Is Tuas mega port a white elephant?

The Tuas mega port is going to cause the govt several billion dollars and the govt is desperate for money, a very strange phenomenon if one is to believe that we have nearly one trillion dollars in reserves. Why would Khaw Boon Wan come out in public to announce that the govt has no money to pay for this port? What is a few billion dollars when you have nearly a trillion dollars stashed away? Quite puzzling indeed. Something fishy is going on.

The Tuas mega port is several times the size of the present port facilities and to build such a big port it means that the govt is anticipating at least a doubling in growth of shipping using the port. Otherwise it would indeed be a white elephant, building for the sake of building to boost up the GDP.

The big question, would there really be a big increase in shipping traffic or a big fall instead. Chinese shipping criss crossing Singapore makes up more than 80% of all shippings through the Straits of Malacca. If the Chinese diverted all their ships to Malacca or elsewhere, the ships calling at Tuas would go down by 80% from the present number. Even with the present capacity it would be over provided and our port would be a white elephant. If Tuas mega port is going to handle only 20% of existing shipping traffic, it would look like a ghost port, and indeed a white elephant.

This likelihood is a great possibility given the Chinese plan to be less dependent on Singapore port and the massive developments of Malacca, Gwadar and ports in Myanmar and the eventuality of a Kra Canal. The fate of Tuas mega port is hanging on a string given the present political equation.

Could Singapore turn the tide and preserve its preeminent position as the main port of call for Chinese shipping and prevent the ships from diverting to other ports? This is the tricky situation Singapore is in today, to build a mega port that could end up as a white elephant and wasting public funds in doing so.

The fate of Tuas mega port and Singapore as a thriving sea port depends on China's shipping policies which ultimately boils down to Singapore's strategic balance between China and the USA. China would want to have as many ports of call as possible to spread out its dependence on anyone port. It wants to have options. All the ports it is building are in countries that are very fickle minded and highly undependable. Malaysia has just made a volte face and threatening to derail everything the Chinese are building, including the Malacca port. This is the treacherous position of China when dealing with equality slippery leaders in the region. The cancellation of Malacca and the rail projects would mean Malaysia is no longer in the BRI and brings hope of Singapore becoming indispensable again.

Not really, as China may find the need to cut the Isthmus of Kra more urgent. What can Singapore do to regain its choice place in the Chinese equation? Ideally, it would be best for Singapore to do its balancing act well, with a real balance between China and the US with the Chinese feeling more secure, that the American threats to their interest in transiting the area within their control or not at the mercy of the Americans and a Singapore that is neutral to both.

A better option would be a more pro China policy, relatively to the US to enhance and encourage Chinese shipping here without having to spend huge funds to build up Malacca port or cutting the Kra Canal. Think about it, what can the Americans offer that China could not offer and who can offer more? The security aspect of American forces to protect Singapore's interest is something China is equally capable of doing today. And everything else the Americans could do or offer, China could offer more. The biggest consumer market in the world, a growing economy to rival the Americans, the factory of the world, the BRI and of course to channel its shipping to Tuas mega port. This last part the Americans could only do a fraction of what the Chinese could offer.

A more favourable foreign policy towards China would hook up Singapore to the world's biggest growth engine in the 21st Century versus a dying evil Empire. What is there to lose for redefining its foreign policies towards China?

There is hope that Tuas mega port would not be a white elephant if Singapore plays its cards right. And there is certain death if it does not change its one sided pro American or anti China policies. Start by clearing the swamp in the main media from publishing anti China and biased American views against China. Singapore still has an outside chance to save its position as a vital sea port of call for Chinese shipping. Remember, without the 80% of ships calling here, Singapore is dead duck.

How many native Red Indians have the European Americans massacred?

Pompeo got the cheek to ask China to disclose how many protestors were killed in the Tiananmen Square Incident. China must not be polite to these rude and mischievous hypocrites. China should reply with a few sets of embarrassing questions to these white rogues pretending to be angels. Wang Yi should raise them in the next meeting with the Americans, best in the White House or in the UN. Just do it one at a time.
 
The few questions that China should pointedly ask them are as follows:
1. How many native Red Indians have the European Americans massacred?
2. How many African natives have they enslaved?
3. How many African slaves have they lynched or murdered?
4. How many Hawaiians have they massacred when they took over the islands?
5. How many Pinoys have they massacred during their colonization of the islands?
6. How many Japanese have they killed when they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
7. How many more Japanese did they killed in the carpet bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities?
8. How many North Koreans have they killed when they carpet bombed North Korea?
9. How many Vietnamese have they killed when they carpet bombed Vietnam and how many died or suffered from their chemical agents in Vietnam?
10. How many innocent Iraqis were killed in their invasion of Iraq and random bombing of the country?
11. Ask the Americans how many prisoners were tortured against the Geneva Convention and human rights in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib concentration camps and how many died in their hands after being tortured.
 
I could go on and on. The crimes of the Americans against humanity can filled a library and still needing more space to write. For the time this would suffice. China should hold memorial anniversaries for the massacre of the native Red Indians and the freeing of the African slaves, and also anniversaries to mark the lynching of the African slaves and many more.
 
The people of the world must not forget the butchers of human civilizations.

HSR - An undiplomatic request through 'diplomatic' channel

"SINGAPORE: Singapore has requested that the Malaysian Government clarify its position on the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore high-speed rail (HSR) project, Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan said in a statement on Friday (Jun 1).

He said that Singapore made this request through "diplomatic channels" following media reports of Malaysia's decision to terminate the project. He also said that Singapore would exercise its rights to compensation if the project was terminated.

"We have informed the Malaysian Government that Singapore is continuing to incur costs on this project as it awaits Malaysia’s clarification, and that in the event Malaysia terminates the project, Singapore will study the implications and exercise our rights (including any right to compensation for expenses incurred) in accordance with the terms of the HSR bilateral agreement," said Mr Khaw."

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-asks-malaysia-to-clarify-position-on-kl-singapore-hsr-10315158

The above is the request made by Singapore to Malaysia on their unilateral cancellation of the project, without consulting Singapore. It was a rather rude and undiplomatic way to cancel a major contract between two states, in the style of Donald Trump. Singapore is offended for sure. Not a whisper and just say no and that's it.

To be fair to Mahathir, he was not targeting, Singapore was not his main concern. His has to cancel the project because he was going after Najib. Singapore's reaction in the media, calling it through 'diplomatic channels' is as undiplomatic as the undiplomatic diplomats attacking China openly on the South China Sea island dispute with the Philippines only to back down when China slammed them real hard. 

The content in the media is as good as telling Mahathir to explain, and Singapore would not take his one sided decision as final, and would continue to work on the project and billed him should the project be finally cancelled. Is this diplomatic? How would Mahathir react to such a public spat?

Yes, this is going to become a public spat. And the last thing Singapore needs is another public cross border spat with Malaysia. Mahathir has shown his middle finger to the Americans as well as you know who. In this case, Mahathir see no one up and he may simply throw the project file into a corner of his room for the next two years without looking at it. What can Singapore do about it? Go to the ICJ and start another international litigation process?

If Singapore treasures its good relations with Malaysia, it is best to deal with this case between the ministries, and not under the spotlight. What good is it to Singapore to show that it has balls and standing up to Malaysia and Mahathir? Do not be surprise that Singapore may come out and say, for good relations between the two states, Singapore would waive all compensation for the work done on the project and say it would renegotiate with the future govt when things are favourable.

But fighting cocks are fighting cocks and cannot resist a fight. Another show is brewing. Just wait for Mahathir to open his mouth on this. Rubbing up Mahathir the wrong way is not helpful at this point in time. Lim Guan Eng has diplomatically said that the project may be revived in the future. But to demand Mahathir to explain in the media and telling him Singapore would not take no for an answer without explanation is totally unnecessary and provocative.

And this was what Lim Eng Guan advised Singapore, diplomatically.

"Let him (Mahathir) move at his own pace," added Mr Lim. "I'm sure I'll get the necessary directions when it's ready. You don't pressure the Malaysian prime minister."

Mr Lim said that Malaysia "understand(s) the sensitivity ... that the cancellation of these projects has cost to neighbouring countries".  CNA

US View of Status Quo in South China Sea Is Outrageous And ASEAN's View Selfish And Ignorant

I refer to the Shangrila Dialogue on Sunday, 3rd of June, 2018  with reference to a misguided statement about preserving the status quo in the South China Sea issue. What is the "Status Quo" they are talking? As a paradox I will tell a story . A few of Mr. X bad neighbours had entered his courtyard and stole some of his chickens. The  rogue leader in the village who had interest in the stolen goods then told Mr X to accept the fait accompli - the status quo in order to preserve peace in the village. It is the same when Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei were goaded by the rogue state USA to steal many of the Chinese islands in the South China Sea in the early 1960s and 1970s when China had no credible navy to speak of to supervise and maintain security of Chinese sovereignty over the Chinese island territories in the South China Sea. Now China is strong and powerful enough to assert her legal and lawful rights in her former territories. China is not even chasing the robbers away from the Chinese islands they occupy. Instead China just reclaim some of the shoals and islets from the sea and build some defensive facilities to ensure China,s security in the South China Sea from further encroachment by the thieves and robbers and by the rogue Americans. If this is the status quo US or Mr Ng is speaking of it is totally unacceptable to China and all respectable and dignified Chinese wherever they may be.

The Evil Empire - USA and the misinformed ASEAN ministers and politicians must be clear and more specific when they talk about preserving the 'status quo' in the South China Sea.

Since ancient times China had founded the Paracel and Spratly islands as well as many more of the atols, shoals and islets in the South China Sea and these have been part of Chinese sovereign territories since time immemorial. Even when the British buccaneers encroached on China from the 1830s to 1950s and the French conquest of parts of Southern China and Indo-China in 1885 they never challenge Chinese sovereignty over these islands. These islands were occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War , 1937 to 1945.

After the Second World War , under the terms of Japanese surrender as imposed by the United Nations and witnessed and signed by all the big powers including US, Russia, UK, France, China and even Japan too , all the South China Sea islands inclusive of the Paracel and Spratly islands, the Scaborough Islands and the rest of the island archipelagos as well as the Diau Yudao or Senkaku as called by the Japanese  were lawfully and legally returned to China which was then nominally ruled by a pro-US decadent government of Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomingtang  - KMT  which was having a civil war with Chairman Mao's communist party from 1930s to 1949.

But when Chairman Mao's People Republic of China won the civil war and China came under the rule of  the Chinese communist party, the rogue Americans then reneged on the terms of the Japanese surrender. US first illaterally and illegally transfered its trustiship  in the administration of Diau Yudao to Japan in 1976 without China's agreement and without consultation with the United Nations Organisation . Then in the  1970s realising its hold on South East Asia was untenable because it sensed defeat coming soon in the Vietnam war and at the time when China was still weak without a credible navy to oversee  and maintain China's sovereignty over her South China Sea island territories , a few South East Asia land robbers with the instigation and support of America began to steal many of the Chinese islands. The Vietnamese stole 25 islands , Philippines 12, Malaysia 9 and Brunei 5. Even Indonesia quietly encroached on a large part of the Chinese fishing ground.

US and its western allies kept quiet when Vietnam and the Philippines began to fortify the islands they occupied with military installations. They assume these stolen islands as their fait accompli possessions inspite of China.s protest and they were very bravado about it because they have the rogue Americans backing them.

The fact that China has a communist government does not in any  sense legally or otherwise nullify the original terms of the Japanese surrender . Whether China is rule by the KMT or communist or by whatever ideological government for it is after all still a Chinese state and no amount of excuse or treachery is allowed to transcend and nullify the original terms of Japanese surrender pertaining to the return of Chinese territories in the East  China and South China Sea. That is in essence the prevailing legal status quo at the point of history and must be seen to be adopted and respected at all times by all countries in due respect to Chinese rights and sovereignty.

However the prevailing status quo was sinisterly breached and broken by the treacherous Americans who insidiously reneged on the original terms of Japanese surrender just because China now has a communist government which is anathema to US interest. So if any ASEAN politician or minister wants to talk of status quo pertaining to the South China Sea issues they must be clear minded and conversant with the true historical and political perspective of the region and not base on guess work, personal or private opinion and worst on massive American worldwide toxic propaganda. They must courageously tell Americans to the face to honour the  original terms of the Japanese surrender failing which they will appear to show that they are biasly pro-America and anti-China and that does not bode well for ASEAN and Asia as a whole.

Further under US outrageous view of status quo which has somehow influenced and poisoned the thinking of some silly ASEAN member countries it is tantamount to asking China to submit to US demand that China must somehow sacrifice and give up her ownership and sovereignty of her South China Sea islands and territorial seas in order to placate the insatiable appetite of American. aggression .

The ugly and evil hands of US and its western allies are always at work to undermine China in all spheres of life be it political, economic, financial or territorial. In 1986 they contrived the idea of UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea which allowed maritime countries to claim up to 200 miles economic zone offshore . China as a maritime country supported the agreement but with the proviso that it must not supercede and impinge on China's historical rights and sovereignty over all her existing South China Sea island territories and territorial seas.

However though the US and some western countries dishonourably refused to sign , they nevertheless insisted that China should accept the unlawful claims of many of these Chinese islands by Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei because they are within two hundred miles offshore of these countries totally ignoring Chinese existing rights , sovereignty and interest.

It is very clear that US and the West connived and contrived this UNCLOS treaty with a view to create trouble and problems for East Asians and to disadvantage China vis-a-vis her neighbouring South China Sea littoral states. In short the Evil Empire and its western allies had plotted long in advance the Arab Middle East syndrome of permanent wars and instabilities for East Asia and the South China Sea periphery.

Had the US signed the treaty America would have to give up many of her ill gotten illegal   possessions of territories like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Marshall Islands and many other small islands in the Pacific Ocean and UK and France will have to surrender many of the islands in the Indian Ocean like Diego Garcia and the Falkland Island and some other islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Where is the logic when China legally and rightfully build some defense facilities in her own territories it is strongly objected by US and its Western allies , whereas on the contrary US has built over a thousand military bases all over the world and in other people's lands which they acquired by coercion to surround China and Russia menacingly in threatening posture not only to threaten China and Russia but also to awe and blackmail other smaller weaker countries into submission to American dictates and hegemony. This evil satanic aspect of the Evil Empire has been overlooked or ignored by many ASEAN ministers and politicians either through ignorance or fear of the monster and so they tend to echo America''s false accusations against China. To the Americans and its Western allies China is not even allowed to have the right to light a lamp but they have every right to pervertly build big and strong ferocious fires at China's door steps.

It is time ASEAN and the world must wake up and in unison with United Nations Organisation demand that America close down and dismantle all its worldwide military bases . These bases cannot be for peace but for wanton US aggression and total hegemony over all other people and countries on earth.

Southernglory1

Tuesday, 5th June, 2018

Singapore's elusive reserves

"For strange reasons, the PAP has refused to disclose the size of our past reserves.
For stranger reasons, past reserves could be depleted/kosong but Singaporeans will still be informed that the funds are still there....It’s about time President Halimah does her job and disclose the tens of billions that have quietly left our reserves.  Or have been lost."  Phillip Ang

Phillip Ang posted another article on the nation's reserves and questioned if there is any left and how much have been lost.

For a start, someone should raise in Parliament on the 28 times or 30 times that the reserves were drawn down during Nathan's watch. The people want to know the reasons for these drawdowns and how much were drawn down and how much were put back. We only learnt of these drawn downs but no details were given, or at least that is all I know.

Was the details made known when these were highlighted in Parliament? Can someone enlighten on these?