What the world would be like like without the USA or China?

Many people would have taken sides to praise or curse at the USA and China, being the two super powers on earth and influencing and affecting every country when they sneezed. Let's take a look at the world if one of these powers is not around.

What would the world be like without the USA?

Take the case of the world without the USA. The Red Indians or native Indians would still be the owners of North America and the buffaloes would roam the prairies. There would be no nuclear bombs, no air planes, no automobiles, no electricity, no apples or computers and mobile phones and many modern inventions and conveniences.

There would also be no wars of the scale the Americans are committing, no genocides of Red Indians and Arabs, no mass murders of the Koreans and Vietnamese, no Korea War or Vietnam war, no invasion of Iraq and Libya. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi would still be alive. And no CIA to finance, train, finance and support terrorist movements. The Americans are desperately trying to save their terrorists holed up in Idlib, Syria, to avert them from being wiped out by the Russians. And likely no drug syndicates supported by the CIA to provide funds for the CIAs do commit more war crimes and crimes against humanity.

There will be no little USAs trying to punch above their weights, challenging and provoking China and Russia.

And there will be no democracy to talk about. The world would be a little more primitive, but more peaceful, without wars and all the sophisticated war machine for killing more people.

What would the world be like without China?

There would be no Belt and Road Initiative, no big infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa. There would be no rude Chinese tourists throwing their money everywhere and demanding attention. There would be no cheap consumer products for the poor and not so rich. Consumers would still be buying super expensive IBMs and Apple products, expensive computers and mobile phones, no cheap and good Xiaomis or Huaweis or Oppos and household appliances.

The third world countries would have no access to cheap financing to develop their countries. The raw material rich countries would not have big buyers like China to buy their raw materials, or according to the western narrative, to exploit their natural resources for cash or developments. The bulk of Australian natural resources in 480 bulk carriers now circulating outside Chinese ports is a good example of not just having the natural resources, you must have a willing buyer or else your natural resources would be as good as dirt if no one wants to buy them. Australia can try to sell to Europe, Japan and USA and see if there are takers. In this case, obviously no takers.

Without China, the Americans would continue to rule the world and bully everyone with regime change and military threats. I think there would be no wars as the Americans would over power every country and rule over them. There would be no resistance to the American fire power. There is another view to this. Wars would continue as the Americans need to create wars to sell their war machine or else their military war complexes and industries would close down, no buyers, no need for weapons and war machines.

Would the world be more blessed, a better place, without China or the USA?

PS. Without the Americans, there would be peace in the Middle East. Israel would be history. There would be several million Arabs still alive and populating the area instead of being war collateral, American's modern day version of genocide. If the Arabs are still fighting among themselves, they would be using knives and riding on camels.

Chinese mega projects in Malaysia are dubious?

Below is Anwar Ibrahim's reply to questions on Mahathir's cancellation of Chinese projects while he was in Hong Kong attending a forum.

'Mahathir has made waves pushing back on Chinese investment, warning Beijing against ‘new colonialism.’ Should buyers beware?

Clearly what he meant was any form of neo-colonialism and imperialism will not be tolerated. I think most of us share that view. [The concerns are] tied to some of the cancellations of massive development contracts. This is partly due to the stark realities we have to face. We can’t afford a mammoth, 55 billion Ringgit ($13 billion) project now. And secondly, there were issues raised about these dubious deals made with Chinese companies. I think we have every right to reevaluate and reassess these projects, not only with China, but with all countries.

Below is Anwar Ibrahim's reply to questions on Mahathir's cancellation of Chinese projects while he was in Hong Kong attending a forum. ' Time

What were so dubious about these projects? The projects themselves were dubious, useless? Or were they too costly? How many infrastructure projects are cheap and good and not built with cost recoverable over long term, like the North South Highway or the Crooked Bridge?

Or were the projects dubious because the people approving it were dubious? Or were the money flow dubious? I make a qualification here. The 'dubious' project thing is not from Anwar. He is just parroting it as it is the right thing to do at the moment. He cannot go against whoever started this nonsense.

What is so dubious about these projects that one day they are useless but another day they are useful, one day cancelled and another day ok to build?  Or the projects were dubious because dubious people insisted to call them dubious for their personal dubious reasons?

The projects were approved by heads of govt and even the heads of states like the sultans. Are these people dubious? Are these people stupid, traitors to their own country to approve these so called 'dubious' mega projects? By branding these projects as dubious, it is as good as saying all those people that approved these projects are dubious, stupid and traitors to Malaysia, or corrupt leaders with their hands grabbing money from these projects. Is this the case? Is this the accusation?

Najib is in no position to make his case on why he approved all these projects. But there are other leaders and sultans involved. Were they given a chance to state their case or is it a case of power rules and the one in power decides to call anything dubious according to his fancy?

One word, 'dubious' has discredited and tarred the integrity and credibility of many Malaysian leaders, or at least saying that they are all fools, not knowing what they approved and were causing harm to Malaysia. Would Mahathir be prosecuting all those involved in negotiating, signing and approving these projects since they are 'dubious' for crimes against the state?

Anwar lecturing Singapore

Anwar was invited to give a lecture at the Singapore Summit on 15 Sep.  It was  reported that the who's who of Singapore were there. The live broadcast showed ex President Tony Tan, ex PM Goh Chok Tong, ex Foreign Minister George Yeo and ex MP Zainul Abidin among the VIPs presence. No serving minister or MP were present, other than MP Goh Chok Tong. I am wondering why like dat. Maybe it is protocol that serving ministers and MPs need not be present to listen to an ex PM of Malaysia who is now not even an MP. Maybe they will all be present when Anwar becomes the PM.

In his response to a touchy question raised by moderator Ho Kwon Ping, Anwar said if and when he becomes the next PM. Everyone is asking about if and when and whether he would be played out by Mahathir a second time. Maybe this is another important point why no serving minister or MP think it is necessary to attend to get to know Anwar better to prepare for his next role as PM.

Here are some of the key points of Anwar's lecture to a Singapore audience. Anwar stressed that the main goals of the new govt is to ensure there is judicial independence and a free media. Under Najib's govt, there was corruption and abuse of power. Too much power rested in the executive and this must be checked. The new govt has given independence to the judiciary and allowing the media to speak the truth. No more fake news or half truths as under the previous regime. Even the anti corruption agency, MACC, is now answerable not to the PM but direct to Parliament To protect judiciary independence, the auditor general will not report to the PM.

What Mahathir's govt has done is to curb the arrogance of power, mismanagement of the country and crimes against the country and people and rooting out corruption. The other points raised was to stop govt intervention and political patronage in the economy. And also the parliament would not become just a rubber stamp for the govt.

Are there any relevance in what Anwar was saying about Malaysia and Singapore?

Fandi is finally easing into the national coach position

There seems to be an awakening that finally, after going around the world in circus for the last few decades, that we finally realised that we need to have trust and faith in our own talent. Or is it that after wasting so much public fund on foreign talents, the standard of our football did not improve but gone into the gutters to jolt some senses into our stupidity has no cure mind? We are now not  even able to compete with our Asean football teams and always kena whacked when they met. The delusion of being in the finals of the World Cup is becoming a reality. No amount of money thrown away could get us anywhere near that goal. It is not just money. Yes it is stupidity, the lack of pride and confidence in our people, shown everywhere, that angmoh or foreigner tua kee is the way to go.

The recent Asian Games in Jakarta is an eye opener, seeing so many of the Asian teams doing so well with their own local, oops, I mean citizens as their national coaches. They do not need to be coached by foreigners to do well. They don’t have the angmoh tua kee mentality, that only angmohs can help and do wonders. So finally they have come back to Fandi to save the day.

Other than this craziness for angmoh tua kee, what else have they found out that is wrong in our football? It is not so simple as not hiring angmoh coaches as there are more problems than meet the eyes.

Fandi and other Singaporean coaches have been exposed to foreign coaching, their strategies, techniques and trade secrets for many years. Unless they are so daft, which is not the case, they must have learnt and knew enough to coach the national team like the other Asean coaches of their respective national teams to success.

Leaving Fandi alone to carry the can is unfair to him. The whole football culture and organization have to change and Fandi needs all the support to turn a bad case around. He must fire all the prima donnas who thought they have arrived just because they are in the national team. He also needs time to do his job, not another few months or maybe a few years to do wonders. Remember, so many angmoh tua kee coaches, so many years and so much money wasted and we are not getting anywhere but from bad to worse.  Maybe we need to drain the swamp before there is light at the end of the tunnel. Do not expect Fandi to turn the average players into international soccer stars and the national team into a champion over night.

Ministers and MPs were paid 4 months bonus? Or was it 10 months or more?

According to media reports, Hsien Loong made his reply to questions by Leon Perera ‘who had asked about bonus paid to Cabinet ministers in the last five years in terms of the average total of bonus months, and the highest and lowest total of bonus months paid to an individual minister.’ What was Leon Perera asking? What bonus was he talking about? The term he used is so general. Did he know that there are many kinds of bonuses being paid to the Cabinet ministers eg performance bonus, monthly salary bonus, 13^th month bonus, national bonus and a variable component as reported in thenewpaper?  So there are at least 5 specific bonuses paid to the Cabinet ministers.

What was Leon Perera asking, all the bonuses paid to the Cabinet ministers or just the performance bonus? I think he is asking for all the bonuses that were paid to the Cabinet ministers, not just the performance bonus.

Hsien Loong’s reply in Parliament was about performance bonus and he said that in the last 5 years ministers got between 3 to 6 months of performance bonus with the average being 4.1 months and a high of 4.5 months in 2015. All the main media that reported on this issue printed in big and bold headlines that the ministers were paid an average of 4.1 months of bonuses and were silent on how many more months of bonuses they were paid in total.

It is thus easy for the public or readers of this news to go away thinking that the ministers only got 4.1 months of bonuses. Is this what Leon Perera wanted to know or he was asking for the total bonuses paid to the ministers, including all kinds of bonuses? If that was his question, why did he not ask Hsien Loong that he wanted to know not just the performance bonus? Maybe he did raise this but not reported in the main media and the issue was closed. No further question.

Roy Ngerng in his article posted in the TRE, including his computation of all the bonuses gave a different figure.  In 2014 Roy posted this in his blog thehearttruths.com, ‘But do you know that the prime minister is able to earn up to 26.5 months of pay?

This is what he gets to earn: 12-month pay, 13th month bonus, Up to 1.5 months Annual Variable Component, Up to 12 months national bonus.’

In his latest article posted in the TRE titled ‘Comparing the obscene salaries of our DPM and PM against Singapore’s poor’, Roy posted this:

‘Now, let me calculate the prime minister’s salary for you. He does not get a performance bonus because it is claimed that “there is no one to assess his individual performance”. (Shouldn’t his performance be assessed by you – his boss?)

So, what does he get? He gets 2 times the National Bonus (up to 12 months). Here’s the breakdown. [National Bonus (NB) formula: https://www.psd.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/cos2018/annex-b-2017-salary-review-report.pdf]

(1) The base salary of the Singapore prime minister is S$2.2 million.
(2) His 13th-month annual allowance is S$220,000.
(3) Assuming he also gets an annual variable component of 1 month (max 1.5 months), he gets another S$220,000.
(4) The prime minister’s NB is twice as high as the other ministers, so he would have gotten 9 months of NB bonus last year. This would be S$1.65 million. His NB bonus alone is nearly 3 times the salary of the president of the United States.
(5) In total, the prime minister received a total bonus/allowance of at least 10 months.

In total, the Singapore prime minister would have earned at least S$4.29 million. This is nearly 2 times his base salary, and even higher than his base salary of S$3.07 million in 2007.

But this is not even it.

All the ministers also can get an additional Special Variable Payment. There is no stated limit to this payment.’

So, what do you think?