Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Nobody wants a trade war

Singapore’s prime minister: Nobody wants a trade war

The Washington Post 
Lee Hsien Loong is the prime minister of Singapore.


Trade friction between China and the United States has been brewing for some time. But with the Trump administration’s announcement of unilateral tariffs on imports, targeted at China, the specter of a trade war has never been clearer.

There is broad political support in the United States for such measures. American businesses that had previously advocated China’s accession to the World Trade Organization now feel disadvantaged doing business in China. They feel, with some justification, that the playing field is uneven, market access is limited and investments are restricted, especially in the financial and technology sectors. Trade arrangements and concessions made in the past when China was about 5 percent of the world’s gross domestic product are less readily accepted today with China’s share rising to 15 percent.

But unilateral tariffs are not the correct solution. A trade war between the United States and China is far from inevitable, but if one breaks out, it will gravely undermine the rules-based multilateral system that has underpinned global prosperity since the end of World War II. Countries around the world, big and small, will be hurt.

We believe trade disputes should be resolved within the WTO framework. As economists have pointed out, when assessing economic relationships, what matters is not a country’s bilateral trade balance with a specific trading partner but its overall trade balance with the rest of the world.

Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
The United States and China share the most important bilateral relationship in the world. Both countries have benefited from an open, rules-based international order and multilateral trading system. This has fostered economic cooperation within the Asia-Pacific region and deepened interdependence among Asia, the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.



"A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions."




Asia is the fastest-growing export market for U.S. goods and services. As the world’s second-busiest port and fourth-largest financial center, Singapore is a global hub that connects the economies of the United States and Asia. We are a small, open economy with trade flows more than three times our GDP. A trade war between the two largest economies in the world will have a big, negative impact on Singapore.

Since China joined the WTO in 2001, its weight in the global economy and its share of world trade have grown enormously. This has shifted the overall strategic balance. It has also raised reasonable expectations for China to liberalize its markets further and contribute more to the multilateral trading system.

China has declared its commitment to upholding openness and multilateralism. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the “Belt and Road Initiative” are two major efforts by China to strengthen trade and investment ties, and to enhance integration and interdependence. At the recent Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference, President Xi Jinping announced further plans to open up China’s financial sector, liberalize foreign investment rules, protect intellectual property rights and lower tariffs on automobile imports. These moves have been acknowledged and welcomed by President Trump. We look forward to seeing these steps elaborated, implemented and bearing fruit.

Although most Asia-Pacific countries continue to pursue trade and economic liberalization — for example, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership — these initiatives will not compensate for the damage caused by a trade war.

Beyond the economic loss, strained ties between the United States and China will make it harder for them to cooperate on other pressing issues such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, regional security, nonproliferation and climate change. None of these issues can be solved without the full participation of both countries. If any of these disputes escalates and destabilizes relations between the United States and China, the consequences for the world would be disastrous.

Competition between the United States and China is to be expected. But whether this competition takes place within a framework of interdependence and generally accepted international rules makes all the difference. Ultimately, what is at stake is war and peace, and the security and stability of the world. The United States, China and the rest of the world have too much at stake.


This article was first published by The Washington Post.


Friday, January 27, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] What might our Terrex ICVs say if they could speak?


On 24 Jan 2017, Singapore finally received news from HK that her Terrex ICVs will be returned.

On 27 Jan, Defence Minister posted on his FB page that the Terrex ICVs have left HK. 



And we suspect, if the Terrex ICVs could talk, one of their first priority back home, like all Singaporeans, is to go and whack the local food. 

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] Our Terrex ICVs are finally coming home!




If you have been following the news, you would have known by now that our nine Terrex ICVs are finally coming home.

The S'pore Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a press statement on 24 Jan 2017.

MFA Press Statement: Reply from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying

On 24 January 2017, Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Leung Chun-ying replied to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s earlier letter to inform him that the Hong Kong authorities have completed their investigations, and will be releasing the SAF Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles and other equipment to the Singapore Government through the carrier.  This is a positive outcome.  Prime Minister Lee has replied to Chief Executive Leung to thank him for Hong Kong’s cooperation in resolving this matter.  
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
24 JANUARY 2017
Source: MFA 

When Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen was asked by the media for comments on the news, this was what he had to say.


“MINDEF and SAF are in close communication with the carrier APL and assisting them to ensure that there is a smooth repatriation of the SAF terrexes.

When the terrexes are released by Hong Kong customs, APL has told us that they will make special efforts to expedite the process, despite this being a Chinese New Year weekend, as you can imagine. Many countries, when Chinese New Year approaches, many companies will be on leave but APL said they will make special efforts.

And they also informed us that they will transport the terrexes directly from Hong Kong back to Singapore without any intermediate stops. Even then, that seal of passage from Hong Kong to Singapore directly will take about a week."
Defence Min. Ng Eng Hen


Interestingly, Hong Kong’s Commissioner of Customs and Excise Roy Tang's statement seem to suggest that the shipper, APL was the main cause of the Terrex ICVs being detained.

“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is committed to complying with international standards of strategic trade control, and Hong Kong implements a robust control system to achieve it. 
Import, export and transshipment/transit of strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirement are criminal offences punishable under the Hong Kong law."


Roy Tang also said that the Hong Kong Customs has completed its investigation of the suspected breach, and the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.

While he did not elaborate on the possible target for prosecution, nor did he respond to queries on whether APL would face legal action , he did state that "the department had ruled out any involvement by the Singapore government in shipping breaches through the former British colony".

Hmm... sounds like APL may yet be out of hot water yet.

In any case, we are all glad that our Terrex ICVs are coming home.


================================================
Update: The Terrex ICVs have left HK on 27 Jan 2017.
Source: None other than the Defence Ministers's FB page.


================================================




Read more here:

Read more about the Terrex incident here:


Thursday, January 19, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] China's words are empty and hold no meaning




On 18 Jan 2017, the Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the United Nations Assembly in Geneva, and part of his speech stated that all countries should be seen as equals.




Here are some quotes from his speech.


"Big countries should treat smaller countries as equals instead of acting as a hegemon, imposing their will on others..." 
"No country should open the Pandora’s box by willfully waging wars or undermining the international rule of law." 
"In a new era, we should uphold sovereign equality and work for equality in right, opportunity and rules for all countries."
Source: Channel NewsAsia - Xi calls for world without nuclear weapons, equality for all nations


Much bullshit Jinping has in him, considering that in as far as Singapore's Terrex ICVs are concerned, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang warned Singapore to be "cautious" after we called out the fact that the detainment of the Terrex ICVs goes against well established Principle of Sovereign Immunity which China also subscribes to.


"I hope the relevant parties can be cautious in their remarks and actions."

Source: Straits Times - China calls on Singapore to be cautious in handling of detained Terrexes




Pic: SGAG


So let's not be naive here.

Despite what Xi Jingping says to the UN, China unlawful actions over Singapore's Terrex ICVs (which to date, the HK Customs STILL CANNOT state the reason why the ICVs are being detained) shows that his words are just empty promises. And let's not even get started on how China is handling the South China Sea issue.






This would be China's real definition of "sovereign equality".

If you are a big country like the US, we will treat you "equally". 

If you are a little red dot like Singapore, then you will lan lan, suck thumb according to our whims.


So don't come and talkcock lah China. Back up your words with concrete actions.




#ReturnOurTerrex



Read more about the Terrex incident here:



Friday, January 13, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] Holding on to Singapore armoured vehicles hurts China's interests



On Monday, Singapore's Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen rose in Parliament to respond to queries by MPs on the seizure of Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF) armoured vehicles in Hong Kong. He said the vehicles and other equipment are the property of the Singapore Government and protected by sovereign immunity under international law. He asked Hong Kong to return them immediately.

(Read the full text of Dr Ng Eng Hen's statement in Parliament here.)

The principle of sovereign immunity is founded on equality between countries. When the actions of one sovereign country are brought to the courts in another, generally the relevant jurisdiction of the latter is not exercised. And such a concept exists in China, Britain, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Before Sept 8, 2011, when the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled on a court case involving the Democratic Republic of Congo and FG Hemisphere Associates, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region had been applying relevant concepts of sovereign immunity from the British State Immunity Act 1978. That meant the commercial activities of a sovereign country could not invoke sovereign immunity and be exempt from prosecution. In Hong Kong, sovereign states also had to appear in court for legal action arising from commercial disputes or activities.

However, in the 2011 lawsuit involving a debt dispute between DR Congo and FG Hemisphere, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal requested that China's National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) give its interpretation of the relevant articles of the Basic Law, on the basis that the case concerned foreign relations. In its interpretation, the NPCSC pointed out that the British State Immunity Act 1978 no longer applied to Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong should adopt the same approach as China in exercising absolute immunity.

This means that any action by sovereign states in Hong Kong is not liable for prosecution. Following the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal on Sept 8, 2011, there are no longer exceptions on Hong Kong's position on sovereign immunity.

Since the NPCSC has established that the State Immunity Act no longer applies to Hong Kong when explaining the Basic Law, and that China's effecting of absolute sovereign immunity applies, Hong Kong has no legal basis to hold the SAF's armoured vehicles.

Hong Kong Customs should take reference from the DR Congo and FG Hemisphere case and immediately return the armoured vehicles to the Singapore Government, and not continue to hold them on the pretext of an investigation.

Hong Kong's Department of Justice (DOJ), as legal counsel to the Hong Kong government, wrote the grounds of judgment on the DR Congo and FG Hemisphere case. Veteran lawyer and Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen should know that the seizure of Singapore's armoured vehicles cannot stand before the law.

The DOJ is duty-bound to give Hong Kong Customs its legal opinion and point out that under Hong Kong's current laws, there is no basis to hold the armoured vehicles, which were being commercially transported without any explosives on them. While these armoured vehicles are strategic assets legally, it is also clear that sovereign immunity comes above all else.

If China does not want the incident to hurt its relationship with Singapore, all it needs to do is to get the Hong Kong government to release the armoured vehicles based on NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law in 2011. Doing so can also be seen as China exercising its sovereignty over Hong Kong, which in fact is also face-saving for China without hurting Singapore-China relations and Hong Kong's status as a free port.

(Straits Times: China calls on Singapore to be cautious in handling of detained Terrexes. The China Foreign Ministry spokesman made these comments following Dr Ng Eng Hen's statement in Parliament.)

However, if China continues to get Hong Kong to hold these armoured vehicles, not only will it hurt Hong Kong's status as a free port and in turn China's economic interests, but the NPCSC's effectiveness in interpreting the Basic Law will also be called into question.

Since the NPCSC has stated in its interpretation that Hong Kong should exercise absolute sovereign immunity, how effective and logical is NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law if China insists on detaining the armoured vehicles?

While the legal interpretation of the DR Congo and FG Hemisphere case has come under criticism by many in the legal and business sectors in Hong Kong, at the very least, it was carried out according to the specific proceedings of the Basic Law, and indeed the NPCSC has the authority to interpret the Basic Law.

But if the same interpretation is not applied to the seizure of Singapore's armoured vehicles, the authority of the NPCSC in interpreting the Basic Law for Hong Kong will become more questionable, to the detriment of not just Singapore-China ties.

It remains to be seen if Beijing will resolve the seizure of the armoured vehicles with wisdom and in keeping with Hong Kong law. A swift return of the vehicles to the Singapore Government will minimise the negative impact of the issue and bring about a win-win outcome for Singapore, Hong Kong and China.


• The writer, Martin Oei, is a British current affairs commentator based in Hong Kong. This article was first published in Chinese in Lianhe Zaobao.


Source: Straits Times


Read more about the Terrex incident here:




[Defending the Lion City] Keep Calm and Stand United as One Nation



By The Reservist FB page
"Have you seen the video of this interview recently? 
Been told by All Singapore Stuff, TR Emeritus and States Times Review that this was a Chinese official giving the "official stand" that China will not return the Terrexes unless Singapore acceded to the two points this guy states in the interview? 
Well, they're all telling you bullshit
This guy is Song Zhongping, and is a military analyst from Beijing. 
Yes, basically it means he makes guesses and conjectures based on what he reads and sees. But at the end of the day, it's no more official a position than what you or I say. 
Don't be hoodwinked by bullshit. 
#beinternetsavvy #dunbelieveallthattheysay, #returnourterrex  "





DTCL: Even the China govt's attack dog mouthpiece, Global Times, only recognizes Song Zhongping as a Beijing-based military expert. He is NOT a Chinese Govt Official (see here or Google it for yourself).






Monday, January 9, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] The SAF Terrex ICVs are Singapore’s sovereign assets




TODAY: PM Lee writes to HK chief exec requesting return of Terrexes, as Defence Minister urges compliance of international law

SINGAPORE — Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has written to Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying requesting for the immediate return of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) armoured vehicles being detained by Hong Kong customs, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in Parliament on Monday (Jan 9).





The Hong Kong authorities have responded that the investigation is ongoing and will take some time to complete, and that the Hong Kong Government will handle the matter in accordance with their laws, Dr Ng said.

Welcoming the response, Dr Ng added: “Adherence to the rule of law has been the fundamental basis for peace and stability for the last half century in Asia. It has enabled countries both large and small to build trust and confidence in one another, cooperate and prosper together… We therefore look forward to the Hong Kong Government returning our Terrexes in accordance with international law.”

Under the principle of sovereign immunity, State properties – including military assets - are immune from any measures of constraint abroad, and cannot legally be detained or confiscated by other countries. “This principle is well-established under international law, and we are advised by lawyers that it is also the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR),” Dr Ng said.

The Singapore Government has informed its Hong Kong counterpart on a number of occasions over the last two months – both through its lawyers and its Hong Kong Consul-General Foo Teow Lee – that the Terrexes and other equipment being detained belong to it. “Accordingly we have requested the Hong Kong authorities to return our property immediately,” said Dr Ng, adding that Mr Lee’s letter to Mr Leung reiterates the same message.

Dr Ng said: “Singapore and Hong Kong have long enjoyed good and friendly relations. We hope the matter will be resolved satisfactorily and our friendly relations will endure.”

Dr Ng, who had previously said that Singapore has been working at all levels of government “quietly and out of the limelight” to get the Terrexes back, was replying to several questions filed by Members of Parliament on the matter. Six MPs – including Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP Vikram Nair, Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh, Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad - had tabled questions on the issue, touching on areas such as Singapore’s relations with China, whether any military secrets could be compromised, and what steps the Government is taking to get the vehicles back. The MPs also want to know whether the Ministry of Defence is reviewing its existing contractual arrangements for the transportation of military equipment between Singapore and foreign ports.

In response, Dr Ng reiterated that the Terrexes and other equipment being detained were being used for training and do not contain sensitive equipment. Each year, the SAF transports more than 700 military equipment using commercial carriers to all parts of the world in Asia, Australia, Europe, and the United States. The SAF’s contracts with the shipping companies and agents require them to comply with established protocols and all relevant international and local port rules, Dr Ng said. “Neither the SAF, Singapore, nor indeed most other countries operate on the assumption that our cargo will be arbitrarily seized when transiting reputable foreign ports. The SAF has followed these procedures for shipping military equipment for over 30 years without any significant incidents.”

Dr Ng noted that it would cost “three to four times more, and add several hundred million dollars” to the Ministry of Defence’s (Mindef) annual budget, to ship all military equipment directly from point-to-point. Currently, the navy does not have transport ships with the scale and capability to ship all the equipment. Its Endurance Class Landing Ships Tanks – the largest multi-purpose and transport ships – are due for replacement, and Mindef will consider if it needs to replace them with ships of larger capacity, Dr Ng said.

There are rare exceptions when the SAF does not use commercial shipping companies, or will apply special considerations if it does, based on security risk assessments. For example, for advanced weapon and sensor systems or submarines that were brought back by the SAF to Singapore. The special measures include chartering whole ships, mandating direct shipments, deploying protection forces or even converting the commercial ship into a government ship using the State Marine Ensign, Dr Ng said., Dr Ng said.

The Terrexes – which were being transported from Taiwan to Singapore when they were seized on Nov 23 - did not fall into this special category, he added. Arising from the seizure, the SAF has reviewed its shipping procedures comprehensively, Dr Ng said. “Where we think the risk of detention of SAF assets has gone up, whether in Asia or any other part of the world, we will impose extra precautions even if this means incurring higher freight charges,” he said. Alternatively, the SAF may consider leasing space to house equipment at its overseas training sites – which is already being practised for certain equipment - to avoid shipping them altogether, and procure additional units to meet operational requirements, where necessary.

Article Source: TODAY

Read more here:





[Defending the Lion City] Opinions on the Terrex issue




"What the two incidents drive home is this – power comes from the barrel of the gun. If we do not have the military to back us, our best diplomatic efforts won’t get us anywhere.  
How else would countries like Indonesia and Malaysia treat us as equal? Is it enough to count on the goodwill of our friendly neighbours? 
I think it’s best we arm ourselves well and that allows us to speak softly.
Come to think of it, Paul Tambyah and SDP, you still want to cut defence spending by 40%?"
Read more here: Power Comes from the Barrel of the Gun - By I Tahan You Very Long Already



"Some Singaporeans insist we apologise to China. WOW, what have they been smoking?
Shame on them. We are shipping our Terrex for Singapore’s military use, NOT for the Taiwanese. 
If we are such pushovers, it will be the end of Singapore. Our modus operandi is to follow and respect international laws, and work within such frameworks. 
Big countries can push their weight around (South China Sea hint hint), but Singapore is tough as nails. We make a stand and stick to it. China is using the Terrex incident to send us a message. 
However, we are not mouthpieces. We will not be moved." 
Read more here: The Terrex incident: We shall not be movedddd….., we from Singapore, we shall not be moved By The Rise of the Strawberry Nation




"Given the even tenor of ties , some have asked why Singapore should choose to upset them. Why not keep a discreet silence on the arbitration tribunal ruling against China's claims when it is, after all, not a claimant to any of the disputed South China Sea features? 
But the fact is that China's insistence that it would not recognise the arbitration tribunal decision of last July undermines regional order - the very oxygen needed for small states such as Singapore to survive. The tribunal decision declared, among other things, that China's claim of "historic rights" to the South China Sea is incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 
There is emerging hubris in Chinese policy circles over China's emergence as a great power and the concurrent decline of the US. As one well-connected Chinese interlocutor opined recently, no one should "push China around", even on contentious issues such as the South China Sea. 
Amid such hubris, some countries have already succumbed to the temptation of bagging all the economic carrots that China has to offer, in exchange for a softer stance on the South China Sea." 
Read more here: Staying friends with all powers works best for small nations By William Choong  For The Straits Times

"Singapore knows that its options are limited as a small state with an open economy. 
It cannot afford to fully ally itself to one world power or another. Not only would that ultimately result in vassal-dom, it would also close it off to options to pursue international political, economic and social objectives that are in its own national interest. 
Its only recourse when large powers flex their muscles is summarised in this statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the South China Sea dispute: “We support the peaceful resolution of disputes… in accordance with universally-recognised principles of international law… without resorting to the threat or use of force. As a small state, we strongly support the maintenance of a rules-based order that upholds and protects the rights and privileges of all states.” 
Read more here: Terrex APC seizure: What do we think? How do we react? By Daniel Yap of The Middle Ground


Vid: By FiveStarsAndAMoon FB page, The battle over 9 Terrexes is still dragging on into 2017.
Who will be the biggest loser from this debacle?





Update: Min for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen tweeted that he will be stating the Singapore Govt's position on the Terrex incident in Parliament later today (9 Jan 2017).






Friday, January 6, 2017

[Defending the Lion City] Terrex issue a low point in 2016, but issue mustn't be allowed to dominate




Terrex issue a low point in 2016, but issue mustn't be allowed to dominate: Ng Eng Hen


SINGAPORE: The detention of Singapore's Terrex armoured vehicles by Hong Kong authorities was a low point in 2016 - but it does not pose an existential threat or even a potential threat as say, terrorism does today, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Friday (Dec 30).

As such, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) must not lose focus or allow the one issue to dominate all else, wrote Dr Ng in a Facebook post.

"Neither should Singaporeans allow this one incident to shake our confidence or weaken our solidarity," Dr Ng wrote. "We are a sovereign and independent country, and we will chart our own future."

The shipment of nine armoured military vehicles has been held in Hong Kong since they were seized at Kwai Chung Container Terminal in late November.

Dr Ng added the SAF "will learn from this episode and has already changed its practices to better protect our assets".

He also revealed that the Defence Ministry has been "working at all levels of Government these past two months to effect their return, quietly and out of the limelight where it is more effective".

Dr Ng said he would give more details on the Terrex incident when Parliament sits next. The next sitting is scheduled for Jan 9.


TIES WITH US, CHINA, INDIA 'FUNDAMENTALLY STRONG'

Apart from the Terrex incident, Dr Ng said that the year 2016 saw "significant achievements" that have strengthened Singapore's security.
"Over 50 years, we have built up strong partnerships across the world, and have achieved a high standing in the international community,” wrote the Defence Minister. “Our relations with countries like the US, China and India are fundamentally strong and healthy.”

Added Dr Ng: “We may not see eye to eye on every issue, but that is the norm of bilateral relations between any two independent and sovereign nations. More importantly, with these countries, both sides value the mutual benefits that arise from strong bilateral ties and want to enhance these ties, not make them worse.”

Dr Ng also mentioned the “strong and growing” defence ties with other countries through the Five-Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) and ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM)-Plus, which comprises the ten ASEAN countries and eight non-ASEAN countries - Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the United States.

“All in all, Singapore has been protected and Singaporeans kept safe,” Dr Ng said. “We enter 2017 with uncertainties about the global economy, international politics and regional security, and the ongoing threat of terrorism. But if we stay vigilant, united and support each other, we will draw strength and overcome all challenges that come our way.”

- CNA/xk


===========================================





Things to ponder about before we say bye to 2016...

“Where’s our Terrex tanks?”

China returned United States their underwater drone one day after seizing it. Why hold our Terrex tanks for so long then? 

United States did not even justify what was the drone doing in “China’s” water but our tanks were just shipped openly without any intention. China a flat track bully? What do they gain by bullying a small state like us Singapore?


“Big brothers” around us trying to play punk... 

Up North, Malaysia has introduced high toll fees ($15.30) for vehicles entering and exiting via Singapore and yet almost free or at most (RM$3.60) for Bruneian and Thai cars. Why the big difference? Is this against international laws?

Down South, “we have to thank them for fresh air” Indonesia’s airport’s runways are always “closed for maintenance” whenever SIA flights were scheduled to land. Yet other airlines are not affected by the “maintenance”.

Reference:
"How should we react to China holding our armoured vehicles"

"China: Seized underwater drone 'tip of iceberg' when it comes to US surveillance"

"Why does Malaysia charge Singapore cars so much more?"

"Indonesia and SIA: Bullying in progress?"


============================

DTCL:  The world is not a friendly place. If Singapore is weak, we will be bullied and taken advantage of.




Tuesday, December 13, 2016

[Defending the Lion City] As usual, Alex Tan Zhixiang can only lie and lie




As usual, Alex Tan Zhixiang, "Chief Editor" of the one-man operation slime site, States Times Review, cannot help but to spin yet another lie.

Alex Tan claims that China/HK had already agreed to "release" the Terrex ICVs on 28 Nov 2016.

But a quick search on the web for any official statements on the "release" from China or HK just draws a blank.


Pic: FLOP

As of 13 Dec 2016, there is no such news found on the South China Morning Post. Even the Communist Party's hawkish mouthpiece/tabloid, the Global Times, has no article that says the ICVs have been released.

In fact, on 27 Nov, just a day before Alex Tan's claim, Global Times published an editorial that said that the ICVs "should be melted down". Does this sound to you like our ICVs have been released?

So it is very clear that Alex Tan has yet again spinned another lie to draw internet traffic to his trash-site so that he can continue stir irrational fears and to make money from advertising.


Pic: Shut Down TRS (STR FB post made on 6 Dec 2016)


However, what is disturbing here is NOT the news that some extreme elements of China's communist govt wants to destroy Singapore's property WITHOUT any clear reasons or legal basis, apart from trying to make a obtuse political statement.

What Singaporeans should truly be concerned about here, are the intentions of our "so-called" opposition supporters, politician-wannabes and "alternative media" sites like States Times Review.


FB Comment posted by Alex Tan / STR on 12 Dec 2016


It is one thing to be opposing the government. That is a given and is rightly expected in any democratic system.

However, it is totally different situation when you are "opposing" based on twisted lies and half-truths to try and gain support for your cause to profit from lies you spin.

It is even more damning when you start to side with foreign interests to backstab and betray your country simply for the sake of 'opposing' the government.




In the case of the Terrex ICVs, it is very obvious that even based on their own laws, China / HK has no legal basis to detain our vehicles.

If China / HK can openly justify the detention accordingly to their own laws, they would have already done so by now. But they haven't.

Singapore has not changed its stance on the One China Principle since establishing diplomatic ties in 1990. Nor has it attempted to hide its relations with Taiwan over defence matters.

In 1990, the then Chinese Premier Li Peng said Beijing would not be "too disturbed" by the Republic's continued use of military training facilities in Taiwan after the establishment of Sino-Singapore ties. 
Mr Li had said at a news conference: "We sympathise with Singapore's position and understand its need to build a strong defence force. On this matter, suitable arrangements will be made. (Reference)

So it is very clear to any observer that China is simply taking advantage of the ICV situation to pressure Singapore to bow to China's wishes.

So should Singapore be intimated by China's bullying tactics?

Alex Tan Zhixiang and his followers demand that Singapore "apologize" to China.

Our question to Alex Tan Zhixiang, is "Apologise for fuc what?"

As the facts show thus far, Singapore is simply standing her ground based on principles and protecting her interests.

And these interests includes not appearing to be a weak vassal state of any foreign power - China or otherwise.

Alex Tan Zhixiang claims to be a "patriot".

But would a real patriot make up fake stories for his own profit, and side with foreign interests to attack their own country?

As one great and loyal Opposition MP had once said:

"...there are certain people there who would like to see Singapore being run down and attacked Singapore. 
The issue here is not just about people like Chee Soon Juan who come and go in any event but about the survival of Singapore. 
Singapore's survival is at stake because there is an attack on the basic institution of Singapore and on the system of Singapore. 
And it is the duty of loyal Opposition to defend Singapore." 
Mr Chiam See Tong  
3 Nov 1995, Parliament (Column: 280)









Read more here:

MINDEF News Release:  (6 Dec 2016) - Update on Detention of SAF Terrex ICVs. "... have  not  been provided  formal  reasons  as  yet.."

South China Morning Post: News coverage of Singapore's Terrex ICVs







Mr Chiam See Tong's quote, 3 Nov 1995, Parliament, Column 280

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

[Defending the Lion City] Still unable to give reasons for detaining our Terrexes



Really, What the Fu*k China/HK?

After two weeks of "investigations", you still can't tell us up front why you are detaining our Terrexes?

Don't get us involved in your domestic politics.

Return our Terrexes!


Read more here:

Channel NewsAsia: (6 Dec 2016) 2 weeks on, no formal reasons given for detention of SAF vehicles in HK: MINDEF



Friday, December 2, 2016

[Defending the Lion City] No matter how the Wind howls, the Mountain cannot bow to it.





“No matter how the Wind howls, the Mountain cannot bow to it.”


As of 2 Dec 2016, China / Hong Kong have yet to provide any satisfactory reason to Singapore for detaining 9 Terrex ICVs on 23 Nov 2016. 

This is despite of APL (the shipping firm contracted to ship the Terrex ICVs) meeting with the HK Customs authorities for 7 hours last Tue, 29 Nov, and at a second meeting on 1 Dec 2016.

I wonder if China realizes that the longer this fiasco drags out without any proper explanation, it actually makes China look really bad in the eyes of the international community.

If this whole thing was about having proper papers / permits / whatever-else-documentation-you-need/want, this would have been easily resolved before it ever made the news.

So really, IMO there are only two possible explanations.

One – The HK Customs are really, really badly ineffective / inefficient / incompetent.

But that’s very unlikely – given that (1) this is NOT the first time that Singapore’s military equipment has transit through its ports, and previous transits have had no problems. And (2) HK is also one of the world’s busiest ports. You don’t become one of the world’s busiest ports by being ineffective / inefficient / incompetent.

That means the only reasonable explanation is that China (or maybe some faction of the communist leadership) really wants to show Singapore/Taiwan/Hong Kong who’s the boss.

They want to let Singapore and the rest of the world know that they are damn buay song (unhappy) over Singapore's stand of respecting and upholding the primacy of international law (vis a vis the Hague Tribunal's South China Sea Ruling) when it comes to settling disputes.

And/or maybe some of these communist 's balls comrades are itching to stir up some  communistic fervor in hopes of scoring some brownie points with the Communist President.

But whatever China’s rational/irrational reasons are, I do wonder if China realizes how big a dick moron this incident makes them to be before the international community?

If this incident is over the fact that Singapore continues to have direct defence relations with Taiwan, then it is all the more puzzling.

Singapore has not changed its stance on the One China Principle since establishing diplomatic ties in 1990. Nor has it attempted to hide its relations with Taiwan over defence matters.

In 1990, the then Chinese Premier Li Peng said Beijing would not be "too disturbed" by the Republic's continued use of military training facilities in Taiwan after the establishment of Sino-Singapore ties.Mr Li had said at a news conference: "We sympathise with Singapore's position and understand its need to build a strong defence force. On this matter, suitable arrangements will be made. (Reference)


If China continues to drag this fiasco on without providing a valid reason, legal or otherwise, for the detention of our Terrex ICVs, then China will only be hurting themselves in the long run.

The Chinese President had said at the UN General Assembly in 2015, “The big, strong and rich should not bully the small, weak and poor. Big countries should treat small countries as equals, and take a right approach to justice and interests by putting justice before interests.” (Reference)

China seems to have conveniently forgotten what it had said before the world.

The incident will show that China can, and will take arbitrary action when it pleases or deems it profitable to do so without regard to international law and justice.

It will show China as a shallow-minded nation who does not value sincere friendships and loyalties, and is only interested in fair-weather friends who are willing to acquiesce to China in exchange for benefits.

It will prove that China will be a vindictive power, who believes that might makes right, and therefore all other countries must bow in deference to China’s whims and fancies.

President Xi’s often repeated assurances to the world that China will be a peaceful nation and will not pose as a threat will start to ring hollow.

After all, if China can callously coerce/pressure Singapore, whose relationship China labels as “special and unique”, over simple issues that do not agree with China, then what assurances do other countries have that they will be dealing with China in good faith?

No one would trust or believe the word of China any more.

As for Singapore, it cannot, will not, bow to external pressure and intimidation when it comes to issues that pertain to Singapore’s sovereignty and interests. Neither will it allow itself to be made use of as a pawn in someone else's geopolitical game.

As Ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikanputs it:

“Our government is not rash but the considerations are not just relations with China 
If we allow ourselves to be intimidated by Beijing what do you think our immediate neighbours will think?”



Read more here



The Straits Times: 2 Dec 2016 - Putting Terrex issue in perspective