The lesson in 1962 was not taken seriously, or not hard enough for India
to learn not to trifle with the PLA. In 1962, the PLA was literally a
peasant army, poorly equipped, against the India Army, equipped with the
best leftovers from the British Empire. Still, given the advantage of
modern weapons and several years of preparation in the building of the
4th Army Corp and the element of surprise and initiative, India was
knocked unconscious within a matters of 2 weeks by the PLA.
Today the world is looking at almost an identical situation in the China
Bhutan border. Though again India is claiming that China was the
provocateur like in 1962, the facts today are current and fresh for all
to see. China was building a road along the China Bhutan border, nothing
to do with India except that Bhutan was a de facto protectorate of
India. India claimed that it was Bhutan that was asking India to
intervene though it was obvious that it was India that wanted to
intervene in the dispute. And India took the first step to move troops
into the disputed area but accusing China of doing so. In the first
place the dispute has nothing to do with India.
Now both sides are moving thousands of troops to the region. And India,
like in 1962, is saying that it would not back down, spoiling for a
fight with China. India must not forget that the PLA today is fully
operational and supported by all the four arms of China’s military
might, modern and well equipped that India can never think of matching.
There is nothing that Indians have that is superior or equivalent to
what the Chinese have.
This time the mismatch in the two forces is even more stark though India
as usual thinks it has an upper hand and would want to try its luck a
second time. This time the PLA would not be so gracious and merciful and
the body blow would be hard and heavy. The China of today is no longer
in a state to be nice to India. And if the Indians think they want to
play with fire, with implicit support from the Americans, then they
would be in for a rude shock.
India may think it has arrived, that it is a world power and could do as
it pleased, even to take on China. Go ahead, but don’t regret when
history repeats itself. The first time was ignorance, the second time is
stupidity, to repeat the same mistake. This time the Chinese are well
prepared and no more surprises and sneak attacks. The Chinese will deal
with the Indian forces head on from day one. They are ready, knowing
what the Indians would do from the 1962 experience to take advantage of a
surprise attack against an unprepared enemy. This time China is
waiting.
7/21/2017
Red Dot’s diplomacy
The govt has been harping on the criticism by Kishore Mahbubani over its
hiccup in its relation with China. The angst over the episode is very
hard to get over with in several quarters meaning that what Kishore had
said must have been painful to the ears of some. Over the last few days
the govt has came out very strongly with its principled position
diplomacy as if it is some unknown gem that must be displayed for all to
see.
The key points were guarding and protecting our national interests and territorial integrity and also punching above our weight. The message, Singapore would walk around with a loudspeaker to make sure everyone heard us, that Singapore is not some little country to be trifled with.
Vivian Balakrishnan even called a townhall meeting and had it broadcasted over the national media about how big Singapore was and is, that we are the champion of small states and the interests of small states and the rule of law. Who is/are the intended audience of this ‘koyok’ selling session? Is Kishore the main target, that he had rubbed people the wrong way and must be put in his place? Or are the audience the neighbouring countries or China, the country that was poked, oops, some denied that we did that, and was not amused?
What did Kishore say that must be straightened out? I heard that Kishore was accused of saying something like being small we must compromise our principles and interests, that we should bend out heads and be kicked around or something like that. I am very sure Kishore did not say such things or implied either. It is an over exaggeration to put words into Kishore’s mouth that as a small state we should not speak up and allow others to trample all over us. Kishore was very outspoken on such issues when he was our rep in the UN and the US.
In Vivian’s townhall speech I got it that it was all about ‘we’ or ‘us’ and our interest, that these should not be compromised, our principles, our integrity. No one can dispute such arguments. Even all the smallest states that have been very quiet in their diplomacy would guard their interests and principles vehemently. And I think all the big powers would also appreciate and would accept such a position of small states. But bully they would if conditions allowed.
In diplomacy it is all about influencing other countries to support one’s position and interest. Every country, big and small, is doing this. Singapore too is doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong and unacceptable is to reveal what were said behind closed doors. This is a breach of confidentiality and faith. There is no need to wash such laundry in the open. Behind closed doors, many things would be said, there would be horse trading of all shades and colours. Take your positions or turn down the offers, but there is no need to kpkb in the open about what was spoken. This country or that country wanted us to do this or that. This is bad manners and poor taste in diplomacy!
And in the cause of protecting our principles and interests, it does not mean that we can go around compromising other people’s principles and interests. While we are talking about ‘we and us’ there is a need to know if we have violated or compromise the principles and interests of other parties. A good example is the hosting of American air and naval forces here. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in our national interest to want the Americans to be here. But we need to be careful of what the Americans are doing to others. And we need to be careful in what we said and why the Americans are here for. Telling China that the Americans are invited here to balance their influence is very unfriendly. Some things are left better unsaid. If the Americans are using our facilities to violate, intimidate or threaten the interests of our neighbours or other countries, can we walk around with a halo over our heads and proclaim we are innocent, none of our business, we are not involved?
Every nation state would pursue their national interest at all cost. But while doing so, and it compromises the interest of other states, then it is not so innocent and acceptable by others and one can expect consequences. The Americans’ provocative and belligerent behavior in the South China Sea, and operating from our shores, would not be accepted kindly and would affect our relations with China for sure. Do not do unto others if we don’t want others to do unto us. This must also be a key principle in diplomacy. It cannot be always about ‘we and us’ with no regards to others. This is elementary. This is decency.
The key points were guarding and protecting our national interests and territorial integrity and also punching above our weight. The message, Singapore would walk around with a loudspeaker to make sure everyone heard us, that Singapore is not some little country to be trifled with.
Vivian Balakrishnan even called a townhall meeting and had it broadcasted over the national media about how big Singapore was and is, that we are the champion of small states and the interests of small states and the rule of law. Who is/are the intended audience of this ‘koyok’ selling session? Is Kishore the main target, that he had rubbed people the wrong way and must be put in his place? Or are the audience the neighbouring countries or China, the country that was poked, oops, some denied that we did that, and was not amused?
What did Kishore say that must be straightened out? I heard that Kishore was accused of saying something like being small we must compromise our principles and interests, that we should bend out heads and be kicked around or something like that. I am very sure Kishore did not say such things or implied either. It is an over exaggeration to put words into Kishore’s mouth that as a small state we should not speak up and allow others to trample all over us. Kishore was very outspoken on such issues when he was our rep in the UN and the US.
In Vivian’s townhall speech I got it that it was all about ‘we’ or ‘us’ and our interest, that these should not be compromised, our principles, our integrity. No one can dispute such arguments. Even all the smallest states that have been very quiet in their diplomacy would guard their interests and principles vehemently. And I think all the big powers would also appreciate and would accept such a position of small states. But bully they would if conditions allowed.
In diplomacy it is all about influencing other countries to support one’s position and interest. Every country, big and small, is doing this. Singapore too is doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong and unacceptable is to reveal what were said behind closed doors. This is a breach of confidentiality and faith. There is no need to wash such laundry in the open. Behind closed doors, many things would be said, there would be horse trading of all shades and colours. Take your positions or turn down the offers, but there is no need to kpkb in the open about what was spoken. This country or that country wanted us to do this or that. This is bad manners and poor taste in diplomacy!
And in the cause of protecting our principles and interests, it does not mean that we can go around compromising other people’s principles and interests. While we are talking about ‘we and us’ there is a need to know if we have violated or compromise the principles and interests of other parties. A good example is the hosting of American air and naval forces here. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in our national interest to want the Americans to be here. But we need to be careful of what the Americans are doing to others. And we need to be careful in what we said and why the Americans are here for. Telling China that the Americans are invited here to balance their influence is very unfriendly. Some things are left better unsaid. If the Americans are using our facilities to violate, intimidate or threaten the interests of our neighbours or other countries, can we walk around with a halo over our heads and proclaim we are innocent, none of our business, we are not involved?
Every nation state would pursue their national interest at all cost. But while doing so, and it compromises the interest of other states, then it is not so innocent and acceptable by others and one can expect consequences. The Americans’ provocative and belligerent behavior in the South China Sea, and operating from our shores, would not be accepted kindly and would affect our relations with China for sure. Do not do unto others if we don’t want others to do unto us. This must also be a key principle in diplomacy. It cannot be always about ‘we and us’ with no regards to others. This is elementary. This is decency.
7/20/2017
Peaceful China versus warmonger USA
What are the main differences between a peaceful country and a
warmonger? It is not what they said or claimed to be. It is what they
are doing around the world. In the recent decades with the opening up of
China and China’s participation in world trade after its admission into
the IMF and WTO, China has been actively engaged in all kinds of major
infrastructure projects around the world. And China backed these up by
setting up the AIIB and the BRI to connect the Asian countries together
to advance trade and economic activities.
China is not just talking and investing in the BRI projects that joined the Asian countries by land and sea. China is also attempting to open another route through the Arctic region. A massive US$20.1b has been budgeted by China towards these projects. Apart from the high speed railroads crisscrossing Asia to Europe and Africa, the Chinese are also building high speed rails in the Americas and Africa. The Chinese are also intensely involved in the development of ports from Greece through the India Ocean littoral states, Malaysia and Indonesia and in Papua New Guinea.
In Malaysia alone, the four key projects of Melaka Gateway, Kuala Linggi Port, Penang Port and Kuantan Port would cost China US$10.5b. In Indonesia, the development of Tanjung Priok Port would be to the tune of US$590m.
Arctic route ports that are in the pipeline are Norwegian port in Kirkenes, Russian port Arkangelsk in Siberia, and Klaipeda port in Lithuanian to complete the opening up of an Arctic sea route.
And as usual, asshole thinkers like Jonathan Hilman, director at the Centre for Strategic an International Studies started to put up a spin on the possible use of such ports for ‘non commercial activities like hosting military forces and collecting intelligence.’ Aren’t these activities the key roles of American military and non military installations and bases around the world? Further, he did not admit that these ports are in the sovereign territories of the respective countries and military activities would not be allowed without the approval of these independent states.
While China is deeply involved and spending hundreds of billions in such economic projects, what is the world’s number one warmongering nation doing? No need to guess. It is building more and more military bases, forming military alliances, developing and selling more deadly weapons of mass destruction and threatening other countries with sanctions and wars. The USA has run out of ideas. It is only interested in wars and creating tensions around the world. It is spending all its limited resources in weapons and everything related to wars, about wars and nothing about economic development and trade. It backed away from the TTP and even the Paris Climate Change accord.
These are the stark contrasts between a peaceful super power and a warmongering super power. One is about trade and economic development and the other is about wars and more wars. What else do the Americans think they can contribute to the world other than wars and selling weapons for wars?
How many more pieces of evidence are required to wake up the unthinking Asians to call a spade a spade instead of being misled by the western media to believe the Americans are for peace and China is for war? Who is fighting wars in the Middle East and going to start a war in the Korean Peninsula and possibly the South China Sea?
China is not just talking and investing in the BRI projects that joined the Asian countries by land and sea. China is also attempting to open another route through the Arctic region. A massive US$20.1b has been budgeted by China towards these projects. Apart from the high speed railroads crisscrossing Asia to Europe and Africa, the Chinese are also building high speed rails in the Americas and Africa. The Chinese are also intensely involved in the development of ports from Greece through the India Ocean littoral states, Malaysia and Indonesia and in Papua New Guinea.
In Malaysia alone, the four key projects of Melaka Gateway, Kuala Linggi Port, Penang Port and Kuantan Port would cost China US$10.5b. In Indonesia, the development of Tanjung Priok Port would be to the tune of US$590m.
Arctic route ports that are in the pipeline are Norwegian port in Kirkenes, Russian port Arkangelsk in Siberia, and Klaipeda port in Lithuanian to complete the opening up of an Arctic sea route.
And as usual, asshole thinkers like Jonathan Hilman, director at the Centre for Strategic an International Studies started to put up a spin on the possible use of such ports for ‘non commercial activities like hosting military forces and collecting intelligence.’ Aren’t these activities the key roles of American military and non military installations and bases around the world? Further, he did not admit that these ports are in the sovereign territories of the respective countries and military activities would not be allowed without the approval of these independent states.
While China is deeply involved and spending hundreds of billions in such economic projects, what is the world’s number one warmongering nation doing? No need to guess. It is building more and more military bases, forming military alliances, developing and selling more deadly weapons of mass destruction and threatening other countries with sanctions and wars. The USA has run out of ideas. It is only interested in wars and creating tensions around the world. It is spending all its limited resources in weapons and everything related to wars, about wars and nothing about economic development and trade. It backed away from the TTP and even the Paris Climate Change accord.
These are the stark contrasts between a peaceful super power and a warmongering super power. One is about trade and economic development and the other is about wars and more wars. What else do the Americans think they can contribute to the world other than wars and selling weapons for wars?
How many more pieces of evidence are required to wake up the unthinking Asians to call a spade a spade instead of being misled by the western media to believe the Americans are for peace and China is for war? Who is fighting wars in the Middle East and going to start a war in the Korean Peninsula and possibly the South China Sea?
7/19/2017
New manpower strategy
MOM, NTUC and SNEF put up a press release on a new manpower strategy for
Singapore. The three main points, one, enhanced internship and training
for new entrants into the industry, two, self help HR portal for
employers and three, provide free HR solutions and expertise to SMEs.
Good, but what about the influx of foreigners to replace Singaporeans? Would the above three points address the concerns of Singaporeans looking for jobs? No, non issue? What are the real problems facing Singaporeans today when many graduates are finding difficulties in getting jobs here and ended underemployed or unemployed while foreigners just waltz into the island and found jobs aplenty, almost instantly employed?
For the last couple of decades, there appears to be a de facto manpower authority that is setting the agenda and strategies for Singapore’s employment scene and the authority of this de facto agency is foreigners. They set the rules and dictate who should be employed, who is skilled, qualified, what kind of degrees or fake degrees are acceptable, and in most cases to the detriment of Singaporeans. Maybe this is a fake issue, that the employment scene for Singaporeans is healthy and bustling and nothing needs to be done, everything is fine?
Is there a problem? Are Singaporeans being replaced by foreigners and becoming redundant, unskilled and obsolete? The impression I have is that the problem is very serious. But maybe I am getting fed the wrong information by people who are paranoid. Everything is fine. If that is the case, then the new strategies would be fine. Singaporeans would be happy with the employment scene and things would even be better, rosier by the days. Nothing to worry about.
What do you think? What is real or fake news?
Good, but what about the influx of foreigners to replace Singaporeans? Would the above three points address the concerns of Singaporeans looking for jobs? No, non issue? What are the real problems facing Singaporeans today when many graduates are finding difficulties in getting jobs here and ended underemployed or unemployed while foreigners just waltz into the island and found jobs aplenty, almost instantly employed?
For the last couple of decades, there appears to be a de facto manpower authority that is setting the agenda and strategies for Singapore’s employment scene and the authority of this de facto agency is foreigners. They set the rules and dictate who should be employed, who is skilled, qualified, what kind of degrees or fake degrees are acceptable, and in most cases to the detriment of Singaporeans. Maybe this is a fake issue, that the employment scene for Singaporeans is healthy and bustling and nothing needs to be done, everything is fine?
Is there a problem? Are Singaporeans being replaced by foreigners and becoming redundant, unskilled and obsolete? The impression I have is that the problem is very serious. But maybe I am getting fed the wrong information by people who are paranoid. Everything is fine. If that is the case, then the new strategies would be fine. Singaporeans would be happy with the employment scene and things would even be better, rosier by the days. Nothing to worry about.
What do you think? What is real or fake news?
7/18/2017
Moon Jae In’s dangerous overtures to North Korea
South Korean President Moon Jae In has made good his election pledge to
reduce tension with North Korea by proposing direct talks between the
top military officers of the two states. Some reports have come out
saying that this is a dangerous policy to deal with the North. How
dangerous could it be? To the western narrative and thinking, the North
Koreans are mad people and cannot be trusted. So talking to them about
peace is a dangerous thing to do.
I have a different take on this. The first South Korean President Park Chung Hee that initiated talking with the North to reunite the two states was assassinated. By who? Definitely not by the North Koreans or by pro unification South Koreans. This is how dangerous it is to talk with the North and to think of reunification. Moon Jae In got to walk gingerly along this path and be wary of reunification talks if he wants to avoid being assassinated. It is a treacherous path.
The other dangerous things that could happen while Moon Jae In is proceeding with talks with the North is that there could be more false flag incidents to depict the North Koreans as untrustworthy, dangerous and mad. Such false flag incidents could the sinking of South Korean ships or attacks on South Korean installations, acts that are obviously ‘committed’ by the North without much thinking.
The South Koreans must be very careful and alert to the risks and dangers along the way for peaceful talks and in the longer term a reunification of the two states. When reunification takes place like in Germany and in Vietnam, there is no reason for the deployment of Thaad missiles in Korean soil, there will be no reason for American bases in Korea and the South Korean armed forces would not be controlled by the Americans as their supreme commander. The stakes are too high.
A peaceful Korean peninsula, a reunification of the two Koreans, must not take place and any South Korean president taking this road is flirting with his own safety and possible assassination. It is a dangerous policy to pursue.
I have a different take on this. The first South Korean President Park Chung Hee that initiated talking with the North to reunite the two states was assassinated. By who? Definitely not by the North Koreans or by pro unification South Koreans. This is how dangerous it is to talk with the North and to think of reunification. Moon Jae In got to walk gingerly along this path and be wary of reunification talks if he wants to avoid being assassinated. It is a treacherous path.
The other dangerous things that could happen while Moon Jae In is proceeding with talks with the North is that there could be more false flag incidents to depict the North Koreans as untrustworthy, dangerous and mad. Such false flag incidents could the sinking of South Korean ships or attacks on South Korean installations, acts that are obviously ‘committed’ by the North without much thinking.
The South Koreans must be very careful and alert to the risks and dangers along the way for peaceful talks and in the longer term a reunification of the two states. When reunification takes place like in Germany and in Vietnam, there is no reason for the deployment of Thaad missiles in Korean soil, there will be no reason for American bases in Korea and the South Korean armed forces would not be controlled by the Americans as their supreme commander. The stakes are too high.
A peaceful Korean peninsula, a reunification of the two Koreans, must not take place and any South Korean president taking this road is flirting with his own safety and possible assassination. It is a dangerous policy to pursue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)