speakers are:-
1. Danny Ng – researcher – “What is fear?”
2. Sivakumaran Chellappa – private educator – “The future of our country should not be determined by Oxley”
3. Jan Chan – recent graduate – “Need for government to respect and abide by the separation of powers in Singapore”
4. Osman Sulaiman –business owner/active in politics – “A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves”
5. Tan Kin Lian – former Presidential candidate – “Abuse of power by our government”
6. Dr Ang Yong Guan – psychiatrist – “What else could PM have say in Parliament?”
7. Leong Sze Hian – Blogger/President of Maruah – “Secret committee and what it shows – so many secrets in Singapore”
8. Lim Tean – former Sec Gen of National Solidarity Party – “Wherever law ends – tyranny begins”
(Mr Kwan Yue Keng will be the MC for the event)
There will also be a press conference on site immediately after the event at about 7pm.
Gilbert Goh (Organizer)
Dated: 14th July 2017
The above quoted from TRE.
The speakers are:-
1. Danny Ng – researcher – “What is fear?”
2. Sivakumaran Chellappa – private educator – “The future of our country should not be determined by Oxley”
3. Jan Chan – recent graduate – “Need for government to respect and abide by the separation of powers in Singapore”
4. Osman Sulaiman –business owner/active in politics – “A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves”
5. Tan Kin Lian – former Presidential candidate – “Abuse of power by our government”
6. Dr Ang Yong Guan – psychiatrist – “What else could PM have say in Parliament?”
7. Leong Sze Hian – Blogger/President of Maruah – “Secret committee and what it shows – so many secrets in Singapore”
8. Lim Tean – former Sec Gen of National Solidarity Party – “Wherever law ends – tyranny begins”
(Mr Kwan Yue Keng will be the MC for the event)
There will also be a press conference on site immediately after the event at about 7pm.
Gilbert Goh (Organizer)
Dated: 14th July 2017
The above quoted from TRE.
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.
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.
7/14/2017
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.
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.
7/13/2017
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)