TR EMERITUS

When I put up this crossing two years ago, I received many negative feedback. They include: * The crossing will collapse * The wood will rot * I have to get approval from the authority. These feedback were given by people who did not bother to get the facts and carry out a risk evaluation. They only imagine the worst that could happen and form their opinion on the imaginary risks. They represent the majority of the views given. There were a few people who said that the crossing is okay, and if it does get into trouble, I would be able to take corrective actions at that time. How does this affect the insane ministers? They took the same approach in dealing with the pandemic. They imagine the worst that could happen and took extreme measures to deal with it. They locked down the economy to a large extent. The spent over $100 billion of our reserves (i.e. more than $20,000 per citizen - including children). They also destroyed countless livelihoods and businesses. Although the actual risk turned out to be rather low, they continued with their insane measures. It is a common habit for most people in Singapore to imagine the worst case scenario and take extreme measures to deal with the exaggerated risk. This applies to our ministers as well - even though they are supposed to be more intelligent than the average person and has access to more data to make the appropriate decisions.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

As the chinese saying goes, 上有政策，下有对策 (The higher ups have policies while the lower downs have their own ways of getting around them). It matters as much on the political will from the top, as it is on how it's implemented and executed on the local level. As China opens up more to market economy, it'll facilitate corruption even more since the biggest piece of pork is no longer under state control. What it also needs, is the rule of law, without which everything (success or failure) is beholden on whoever is in power. We cannot judge the danger of an autocrat under conditions when things are going well - we can only know his true colors when they are not - and by then, it may be too late. Is it at all possible that President Xi could use his current neo-authoritarianism to push through democratic reforms the way General de Gaulle did in France? If he were truly benign and well-intentioned, it would be possible to argue that it would be a bad thing to "ensure that Mr. Xi will continue pursuing his agenda, which has begun to lift millions of people out of poverty, reformed state-owned enterprises, protected the environment and built strategic industries. If all goes according to plan, he could preside over the transition when China eclipses the United States as the world’s largest economy in absolute terms within two decades." The problem is, as we've seen time and time again, his objective will soon become all about clinging to power, and doing whatever it takes - not just the crackdown on freedoms or imports, but more sinister steps if/when the economic and social results are not what he'd like them. At the end of the day, both our systems resemble in that an elite, political or economic control the establishment as being the front men or acting behind the curtains. In democracy you are allowed to speak and act to a certain level bit beyond that if you begin to jeopardize the entrenched interests of the elite, you will be demolished by being demonized by the twin forces of the elite corporate media and the establishment. This is particularly evident when you dare to question the omnipresence of those political behemoths in the private and public sphere of the society. These forces are undermining democracy. On the other hand the communist countries are quite brute in their control of society. But what about the ability of the ordinary citizen to speak when his 'freedom of speech' is being grabbed forcefully and his recourse to justice is so financially onerous - Is the end result different from China where the peasants will end up with the same fate for his land earmarked for real estate development? But it should keep in mind that in nations in which the moderate voices of the middle class are suppressed, power is eventually taken by sinister forces that ride into power on the backs of the uneducated, and generally prove worse than the original oppressors. The historian, Ma Yong, is quoted as saying: “The question is: Can society be kept under control while you go forward? That’s our test.” This was also the question the Chinese Imperial government faced at the end of the Qing Dynasty in the nineteenth century and points directly to the real issues China's leaders face now. It's hard to change things when those things are entrenched in a society/country whether it's a democracy or any other form of governance. This is true of Communist, Socialists, Republicans, and Democrats. Ideology, in terms of fascist thoughts (by "fascism" I mean the unified combination of socialism, capitalism, and militarism), has nothing to do with political control. I saw, with my own eyes, a very large group of Chinese citizens singing the old songs of Mao, with fervor, with passion and pride. They get together every day, at the Summer Palace, to relive the 'glory days'. One very pleasant older gentleman tried to recruit me for the sing-along. I know fervor in music when I hear it. But here we don't revere Stalin or Mao, we revere..... The age of top-down hierarchies is over. The iron fist and the police state are hopelessly overmatched by people educated as never before in history. There isn't nearly as much separating us from China as you might wish to believe. The only difference is that we went opposite directions. Successful democracy is created by the middle class. Thus the trick in managing this transition is to create a vibrant, educated middle class -- something China is doing -- and to create the institutions that will allow it to take power. As societies change and become better educated, the fawning support of past dictators dies out to be replaced with the longing for the rights of citizens, rather than being subjugated by autocrats. Xi would I think do well to look at South Korea and Taiwan, which democratized peacefully as they became more prosperous and their middle class grew. Both began with the trappings of democracy, but an authoritarian presidential system. Both became real democracies over time. Japan and Hong Kong are instructive as well. When China opts for democratic reforms, it will proceed out of economic necessity, not from high flown ideals. Taiwan's JIANG Jing-Guo, who initiated democracy on the island, was no democrat, just a pragmatic who acknowledged the economy & society were becoming too rich and complex for a centralized government to control. Mainland might have reached that stage when a dynamic economy needs individuals not to be obedient but creative. Can society be kept under control while you go forward? Or is it the other way around. Can you go forward while you keep society under control? We will never be a great country until we are able to ask the right question.   Sojourner      Read More →

I am not state political analysts like Eugene or Gillian which only promotes state agenda. I am political novice trying to pretend to be a guru. One country two systems, the hall mark of Hong Kong, very successfully making Hong Kong number one financial centre in Asia and everything was booming. Most Chinese citizens would try their ways to move there to look for jobs or convert into permanent residents. Singapore was always ranked behind Hong Kong. The economy with the support from regions and China was glowing rapidly and everything was looking real good. Suddenly, the abrupt introduction to jam break the one country two systems which expires in 2047 and to introduce all kind of new rules and regulations and putting puppets in place. This is to stop the one country two systems and forces it to adapt to the China's system of one party, one system. Never mind the massive protests and public anger, and huge financial losses and foreign companies exiting Hong Kong. If Chinese provinces and 1.3B people see the good success of the 1 country 2 system and start...... In the case of Singapore, millions of foreigners imported and converted to new citizens and PRs causing many locals to be replaced or downgrade to self employed as PHVs or food deliveries. And recently, the party even lost a GRC but the war cry of "We need more foreigners" never stop. Many local bornts are unhappy or even angry with the liberal foreign immigration policy but why the leaders still insist and repeat again and again in public and give you all kind of bogus reasons such as foreigners create jobs for Singaporeans? The answer to all this: Party Survival and Power Attention. Do you agree?   Political Novice      Read More →