The last decade or so after the demise of LKY, Singapore has chosen to
follow the Americans and played the role of little USAs, dancing like
little puppets on a string, depending on which string the Americans were
pulling. It has a lot of advantages, primarily it gave Singapore the
luxury of punching above its weight, sitting on the shoulder of American
might. Singapore was so arrogant and confident that with the Americans
behind, it could kick anyone it liked, behaving like a spoilt brat.
China was no exception and treated just like another state to be told
off, to be challenged with total disrespect as if Singapore was an equal
to China’s economic and military might. The blaring at China to follow
the dubious ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ funny private court
formed by one party on the South China Sea dispute was the last straw,
and China hit back. It was a rude awakening, that small country could
not anyhow barked at big powers and thought it could get away with it.
The reality was so shocking to those that advocated punching above its
weight and totally relied on and be dependent on the Americans for its
security concerns. This blind belief in American power was given a
rough jolt and a thorough review on this policy was undertaken.
Singapore paid a heavy price for listening to wrong advice from people
who had fallen asleep and did not know what was happening in the world
of big power relations, people who believed in their own delusion of
greatness.
The Americans were no longer the Americans they used to know. The China
was no longer the China they knew. It was late than never to wake up to
the new reality. The world has changed while Singapore happily took a
nap, thinking that all was well, all was the same.
Subsequent to the new developments and a new awakening, Singapore took a
deep breath and found that it has to reshape its position vis a vis the
new balance of power. The American way is no longer the way to a safe
and secure future. The belligerent and warring path of the evil Empire
would only drag Singapore into more troubles and enmeshed in disputes
and wars that it needed not be involved. There is a need for rebalancing
and to take a new policy forward for the good of Singapore. Putting all
its eggs into the American basket is not the right way or safe way
going forward.
The Americans’ isolationist and unilateral policies of going alone and
thinking American first policy make things clearer and easier for
Singapore to change direction. Free trade, multilateralism and rule of
law are what were good for Singapore and what Singapore stood for. But
whither Singapore if it stops taking sides with the Americans blindly to
create trouble all over the world, starting wars, engaging in wars and
in conspiracies and in destabilizing countries and regions?
The two rising Asian powers in India and China were beckoning. Come join
us, we are the future super powers. Should Singapore join the Indian
camp and be as powerful and prosperous as India as India rises to become
the next super power, or should Singapore join the Chinese growth
engine and be part of the Chinese plan to rebuild the world? Would
Singapore become more like India or more like China as it realigns its
policies with the next winning side, the next super power after Pax
Americana?
PS. If Chok Tong is still the PM, the direction is very clear. He is
very proud of the CECA and his Indian fever and the demography of
Singapore is likely to change.
As for Hsien Loong, after years of listening to the pro USA and Indian
camp and antagonizing China, leading to the Terrex Incident, his
position is now wavering. On one hand he is trying to get into the BRI
band wagon and chirping that Sino Singapore relations are very good and
Singapore must be neutral in big power rivalry. On the other hand, the
attack on China continues in the main media with many biased and anti
China articles published almost daily.
Where would Singapore be heading? Would Singapore become more like Mumbai or Shanghai?
10/02/2018
The forces for the abolishment of S377A gaining momentum
Read in YahooNews that a former ST editor by the name of Alan John is calling the people to take a stand for secularism when religious people use religion to impose their values on the secular. He posted an article in in face book and reported in coconuts.com titled, Former ST editor highlights the importance of standing up for secularism in the face of religious pressure.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.
10/01/2018
IPSOS- Most think can but cannot spot fake news
How credible are surveys conducted by marketing research agencies? If I
were to conduct a survey on whether Singaporeans or any nationals if
they could spot fake news by showing them 10 headlines, just headlines,
and ask them whether they are real or fake, how many would be able to
get the answers correct?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
The answer is obvious. Just by reading a headline, it is highly impossible, highly improbable to know whether the content is real or fake. Even the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news would also fail miserably if they were to be put to such a test.
IPSOS is reported in thenewpaper as a global independent market research agency and they conducted a survey with the ‘aims to understand the susceptibility of Singaporeans towards fake news.’ And this is their conclusion, ‘Four in five Singaporeans say they can confidently spot fake news. But when put to the test, more than 90 per cent mistakenly identified at least one out of five fake headlines as real.’
This was how the test was conducted. ‘But when participants were given 10 news headlines from digital channels and asked to indicate which ones were fake, only 43 per cent correctly identified two or fewer fake headlines. Of the 10, half were fakes.’
Even if I were to tell just by reading headlines, I can confidently tell you that I would not have better clue or get better results than those being surveyed. And I can also confidently tell you the result would be the same if all the committee members of the Select Committee on fake news were put to the same test.
What do you think is the problem with this test? How credible and reliable is a test of this nature to understand the susceptibility of people towards fake news?
This is another case of stupidity has no cure. Who do you think are the stupid one?
Incidentally, who is smarter or cleverer to tell the public what is fake news or what is the truth and what to believe and what not to believe? The clever people in the Select Committee or some small groups of people thinking that they are smarter and cleverer than you? Are you nuts or idiots that need some unknown jokers to tell you what is true and what is fake? What is your IQ and what are their IQs?
9/30/2018
INSIDE North Korea - Personal Experiences
North Korea or its Official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), is not as well-known as many other countries. Many descriptions of DPRK also do not provide a fair and balanced holistic "big picture" of the beautiful country known by the many who actually have visited her.
Embedded as a DPRK Business Mission Team member is Mediacorp journalist Ms Wong Pei Ting. Her first person account of the Historic Mission is unconventional, fair, balanced, honest and wonderfully informative.
Read the following:
Return to the Original DPRK Mission Report:
At The Dawn of Peace
Anyone interested in the above projects or be part of the next DPRK expeditions or just interested in DPRK can contact me:
miko.heng@gmail.com
The Americans are so pathetic
After pledging to give US$113m for a regional cyber infrastructure, read as building castle in the air or space, a pittance to any of the natural aristocrats in Singapore, the Americans are pledging to give another US$300m to Asean for security cooperation. What a joke? A pauper is a pauper. When you have no money, don't pretend to be a rich man and throw a few pieces of crumbs and expect the recipients to be grateful for it. And this is the sorry state of the American Empire, wasting all its money in fighting wars instead of doing something useful for its people and the people of the world, especially its allies.
How big are these few hundred millions compare to the US$350 billion China is contributing to the Belt and Road Infrastructure project for the whole of Asia? This is like a tiny drop in the ocean.
Below was reported in the Channel News Asia.
"SINGAPORE: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged on Saturday (Aug 4) to provide nearly US$300 million in new security funding for Southeast Asia.
Pompeo unveiled the figure to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other officials from around the world in Singapore.
"As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly US$300 million dollars of new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region," he said.
"This new security assistance will advance our shared priorities, especially to strengthen maritime security, develop humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping capabilities and enhance programmes that counter transnational threats.""
Just like the US$113m, where are the details? Or it is just another hot air? At most, the US$300m would be tied to buying American weapons, weapons that they have over produced and have no use for except to fight wars. And to make the weapons meaningful to the Asean countries, the Americans would be agitating and provoking more tensions in the region and then tell the Asean countries, "See, China or North Korea is going to invade and conquer Asean countries. Quick, quick, here are the weapons, take them as cheap price. The low interest rate would be paid by the US$300m we pledged to help Asean."
How many silly Asean countries would fall to this trap again?
The Americans have become another one trick pony. Conduct wars, start wars and sell weapons. There is nothing good coming from the Americans except wars and more wars. They did not know what else they can do to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place except to conduct wars and create tensions everywhere they go.
How big are these few hundred millions compare to the US$350 billion China is contributing to the Belt and Road Infrastructure project for the whole of Asia? This is like a tiny drop in the ocean.
Below was reported in the Channel News Asia.
"SINGAPORE: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged on Saturday (Aug 4) to provide nearly US$300 million in new security funding for Southeast Asia.
Pompeo unveiled the figure to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other officials from around the world in Singapore.
"As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly US$300 million dollars of new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region," he said.
"This new security assistance will advance our shared priorities, especially to strengthen maritime security, develop humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping capabilities and enhance programmes that counter transnational threats.""
Just like the US$113m, where are the details? Or it is just another hot air? At most, the US$300m would be tied to buying American weapons, weapons that they have over produced and have no use for except to fight wars. And to make the weapons meaningful to the Asean countries, the Americans would be agitating and provoking more tensions in the region and then tell the Asean countries, "See, China or North Korea is going to invade and conquer Asean countries. Quick, quick, here are the weapons, take them as cheap price. The low interest rate would be paid by the US$300m we pledged to help Asean."
How many silly Asean countries would fall to this trap again?
The Americans have become another one trick pony. Conduct wars, start wars and sell weapons. There is nothing good coming from the Americans except wars and more wars. They did not know what else they can do to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place except to conduct wars and create tensions everywhere they go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)