Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
US inciting South - East Asian countries against China.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neo colonialism in the South China Sea
When the Europeans embarked on their conquest of the world, to colonise the world, the rule of the game was that might was right. They went about with their gunboats and cannons to rob, loot, rape and seize countries occupied by the natives they claimed to be savages, and they were given God’s power and blessing to take their lands and everything, including their lives.
The European practically seized every corner of the earth regardless of the objections and protests of their owners. Being newly industrialized countries, with new technologies and weapons, they just ran down the natives as sub humans. The natives have no rights to their land and possessions. The Europeans were there to take them away and to rule them.
There is a new kind of colonialism raising its ugly heads in the South China Sea. The difference, the colonialists were new nations that were once colonized, new states given independence by their former colonial masters. Now they are out to seize islands in the South China Sea. They did not know that these islands were there since time immemorial. They just knew, as they did not have the skills and technology to discover the existence and where about of these islands till they were given independence and starting to acquire some wealth and technology to discover the existence of such islands. They did not know that the islands were claimed by China centuries ago, centuries before they became independent nations of today.
Their ignorance of history, of the ownership of the islands are good enough reasons to claim these islands as theirs, and like the Europeans, totally ignored the rights of their owners. They are claiming their rights based on a new law set by a new organizations called UNCLOS. They demanded that the new laws take precedent over historical rights of ownership.
Another big difference is that the new countries were not the invincible Europeans running roughshod over the poorly equipped and armed natives. These little countries are trying to seize the islands of China, a super power with enough power to colonise them if needed to. What an irony? Little countries trying to colonise the territories of a bigger nation and power and think they could get away with it. Even the mighty Europeans had to return most of their colonized land except those that owned by smaller and weaker countries that they could over powered.
Would this new colonization of China’s islands in the South China Sea ended in the favour of the new little colonial powers?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

South China Sea – An alignment of forces for domination and control
There are good and bad things coming out from this Hague circus and its South China Sea show. Let me start with the bad stuff first. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international institution created to uphold justice and peace, has unfortunately allowed itself to be embroiled in a power struggle for hegemony in the South China Sea. It is in the deep end, having sank into the quagmire for the last few years and unable to extricate itself to come up clean from the mud of infamy. Its decision is likely to compromise the good name and reputation of the institution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the judges involved. At worst, it will destroy the very reason for the existence of such an international body, a highly respectable, neutral and legal institution to arbitrate and resolve international disputes.
And here is the good outcome from the pronouncement by the Court. I would not call it a legal and enforceable judgment. It is not and it will not be legal but a political statement from an institution that has lost its credibility as an independent and impartial world body. The good outcome will come about when countries with vested interests start to make their stand public to reveal their private agenda. China would then know who are friends and who are foes. There will be no need to hide behind a mask anymore.
There will be a new alignment of forces for control of the South China Sea, politically and militarily. The risk of war is real and eminent as the main protagonist will have the countries in the region fighting among themselves, leaving the main protagonists safe and sound from afar. The announcement by the Court would also make China’s choices and options easier. To borrow a phrase from George Bush Jr, it is either with me or against me. There is no need for pretences and speaking in fork tongues. Asean countries will take their chosen places on both sides of the divide.
China does not need to be diplomatic anymore to appease the hegemon and think the problems of an open military confrontation will go away. China would have to take sides and close ranks with its friends against its foes. It is crisis time and China cannot afford to compromise its position and security to side with the hegemon and its foes against its friends. China must take decisive decision to part ways with the hegemon bent on confrontation. China would have to be resolute and firm and review all its policies vis a vis the hegemon and be prepared to take sides against the hegemon and its allies or be left to stand up against the hegemon and its allies, alone.
The Hague pronouncement is like D Day with the battle line drawn up. There is no more grey area, no more superficial friendship. The forces of the two sides will stand up to be counted and all policies must be realigned to face this new and risky challenge to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the South China Sea.
A new and dangerous chapter in the story of the South China Sea is about to be written. The way forward is military confrontation with the hegemon and its allies upping the stakes in a winner take all gambit. China’s appeasement policies to avoid war are not working. War is coming to China and the earlier China makes up its mind the better. It is a critical moment in history when China would have to call on all its friends and allies to act together to face the combined forces of the hegemon and its allies.
The only hope for avoiding a nasty confrontation is for the new President of the Philippines to break ranks and to start negotiation with China, to seek for a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution for both countries. Such a decision by the Philippines would be the only way to scuttle the aggressive intent of the hegemon, to give it no reason and justification to push for a nasty and explosive solution in open warfare in the South China Sea.
Would there be wisdom within the Asean ranks, especially those that have no conflicting claims in the South China Sea, to call out and walk away from the battle field drawn up by the hegemon? Or would they be dragged by the less enlightened Asean states into a war that has nothing to do with them and nor to their national interests?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UN distancing itself from the kangaroo court
These are the comments from the UN on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
‘The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which set up a tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013.
In a post on its Sina Weibo micro blog, the UN said the PCA is a "tenant" of the Peace Palace in The Hague, "but has nothing to do with the UN".
The UN said the International Court of Justice, its principal judicial organ set up according to the Charter of the UN, is also located in the Peace Palace.
The construction of the palace was managed by the Carnegie Foundation, which is still the building's owner and manager, according to the Peace Palace website.
The UN said it makes an annual donation to the foundation for using the Peace Palace.
When asked about the Arbitral Tribunal's case's ruling on Tuesday, Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday "The UN doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits" of the South China Sea arbitration case.’ China Daily
The UN’s comments are a clear indication that the kangaroo court is a can of rotten fish and did not wan to have anything to do with it. The UN simply did not want to have anything to do with the PCA and did not want its good reputation to be tarnished by kangaroos running the circus.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not a court per se but a tribunal where willing parties brought their cases to be arbitrated, with each side choosing a judge and has the right to reject the judges appointed by the PCA. It was meant to be a tribunal that is neutral but not in this case. The judges were appointed by one party, paid by one party, to arbitrate on a territorial issue that it has no jurisdiction and with the other party not participating.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taiwan – The first victim of the Hague kangaroo court
The Taiwan govt thought by being a good boy, stayed out of the fray while the Americans and Japanese conspired with some Asean states to wrestle Chinese islands and the interest of Taiwan would be protected. Afterall Taiwan is being courted by both the Americans and Japanese and is considered to be one of them. Surely they will not do anything to harm the interest of Taiwan in the South China Sea. Taiwan also owned several islands there with the biggest Taiping Island or Itu Aba, big enough to have an airfield and home to a few hundred Taiwanese.
What the Taiwanese did not bargain for and could not believe their collaborator friends would do them in, is the ruling that the Taiping Island is a reef. What a joke and what a shocking awakening. The Taiwanese have been sacrificed as a dispensable pawn. In the minds of the Americans and Japanese, Taiwan would return to China some day and it is better to cut Taiwan off the deal, that the Taiping Island pronounced by the kangaroo court is a reef and would not be entitled to a 200nm EEZ.
Now what are the Taiwanese going to do? Pay a visit to Washington to beg for a new ruling? Forget it, it is a done deal. Taiwan is enemy in the long run and its interests in the South China Sea would not be worthy to be protected. Protecting Taiwanese interests in the Taiping Island is as good as protecting China’s interests. The Americans and the Japanese have it all worked out. Taiwanese is useful only in the short term to be used to pressure China but nothing more.
Thank you for being a good boy. Taiping Island is a reef. Want to buy more mediocre American weapons to shoot at China? Taiwan would not be allowed to be turned into a Trojan Horse to undermine the strategic interests of the USA and Japan in the South China Sea. Period.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cambodia KO Vietnam and the Philippines
Would this headline be more representative of the battle within Asean in Laos, or the headline in the Today paper yesterday, ‘Cambodia blocks Asean consensus for second time’? The main paper title gives the impression that Cambodia was against the whole of Asean in the South China Sea issue. Or was Cambodia, the Trojan Horse, resisting Little USAs or American lackeys in Vietnam and the Philippines?
The American lackey camps would want to bulldoze their master’s voice in a joint Asean communiqué to claim that the ruling of the kangaroo court in The Hague was the rule of law and not a fraud. And they were frustrated by Cambodia and Laos for not wanting to be members of a fraud or to become Little USAs. Finally Asean delivered a joint statement but without the scandalous and fraudulent ruling of the kangaroo court in The Hague.
The American lackey camps are furious and now some are even floating the idea of kicking out the Trojan Horses and turn Asean into a house of Little USAs. Alternatively they would want to tweak the rulings so that the American lackeys could do as they pleased and issued all the statements they wished even with the objections of the Trojan Horses. Which American lackey is floating this idea?
What has Asean become today, a neutral regional bloc or a little USA bloc? There are now two competing camps within Asean, the Little USAs and the Trojan Horses and a majority of bystanders.
China’s interests in the South China Sea are constantly being challenged by the Little USAs. As China has changed its policy of appeasement to confrontation with the USA, it may be wise to consider taking the Litlle USAs out, one at a time and to stop their pretence of being neutral. The Little USAs are anti China. Period. China should consider cutting out trade and business opportunities to one or two Little USAs to mean business. It cannot continue to be a nice guy and let the Little USA punks to play behind its back. This is a problem that China must confront and the time is now, no more pretences, use the economic clout to whack them into place. China should deal with the Little USAs at arms length, reduction of economic cooperation for a start.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

South China Sea Dispute – The Devil exposed
The South China Sea island dispute has presented a golden opportunities for members of Asean to see at first hand how the Devil operates and how the devil is supported by little devils in its scheme to control the South China Sea by proxy. Superficially the western media have been consistently singing the tune that it was a dispute between China and the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. This statement has been repeated daily by the western media in every one of their posts to insidiously sink this message into the unconscious minds of its readers particularly the innocent Asians and Southeast Asians that find reading between the lines so difficult and to decipher the embedded thought even more difficult to separate from the truth.
There are disputes among the four countries in conflicting claims for islands and territorial waters. But many were distracted from the real dispute or contest between China and the US for control of the region. The Asean states may be quibbling over islands but not knowing that the big powers were after the whole of the South China Sea.
A valuable lesson for the Asean countries to learn from this episode, no matter which side they were rooting for, is to see how the Devil operates behind the veil, and how little devils were drumming and pushing for the interest of the Devil. The intense juggling and pushing by the Devil were all there to be observed behind closed doors. In the heat of tense negotiation to get what they wanted, the Devil has dropped his guard, and so too were the little devils. They stood there bare and naked to be identified. Their modus operandi too were on display, how they schemed behind the bright lights.
Asean leaders have learnt a valuable lesson on what the Devil is capable of doing should they be on the wrong side of the Devil. Countries like Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei must learn this lesson by heart as they could be the victims of the Devil. They too must recognized the little devils and their roles in this dispute and how they agitate as iittle devils for the Devil.
The leaders of Cambodia and Laos would have no problem identifying the little Devils and reporting them to China. After this episode, the little devils or little USAs need not put up their acts of pretence anymore. China will know who exactly is who and what they said and done behind the back of China. Would the little devils still think they could go to China, smile and tell China we are friends?
The hypocrisies must come off by now. There is nowhere to hide anymore. But more important is for all Asean leaders to see the truth and how the Devil pull the strings.
The biggest hypocrisy is that the Americans have built military fortresses in the islands of Guam and Diego Garcia with nuclear weapons and firepower to conquer nation states but demanding that China cannot put some military installations to protect its islands from pirates and rogue nations.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 51st state of the USA?
The state visit by Hsien Loong to the USA and the warm reception given to him and his entourage is unbelieveable for a small state. The US put on a charm offensive to show how important and how close Singapore is to the Americans. Obama gave everything he got, no holds bar, to impress Hsien Loong and Singaporeans and the world that this is how being good to the USA would be rewarded.
From another perspective it was like a suitor putting on his best to win the heart of his bride to be, a proposal for a marriage. Was Obama wooing Singapore into the final embrace of the USA? Singapore is very important to the Americans in many ways and has been responding very positively to all the overtures put up by the Americans, a sign that things can be better. Just ask and Singapore will go along, like a willing lass very happy to be charmed and taken for a ride in a courtship.
The days when Singapore played hard to get, played tough, are over. Today the relationship has blossomed and a wedding is on the card, if the Americans are serious wanting the relationship to move to a higher level. And the bride will come with all the strategic assets that the Americans would love to have, better than the strategic location of Israel in the Middle East. Singapore is in the heart of SE Asia and a very important point in Asia. The pivot to Asia would not be complete without Singapore, cannot be effective without Singapore.
Now, did he propose? Did Obama make his move during this state visit, to ask for the hand of Singapore, as the 51st state of the United States of America? Did he swipe the feet of the bride off the ground? And did she said yes?
It is not a bad idea that Singapore becomes the 51st state of the USA. And we would become the most powerful nation in the world, or a part of the most powerful nation in the world. And we will have a new flag and a new national anthem to sing and have a lot of things to be proud of, a lot of things to celebrate like all the gold medals in the Olympics and Fourth of July.
Singapore the 51st state of the USA? Possible, good? What do you think?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

China starting to show displeasure with Singapore
Global Times, the unofficial spokeman of China, has published articles that criticized Singapore’s cosying up with the Americans and the lavish dinner that Obama hosted for Hsien Loong as a statement of Singapore’s support for the Americans particularly over the South China dispute. Singapore’s overt support of the American position is never in doubt by the numerous articles published in the local media and with comments from Singapore officials that irked China. And Hsien Loong’s comments at the White House dinner put squarely where Singapore stood in the dispute between China and the US.
The Global Times did acknowledge the difficult position of Singapore in a region that is not too friendly and could turn hostile to Singapore and Singapore’s interests and the need to play the American card. The military might of the Americans is sorely needed should the neighbours attempt to squeeze Singapore to put Singapore in its rightful place. China appreciates that but when Singapore leaned too close to the Americans and even overtly took positions that are explicitly anti China, it forces China’s hand.
The Global Times reminded Singapore that it could play a balancing role like in the past by being as neutral as possible. When Singapore started to take sides against China, Singapore would lose this value and strategic role as a balancer between the two superpowers. LKY was able to do what he did because of his ability to respect the interests of the two superpowers without being hostile to anyone. China opened its doors to LKY, giving him special access to China’s top leaders. LKY could share his understanding of Chinese leader’s thinking with the Americans and could advise the Americans because of this special privilege built over years of trust and confidence building.
When this trust is lost, when China perceived that Singapore is no longer trustworthy, but in the American camp, the door will be closed. Hsien Loong or other Singapore leaders will find themselves waiting outside the corridors of Chinese leaders taking cue numbers and waiting to be invited for an audience that would not come. When that day comes, Singapore would lose its usefulness to China and also to the Americans other than being a close military ally like the South Koreans, Japanese, the Philippines and the Vietnamese. The consequences of being relegated to a staunch American ally in the American pivot to Asia would not be in the long term interest of Singapore. Many doors would be closed and many economic deals would be left hanging in the air. The Chinese market would no longer be there, to be easily accessible.
This seems to be the warning coming out from the Global Times. Respect China’s interests and continue to play a strategic balancing role between the two super powers or be sidelined.
The warning to Singapore has been sounded. Whither Sino Singapore relations going forward are now in the hands of Singapore leaders. Would Singapore's media and officials continue to call China's friends as Trojan Horses in public forum to show where Singapore stood in the US China rivalry?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh White – Stop being so presumptious
In his article in the ST on 27 Sep titled ‘Choosing between America and China’, this Australian academic could not resist wearing his pink lenses and all his western biases to discuss the China American relations in Asia. ‘None of us in these countries want to live under China’s shadow….At the same time, all of us want America to stay engaged in Asia, to help balance China’s power and set limits on how far its regional leadership develops….’ Who were these ‘none of us’ and ‘all of us’? Australia and Singapore, or do they include Laos, Cambodia and other neutral states? Hey mate, Asia is not only Australia and Singapore and American allies. Now the Philippines is not going be counted in your ‘none of us and all of us’, get it? The ‘us’ must be the Little USAs right?
Now what is your problem, what is Australia and America’s problem, an assertive and expanding China upsetting the balance of power in Asia? What is the picture, what kind of balance of power? China expansionist, assertive and has no right to want to have a bigger breathing space and room to play with? Look at the chess board, China is occupying only two squares in a corner. The rest of the squares are occupied by the Americans. This is the status quo that the American and the Australians and the ‘us’ would want to preserve as the status quo. And this was what he said in the rest of the article. China must be contained in the same two squares, by persuasion, coercion or war.
Now, who is pushing who into a corner? The American Empire is very comfortable to constrain China in a corner, with two squares and the Empire controlling the whole chess board. So, is China pushing outwards against the squeeze put up by the Empire, trying to break free, or being assertive and trying to eat into the space of the Empire?
He then dwelt with the reality of accepting China as an equal partner to the US, that the rise of China is inevitable. How could the relationship be equal if the Americans insist on sitting on 62 squares and demanding China, as an equal, to sit in the corner with 2 squares?
Hugh White could not see this inequality, inequity, that the Americans have been occupying too many squares in the chess board and it is time to relinquish some space to an equal partner. How about each power sitting on 32 squares? Is it too much for China to want to sit on half of the squares in the chess board? Why is China called aggressive and expansionist and ambitious, when it has only 2 squares and wanting a few more squares to breathe easier while the Americans refused to vacate a few of the squares?
What kind of balance of power is Hugh White talking about? What kind of equal partnership is he advocating for China to accept? What was clear in his article is this, the fear that ‘America might start slowly but surely, to withdraw from Asia’. What kind of foundation for a regional order would he think would be acceptable to both China and the US? A chess board where the Americans continue to sit on 62 squares and China to sit in 2 in a relationship among equals and with the Americans pointing a gun at China not to move?
To the western narrative, China’s OBOR, AIIB are all expansionist and belligerent in nature, a country that is planning to conduct wars, to conquer other nations. On the other hand, all the wars conducted by the Americans and western countries all over the world are for peace. Signing up military alliances and conducting war games are for peace, friendly gestures to the countries targeted, even when conducted outside their doorsteps.
Finally there is an Asian leader, brave enough and clear thinking to admit the truth, that conducting war games are aggressive in nature and would raise tension in the region. Duterte is going to end all military war games with the Americans. No provocative joint patrols in the South China Sea. I said he is brave for his life is at stake for going against the ‘peaceful’ Empire. He would be removed by the Empire, dead or alive. His Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay is negating almost everything he said to appease the Americans. Yasay could be a hot favourite of the Americans to be engineered to take over from the fall of Duterte. Duterte must watch his back and his every move. Defying the Empire is very risky thing to do. It is better to be Little USAs to be safe and be in the good books of the Empire.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The farcical Hague rulings on SCS is dead
The Philippines did not want to talk about it. Vietnam too is quietly staying away with Chinese investment pouring into Vietnam. Malaysia, after Najib being attacked by the Americans, is also distancing itself away from the kangaroo court rulings. Brunei is smart enough not to be used as a clown by the Americans and the Japanese and embroiled in a dispute that would only drag it into a shit hole.
Who else is still clamouring about this farce? Who is still whipping this dead horse, the farcical Hague rulings? Who else still has an agenda and a special interest in wanting to drum this stupid ruling from The Hague when the claimant states are no longer interested in the scam? The believers of this farce did not believe that a similar scam could be used to turn against them in the future if the rulings of a kangaroo court is seem as just, fair and legal.
Which country is still having sleepless night and an obsession over The Hague rulings and wanting it to be in the headlines, refusing to let it die? The big question, why? Why are these non claimant countries beating their drums everyday about The Hague rulings when the claimant states have already let it passed?
China is of course furious and would kick the ass of Japan if it dares to conduct joint patrol in the South China Sea. This is a red line that China would not allow the Japanese to cross as it would invite the herd of hyenas from as far as Australia, France and Canada to think it is ok, China is too weak to resist, to join the fray. Are there any idiotic leaders with no claims in the South China Sea but want to join the Americans in joint patrols and think sitting on the head of a tiger means they can shout at China?
Which leaders are silly enough to put their country and people at risk of war with China when they have no business in the SCS? Freedom of navigation? China is a threat to freedom of navigation? What is China doing with the One Belt One Road project, to curb freedom of navigation? Who needs more freedom of navigation? Who is the biggest trading nation in the world that needs freedom of navigation?
Silly boys and girls are easily conned to believe in lies and will swallow everything, hook, line and sinkers. Anything the Americans said is golden truth.
Singapore is entangled in a dispute with China over its role in the Non Aligned Movement. Singapore had vehemently denied that it was the devil pushing the SCS agenda. It was all Asean working as a group pushing it. If there was anyone pushing this dead horse, it would not be Singapore. Singapore is innocent.
Below is a quote from an article in The Singapore Daily supposedly by an old man of unknown identity. In this old man’s view, Singapore has all the reasons and intent to want to flog the dead horse to protect its interests as a small state, on grounds of principles, to protect the rule of law, international law, and freedom of navigation. And by the way things are happening, the rest of the Asean states are unprincipled, did not see the need to protect the rule of law, to protect international law and freedom of navigation. Their national interests do not coincide with such principled positions.
Here are the reasons what this unknown old man said of Singapore’s position. True or not, Singapore’s position or not, this is his view of why Singapore has to speak up, to keep whipping the dead horse.
‘It needs to come out strongly and defend ASEAN as a regional grouping that has a voice, and a unified voice at that, against any country that dares to thumb down the region.
It is to the interest of the grouping that Singapore speaks up on the SCS issue, not play it down. If Singapore allows China to walk all over it over the South China Sea issue, what’s to stop any other great world power or regional bloc from doing the same?
Singapore is the leader of Asean and has assumed the role of protecting Asean and the hapless and weak Asean states. The Asean states are so blessed to have Singapore to protect them and their interests. Perhaps Singapore could conduct joint military patrol with another big power, India, in the South China Sea. That would definitely scare off China.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duterte has opened the eyes of the Pinoys
The Philippines did not gain anything from being the running dog of the American Empire. The Philippines paid the price of compromising its sovereignty with American bases and soldiers in the country. The Philippines have to sign military alliances and conduct war games, joint patrols, to provoke another country, risking wars for its people. What did the Philippines gain, one antique warship destined for the museum?
What did the Americans gain, a foothold in Asian for their soldiers, weapons and military installations to maintain military supremacy and world hegemony at little cost and at the expense of the Philippines.
The big question is who needs who more? Is China going to invade the Philippines? Bull. It is the Americans that benefited for harping the fear and from the arrangement, with the Philippines as their running dog, to bolster the pivot to Asia, for the sake of the Empire.
Should not the Philippines be demanding for a ransom for hosting the military bases and risking a war with China? How much value is the Philippines’ contribution to the American Empire and how much the Philippines are losing for becoming an American military base, the first target to be hit if war broke out between China and the USA?
Finally Duterte has opened the eyes of the Pinoys and the raw deal they are in. They have been taken for a ride. Nobody is going to attack the Philippines. Why become a stooge of the Americans for the reward of a few museum pieces?
Independence is priceless. Why should the Philippines compromise its independence to become a military base for the American Empire? Why?
This applies to the other Asian and Asean states. The Japanese and South Koreans have no choice. They are semi colonies of the Empire. The Americans are in control militarily and would not leave. They are the frontline states of the Empire, the first to be attacked and the first to be destroyed, with all the military bases as prime targets.
The Philippines had chased the American colonialists out of their country before. Why would the Philippines, so proud of their independence, now so willing to be a semi colony of the American Empire again?
What about the other Asian and Asean states? Why are they providing bases to the Americans and barking for the Americans without extracting a heavy price from the Americans? It is the Americans that are desperately in need of military bases here to maintain their military supremacy, to project their military power. The Americans should pay a heavy price for the privilege of stationing their soldiers and weapons in another country, compromising their national security and independence, not the other way. The Asian and Asean countries should not be so stupid not to know the value of their compromising act, to allow foreign troops on their territories. But many stupidly believe that they would be invaded and must invite the Americans into their soil. Ask the neighbouring countries of China if they have been invaded by China?
The only Asian country that is suffering from this delusion is India, everyday worrying about a Chinese invasion. What a joke! For the rest of independent Asian and Asean countries, why become cronies of the Empire when they could stand tall as independent nations? However, stupidity has no cure. Some of the stupids are worrying about being invaded by China and North Korea.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singapore China relations – Open split?
The verbal war between Singapore and China does not seem to subside and Singapore is upping the ante with another article by Kwa Chong Guan belabouring the point that China has been pressuring Singapore and ‘to influence and shape the opinions and actions of Chinese Singaporeans’. In his article appearing in the Today paper on 14 Oct titled ‘China’s unrealistic expectations of overseas Chinese’, Kwa Chong Guan traced the history of Chinese involvement in the MCP’s fight for the independence of Malaya and Singapore and the subversive role in local trade unions and political movements of the past.
Kwa Chong Guan made it very clear that ‘the Straits born Chinese, who did not think of themselves as huaqiao and did not identify with China’ did not agree with the strategies of the MCP. He then went on to relate to the MCP activities of early Malaya and Singapore days culminating in the Non Aligned Movement spat as another of ‘China’s attempt to shape the opinions and interests of the Chinese community in Singapore about Chinese interests’. Kwa drew a clear distinction in the modern Singaporeans and the Singaporeans of yore, that the new Singaporeans have no special affinity to China like their forefathers.
The new Singaporean entrepreneurs investing in China did not go there because of the historical attachment to China but purely based on ‘hard business investment’. They did their investments not depending on ‘guan xi’, in other words, Singaporeans are principled, abiding by international laws when doing business in China and would not want to be treated differently. Kwa also emphasized that ‘Singapore…has to stand firm against demands by the ancestral homelands of Singapore’s diverse ethnic communities for their loyalty.’
As Singapore keeps on harping on the Chinese govt making demands on Singapore on racial affinity, how would this affect Singapore’s relations and investments in China? Would the trips by Hsien Loong to the USA, Japan, India and Australia have anything to do with the open split between Singapore and China? Is Singapore telling China to lay off and Singapore has other alternatives to invest, in the US, Japan, India and Australia and Singapore and China can go their separate ways henceforth?
The regular display of unhappiness by Singapore seems to be an official position, no longer someone speaking on his personal capacity. And most of the speakers airing this dispute hailed from one school of thought, the Rajaratnam School of International Studies. The notables making tough and flamboyant speeches on the SCS and demanding China to respect the ‘UN backed’ Hague rulings all came from this School.
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policies has been quite silent on this spat. Maybe they are dealing more with local policies and issues and not international matters. With the tempo of this spat gaining strength, it would be interesting if Lee Kuan Yew is still around and whether he would be wearing his favourite Chinese jacket during important official functions with great pride. Or would he be returning to his suit and tie to show a change in policies to be less dependent on China and more cosiness with the West
Lee Kuan Yew was a straits born and every inch a baba. As he grew up he rejected the name Harry Lee given to him by his grandfather. He did not name Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang and Wei Ling with English names like Peter, Simon or Jane. He also sent them to Chinese schools. What did all these said of this straits born Chinese? He was not the banana that one encounters in the island. He was not the typical straits borns. The straits borns are not a homogenous group. There will be the bananas that think highly of everything western, there will be those that are proud of their ancient civilisation.
And how would those wanting to be friendly to China be belittled as unacceptable? Being friendly to China is not the same as being a traitor to Singapore, going against the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. The New Zealanders, Australians and many white colonised countries did not feel ashamed to be pro America because they were whites. Why should straits born Chinese feel ashamed to be friendly to China if they did not compromise Singapore's interests?
This episode is really Singapore punching above its weight, taking on China head on, demanding China to obey The Hague rulings, to obey international laws, to protect freedom of navigation and to be principles, as if China is doing and acting to the contrary. Needless to say, diplomatically, it is rubbing China up the wrong side and the open spat would not go away just because Singapore is punching above its weight.
Where would all this lead to in Sino Singapore relations?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duterte unsettles Asean
The move by Duterte to patch up relations with China, to lean closer to China is now touted as unsettling to Asean. When the Philippines were leaning to the USA, be the barking dog of the USA, raising tension in the South China Sea, that was not unsettling to Asean. What this new slogan is saying is that Asean should be leaning to the USA against China, and this is what the Asean states wanted. What about Thailand and Malaysia turning to China, to raise their relations to a higher level, are they also unsettling to Asean?
Look at it from another angle, the only gang in Asean that is unsettled is the pro US camp, the cronies and barking dogs of the US, aka little USAs. These cronies would be very unsettled now that Asean is no longer the puppet on a string to be dragged on by the nose by the Americans to create tension in the region. Their only agenda, is to let the US use Asean to encircle and contain China of which Obama is so proud and bragging about it.
Would not Asean countries be happier now with lesser tension in the SCS? Would not the Asean countries praise Duterte for maintaining peace in the region and bringing more economic development to his country and bettering the lives of the Pinoys instead of trying to pick a fight that it could not win?
For Singapore, there is nothing to worry about. Singapore is neutral and did not take sides. Singapore will support an independent and neutral Asean balancing the interests of big powers without being a crony or barking dog of any big power.
Let those cronies and barking dogs get unsettled for trying to be little USAs or Trojan Horses. Singapore is a principled country and meant what it said. Singapore does not take sides. Singapore is neutral. How brilliant of our leaders.
Singapore is safe while Asean is being unsettled by more Asean countries turning away from the USA to China. Singapore can sleep well, very well while those American barking dogs would have sleepless nights wondering what to do next, to cosy up to their American masters and to plot against China.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Australia assuming the post of Little White Sheriff in South China Sea
This little western outpost in Asia, occupied by Europeans that came to rob the natives of their land, is thinking that it is big enough to be the Little White Sheriff in the South China Sea, to rule over the silly and hapless Asian and Asean countries. And to make its role more legitimate, it is playing on the ego of the Indonesians, the undisputed regional big brother, to join them to patrol the SCS.
And this only happens after the Philippines refused to be dragged in to be the pawn in the American/western power game to control the SCS. According to an Agencies report, ‘In February, Washington took the unusual step of publicly asking Australia to undertake “freedom of navigation” operations by sailing naval patrols within 12 nautical miles of Beijing controlled territory.’
When the Empire was riding high, with the Aquino govt willingly playing the sacrificial pawn, they totally ignored the sensitivity of the Indonesians as the big brother of the region. Indonesia was transparent, ignored, Indonesian interests were not in their cards. The Empire just muscled in as if they owned the SCS. Now that the Philippines have abandoned that role, the Little White Sheriff thinks the Indonesians, with a little flattery, would be silly enough to be roped in to play the role that the Pinoys had rejected.
Would Indonesia be dragged by the nose by the Little White Sheriff to do its donkey work for the Empire, to confront China like Aquino used to do? Or would the Indonesians show the middle finger to the Little White Sheriff who really believes it is a super power in the region and want to rule the waves in the SCS. What about the rest of the Asean states, do they have a say whether they accept the Little White Sheriff as the law enforcer in their backwaters? Who is Australia by the way?
The SCS belongs to this little western outpost, to the Empire?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13806
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asean – The Empire strikes back
The American hegemony has been shaken by recent moves by the Philippines and Malaysia to improve ties with China. The Empire will not take this sitting down and is striking back. The Empire has always regard Asean, in fact the whole world, as part of the Empire. The Empire rules the world and dictates to the world how it should behave or else. No independent country is free or really independent from the Empire.
The prosecution of the Malaysian PM Najib by the American Department of Justice is a clear case that the Empire rules. The embezzling case involving Malaysian govt, state funds, and Malaysians was though, in fact obvious to all, a domestic affairs of Malaysia. But the Empire said no, every state must be answerable to the Empire and Malaysia and its PM are no exception. They committed an act that the Empire would not allow and the Department of Justice had acted against its subjects. Full investigation would be conducted by all the subject countries to bring the PM of Malaysia to justice, in the courts of the Empire.
PM Najib of Malaysia has joined the rebels and headed to the rebel stronghold in China for protection. The rebel forces are strong. The Force is with them with Russia and China standing up to the Empire. Duterte, the President of the Philippines were even more rebellious by openly defying the Empire. Not only did he declared to break away from the Empire, he added that he would join the rebel forces led by Russia and China.
Duterte wants the Empire to pull out its remaining soldier in the Philippines. But the Empire said no, that the soldiers were there to help the Philippines to quell resistant forces. With that excuse, the Empire hopes to keep its soldiers in the Philippines, the way it is keeping its forces in Japan and South Korea.
Pressure is mounting to check on the Philippines. The Empire has told the Philippines that it would not be able to buy weapons from the Empire. It is a matter of time before sanctions would be applied to the Philippines for defying the Empire, attempting to break away.
The Philippines and Malaysia are now top of the list of countries targeted by the Empire. What else would the Empire do to remove Najib and Duterte and install more Empire friendly leaders to replace them? Would there be military coup or an invasion of these countries led by storm troopers?
Don’t pray pray with the Dark Side. May the Force be with the rebel forces.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions