TR EMERITUS

I got to admit that I started tearing up when the news of the Queen’s death broke. I was up at night, following the news online and when Youtube channels and wire services broke the news, it felt like I had lost a nice grandmother. Although I lived in the UK for my formative years, I am not British and I can not claim that she was “My Queen.” Furthermore, I grew up in the UK, which meant that I ended idolising anyone in history who drove out Western colonialist. My heroes are people like Gandhi, Nehru and Ho Chi Minh. Just look at the following graphic, which gives you an idea of how much the symbols of “valued British tradition” which the monarchy symbolises are built on the stealing from people like me – people of colour. Yet, hearing about her death has left me with a profound sadness: Trawled through several postings and I noticed that I am not the only one who is feeling strangely bereft by her passing. People I know, who are against the very concept of monarchy were sad and described her passing as the loss of an extraordinary person. So, how why has the passing of a woman whose sole purpose in life was to be a symbol of many objectionable things be a cause of bereavement for so much people around the world? Whilst I cannot speak for everyone, I believe that the Queen managed to touch the lives of so many around the world by being who she was and making her personality fit shape the institution that she represented. Let us start with the fact that although the idea of “monarchy” or the principle the “some people are born to rule,” might seem like an “anachronism” in the modern world, the institution of monarchy, particularly in the constitutional ones, has certain strengths. Constitutional monarchs are effectively expensive cutlery. They are well taken care of by the tax payer because the only thing that are expected to do is to look good on certain occasions. Constitutional monarchs attend events, meet the people and read the speeches that the Prime Minister bowing before them tells them. Governments policy is issued in their name but everyone knows that is actually the elected Prime Minister enacting the policy. You could say that Megan Markle saw marrying into the Royal Family as being part of a never-ending film production where you just read the lines you are given. While constitutional monarchs have no “real” power to do things (if anything, they are treated as public instruments to be used by governments) it does not necessarily make them powerless and the more successful constitutional monarchs have understood that the less power they are seen to have, the more power they have. Trying to take political power is a death trap for a constitutional monarch. Successful constitutional monarchs are the ones who appear to defend the democratic process. Thailand’s late King Bhumibol Adulyadej was revered because of it. In 1992, the military government sent in the tanks to crush protestors. The next day, head of that military government was seen on his knees being told off by the King and he promptly resigned, leading the path towards democracy. In 2006, the King famously dressed down Thai judges for “allowing an election with only one political party – that is not democratic,” while Singapore’s “elected” politicians were justifying why Singapore needed only one political party. By contrast, the former King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal took back absolute power in 2006. Two years later, the Nepalese monarchy was abolished. Elizabeth II has been aware of this role and played it masterfully in her 70-years on the throne. She never gave an interview and never allowed anyone to know what she thought of or spoke with any of her 15 Prime Ministers. Former Prime Minister, Terresa May in her tribute to the late Queen said that she looked forward to the weekly meetings because she knew it was the only meeting that would never be leaked to the media. By not saying anything, nobody could accuse of taking positions nor could anyone accuse of getting dirty with the grubby business of getting things done. On the other hand, she also had a knack of appearing when she was needed. One of the most prominent moments came in 2017 at the Grenfell Tower fire. The Queen came to meet the victims. The Prime Minister, Terresa May, hid from the victims. The optics were obvious. Another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson provided the example of the Queen driving her own land rover in the country, whilst his follow politicians stuck to their convoys. Again, the optics are obvious. The late Queen was like the ideal grandmother, who doesn’t do anything particular to affect your life except to show up when you need someone to be there. The longevity of her reign also made her a reassuring figure. Prime Ministers came and went but Queen was always there (she had seen 15 Prime Ministers, and her last three came in the last six years). A Constant in our live through the years. A Queen, who is not allowed to do much except appear where she is told to appear has proven exceedingly useful in another way. She has been a unifying symbol to the nation regardless of political beliefs. Upon her death, the House of Commons started agreeing. Union leaders of the rail unions called of their strikes in respect of the Queen. The passing of the woman has brought unity to a nation that had been becoming acrimonious and divided by Brexit. The contrast across the Atlantic could not be starker. US President, Joe Biden has made wonderful speeches about “United States” rather than Red of Blue States. However, the nation remains helplessly divided. Unlike the monarch, the US President is responsible for the results of government. When things go wrong, half the nation howls about his screw ups, which only acerbates divisions. The world has lost a woman who knew her place in it. She knew how to play the cards she was given and the world will miss her steady presence.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be      Read More →

Drones are a new innovation in warfare, but they are similar in concept to past innovations which gave one side a distinct or overwhelming advantage over the other. For those of us with many exposures to tactical warfare and its psychological, personal, social, theological, economic, political, and military consequences in our minds, hearts, and souls, the discussion of drones is irrelevant. Any public-academic-theoretical discussion of military operations (e.g.drones), tactics (actual fighting), and strategic (national security/defense) MUST include equal parts of reality (war experience--operations, tactics, and strategy). As the Chinese would say: "Where is the bell?" Taiwan says it shot down an 'unidentified' civilian drone over Kinmen, one of its' islands that lies just a few kilometers from mainland China. Let us not be naive. There is a 'reciprocity of predicament' in Taiwan's planned asymmetric warfare using US's armed MQ-9 Reaper drones against China's GJ-11, CAIG Wing Loong I, CAIG Wing Loong II, CH-3, CH-4, CH-5. [LINK] Next, is the precarious attitude of Taiwanese's look at TSMC as a larger than life entity. Its' dominance in cutting edge chip manufacturing (7 and now 5 nm ) is also due to their massive investment in so-called Extreme UV scanners, which are made by the Dutch company ASML. While the machine may be from ASML, components it uses as well as other parts are made by US manufacturers. There are few if any alternates to US companies in the field. Currently TSMC is considered to have the best process and can charge a premium over Samsung. Also, it has to be pointed out that Taiwan has chip factories that the west are completely dependent upon. Your iPhone runs on them; maybe your computer, your car, your coffeemaker, your TV, as well. And most of the data centers doing the AI that runs everything in this global network use Nvidia technology, manufactured in Taiwan. So maybe that's a new reason to defend Taiwan that wasn't there during the cold war years. Maybe a lot of military tech depends on Taiwan. As Taiwan looks forward to producing “democracy chips” with the United States, President Tsai Ing-wen has told the visiting governor of the US state of Arizona that TSMC is building a $35 billion dollar on-going semiconductor foundry in normally severely water challenged Arizona. Why Arizona, of all places? Why not someplace near the Great Lakes or in upstate New York, where water is plentiful, and the population well educated? So let’s just extend this thinking about semiconductor plants and water usage and ask the question, “Why does Intel build and expand in Phoenix?” that is now experiencing a drought across the entire state and where 55% of the land is categorized as suffering exceptional drought ...what are they thinking? Lucky for Intel, it still the leader in supplying chips to data centers. Using cash flow from its core business, it can afford the $20bn cost of new fabs. Intel used to be the number one chip company. Then their first Republican CEO Paul Otellini, a Bush supporter, took over. He brilliantly told Steve Jobs that Intel was not interested making the microprocessor for the iPhone. Intel then went from being the number one maker of microprocessors to being number two. He was replaced by their second Republican CEO Brian Krzanich, a notorious Trump supporter. Under his leadership Intel went from being the number one semiconductor company to being number two. While TSMC is clearly recognised as an entity that elevates the economic/strategic importance of Taiwan, I doubt if worshiping of TSMC in its role as a protector of Taiwan is widely and deeply shared there. Taiwan is facing a drought, and it has prioritized its computer chip business over farmers. I was thinking exactly the same. Taiwan should give money to farmers to compensate their loss and sacrifice and collect tax revenue from semiconductor industry that has priority to use of water. If water is indeed being diverted the farmers MUST be compensated. [LINK] All in all, though, it's likely that the current tensions will only accelerate China's development of its indigenous IC industry -- from design to silicon. And they've plenty of top-notch talent to do this. Biden is looking for ways to reduce that dependence. He is ordering a review of US supply chains for semiconductors, large-capacity batteries and rare earth minerals to ensure reliable access to those elements. It will be interesting to see how this new trend will affect China’s rivalry with the US in the ongoing competition for global tech leadership. Last, the summaries of war games on this topic that I have seen (including from the CSIS think tank in DC) show that under current conditions the best the US could do would be to slow an invasion from the mainland. If the US starts beefing up Taiwan defenses, it will be Cuban Missile Crisis II, with China in the weaker position. Ratcheting up aid and support for Taiwan may be indicated, but it is not as simple as "get tougher". Xi could even use a buildup as an excuse to move. The loss of prestige to the US from a quick rout of Taiwan would make Suez look like a bad press conference by comparison. The second major problem is, even if the US does establish a bigger presence, how do you prevent a defensive action in Taiwan from spilling onto mainland China? Fighter jets cover 100 miles in less than 2 seconds (!!), making it nearly impossible not to fly over the mainland while defending Taiwan from the air. After those 2 seconds, the threat of a full-blown confrontation increases dramatically. China is a country that is meticulous about protocol. If one don't think China is ultra sensitive to incursions on the mainland, one has not been paying attention since 1949. The fundamental difference between how China and the USA operates is China prioritizes 25-50 years out at a strategic level which is anathema to US system of fast returns. Until US plan and execute at that level, they will be caught flat footed. The adhocism under Trump had thrown the Chinese off but Biden's team has made an impressive start with very professional people who did their homework well. This is why I think the Chinese will take America seriously again.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

I evaluate risks. Many risks have low impact. They have low frequency (say 1 in a million) or low severity (say cost $100 or less). I do not bother about risks with low impact. For example: a) I leave my back pack unzipped because there is nothing valuable could be lost or stolen b) I do not worry about being infected by mild covid, because they go away after a few days. I do not take the trouble to control these low impact risks. The cost of the control measures outweigh the loss that could happen. I do not want to zip my bag because I have other things to take care of, like holding to the rail on boarding the bus. I have only two hands and many things to do, apart from zipping the bag. Falling off the bus is more serious than losing some useless things in my back pack. For the same reason, I do not want to wear a mask on the bus or train, because I do not have enough hands to put on the mask, tap the fare card, carry one or two bags and my mobile phone. Other people have their own priority. I leave them alone. They should also leave me along - and stop asking me to zip my bag or put on a mask.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →