Would we be what we are now without LKY?

Just posted another comment on the 10 reasons thread, in response to a poster (breaky) who asked : would we be what we are now without LKY? (see below)

When I think about the question, the first parallel that comes to my mind is Liu Bei of the three Kingdoms. Never mind LKY's personality seems more suited to be Cao Cao, but Liu Bei stands out in response to the question because his success is more the result of a superb team than a single omnipotent leader. He have superb planners and strategists foremost of which is the peerless Zhuge Liang, fearless warriors to carry out the strategies in the form of the Five Tiger Generals (Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, Zhao Yun etc).

In the earlier part of his career, he thrived in the role of a charismatic leader that recruited many capable man, and won the heart of the general populace. By drawing on the impressive talents of his team he created a strong kingdom that was prosperous and strong enough to resist the aggression of his neighbors.

But Liu Bei ended tragically when he attacked Wu against the advice of Zhuge and Zhaoyun to avenge the death of Guan Yu who was captured and executed when Wu retook the Jing province.

In this battle, Liu won several skirmish in the beginning, but failed to heed the advise of the advisor Ma Liang by moving his troops into the forest to escape the summer heat. The Wu general Lu Xun counter attacked by setting the dry forest on fire and ambushing the Shu troop's as they first sought water, then retreat. The Shu army was decimated, and Liu Bei became a broken man that died soon after of disease.

What's the moral of the story, one might ask?

A team's success comes from the strengths and contributions of many - if a leader mistake the team's ability as his own and overestimate his ability, he is due for a fall.

If the people mistake the work of many able men as the contribution of a singular charismatic leader, then they are due for a big disappointment.


Going back to the question that is this posting's title - it would be more apt to ask if we would be what we are now without our founding fathers... who seems to share very little in common with our current leaders beyond being affiliated to the same political party. More on this if the opportunity arises.


------------------

@breaky

The Singapore we have today is definitely not the result of the efforts of a single man. The success of early Singapore is the result of a charismatic leader with a superb team. The architect behind the economic growth was Goh Keng Swee, the man behind the HDB story is Lim Kim San, and the man working the ground and casting the key vote that made LKY into the PM for the first time is Toh Chin Chye. In according proper respect to each contributor, we must also realize that the Elder Lee is not quite as all knowing and all capable as he is often made out to be.

I think that there are no other political party that I can trust to lead Singapore now. But the issue at hand is not the casting down of the PAP, but the voting of more opposition into the parliament to curb the arrogance and monitor the investments made with our precious reserves.

Just because we are doing better than our neighbors is no excuse for complacency – we should be asking ourselves : are we in a better position than we are 10-20 years ago? Reports have shown the middle and lower income families facing wage stagnation and regression while our leaders’ pay eclipse the highest paid leaders of the first world.

A extended monopoly of power breeds stagnation and decay – history stands testimony to this stark truth. For the sake of Singapore, for the sake of Singaporeans, and for the sake of the PAP even, we need to get more opposition into the Parliament.

Reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election

By all signs an election in the coming year seems inevitable.

It remains to be seen whether there will be any significant attempts mounted by the government to fight back on the alternative media of the Internet.

Below is a reply to a post on TOC titled "10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election"

More on it if the opportunity arises.

------------------------

AC on December 14th, 2009 2.31 pm

@My Views

You were saying that the Elder Lee have never made any comments about the Army being brought in, hence I bring up the article to provide an example and some perspective of the matter. Whether his remark is justifiable, or whether it is just a blatant attempt at fear mongering doomsday scenarios of an opposition victory, is a matter of opinion.

I find it ironic that while the Elder Lee is painting a picture of the opposition destroying Singapore’s reserves, the largest blows to our reserves in the last 2 decades occurred under his watch under his team while operating under a cloak of secrecy.

Were there sufficient due diligence, and were the investments reckless? We will never know the true answer, because our Finance minister have already stated that the people’s wish to know is not enough reason for disclosure, even when matters are brought up in our Parliament itself.

This, amongst other reasons as given in the article, should serve as a wake up call to Singaporeans of the need for more checks and controls on our existing government – the reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election.

Mahathir's Singapore fetish and the story of the 3 sens water

Malaysia's ex-pm, Tun Mahathir Mohammed, recently posted in his blog a short article titled "The Modern Middle Kingdom".

The article can be summarised as his unhappiness that Singapore/LKY views itself as the centre of the universe; that Singapore's participation in the Iskandar development project will marginalise the Johorean Malays; that the Water agreements with Singpaore constitutes a grave injustice inflicted on Malaysia; and last but not least - that Najib is foolish for not carrying out his grand vision of a crooked bridge by forcing the demolition/replacement of the causeway.

Why did Mahathir agree to 3 sens per 1000 gallon during his time? (The period for the 2 windows for price reviews for the Water agreement fall during his 22 years term in office as PM). There are several good reasons, which he always conveniently leaves out whenever he beats the long dead horse of the Water agreements.

I posted a comment there too, but the blog's settings require comments to be approved - and its been more than 12 hours since the post count froze at 120. *edit* The comment went through, some posters took note of it, some others continued to ask "why 3 sens" - either they did not read other comments, or choose to ignore the points I put forth.

Below are my comments :

A few pointers lifted from an earlier posting in my blog :

1) The construction of the reservoirs, dams and pipe works to bring the water to Johor and to Singapore, as well as it's upgrading and maintenance is all paid by Singapore - over the years it came up to a cost of more than S$1 Billion.

2) Back then, for every 1000 gallons of water:

- Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia

- Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water

- Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore

- Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents

Johor made a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought at a much lower price from Singapore. That's a tidy net profit as the cost of construction is fully paid by Singapore (refer pt 1).

3) The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it have benefited Malaysia more for the status quo to continue (refer point 2).

4) Despite Malaysia choosing not to review the prices during the periods where they could under the treaty (refer pt 3), Singapore is still open to a price review - if only the Malaysia government under Mahathir could make up his mind on the right price - Mahathir first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, he increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Yet later, he increased the demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. It can be quite hard to play football if the goal posts keep moving.

5)In Dec 98, Malaysia under Mahathir decided the drop the price reviews approach as a singular negotiation (refer pt 4), and requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. Then the Malaysian government unilaterally called off the package approach.

So all this ‘package approach’ linking sand, air space etc to water price reviews originated from Mahathir - not Singapore. Thus, both Malaysians and Singaporeans have the dear Tun to thank for the ‘creative’ approach of bundling multiple issues together.

Does strong language equate disrespect?

Mr Tan Kin Lian, former chief executive of NTUC, has been enjoying some popularity writing as a columnist for The Online Citizen (TOC). Recently, he questioned the flak that Health Minister Khaw Boon Wah has been receiving for his suggestion for cheaper homes for the elderly in Johor. Following a flurry of exchanges in the comments section, (some of which criticised Mr Tan) he followed up with an article - "Respect other people's views".

I feel that given a person of Tan's worldly experience, he is surprisingly delicate - he was visibly miffed whenever he encountered strong language.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect political debates to be gentle, and that participants should refrain from any and all comments that could be construed as an attack any of the participants.

Below is the comment I posted on that thread :

"AC on February 24th, 2009 9.36 am

I think that while we should not deviate from the issue at hand into personal attacks and insults; we should not expect the polar opposite as the norm - that all communication have be respectful and polite before any exchange can actually take place. Let’s not be overly sensitive and delicate - political debates are hardly the realm of ’sugar and spice and everything nice’.

—–

I think that cheaper nursing homes overseas should be an option explored by the private sector instead of being spear-headed by our Health Minister. I think that as a minister Khaw should be aware that he represents the government, and that his words will be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as government policy inclinations.

Unless I am mistaken, Khaw himself had said strong words publicly condemning the lack of filial piety. For the same man to broach on the topic of not only sending one’s parents to a home for elderly, but a home that is in another country, is very inappropriate and borders on hypocrisy. Is it then surprising that Singaporeans take him to task?"

Sir Shoealot Jahnke vs Wen Jiabao

Was reading a news article on the German student/researcher Martin Jahnke who threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he gave a speech at Cambridge during his 3 day trip to Britain.

Following some internet search for more articles, I came across a European forum which actually ran a poll "Martin Jahnke, European hero or villain?" in which the majority polled called him a villian.

There was a discussion on the same thread on which I added my 5 cents worth :

I think that the issue to note is the consequence of throwing the shoe - instead of damaging the Chinese premier, the act ended up scoring sympathy for Wen from neutral observers and provides moral high-ground for pro-china factions.

If he had succeeded in baiting Wen in question and answer to inappropriate remarks or behavior, then Martin Jahnke would be truly be a hero to those aligned to his causes. But it seems that he lacks in not just oratorical skills, but good sense as well.

As things stand, the rash act of lobbing a shoe at an honored guest of the distinguished school dishonored not just the individual himself, but the reputation of the school is also tarred.

He can only be a hero to those at his same level or below.

Chee vs Lee, and the loser is Singapore's Judiciary

Made some comments on TOC's article : Judging the Judiciary

1. AC on June 10th, 2008 3.19 pm

   When the integrity of our judiciary is being judged by Singaporeans and foreign observers alike, it is even more important to handle the case in an impartial and neutral stance - so that observers can note the lack of prejudice or bias.

   I felt that the conduct of the case, and the subsequent follow up actions failed to clear the doubts on the independence of our courts; and this failure is the loss of our judiciary, and the loss of Singapore.

   Chee was never a real threat to begin with - the baggage of various mistakes has shattered any mainstream credibility he possessed when he first started. With Chee’s temperament, give him enough rope and he would have hung himself on the court of public opinion, and the judiciary would have come out smelling like roses.

   Instead, we have senior government leaders stooping to exchange insults; and we have to kick a person when he’s down and on the floor – applying heavy fines to an already bankrupt to help him rouse public sympathy.

   Let’s rope in the mass media too to vilify Chee too since we are at it – does anyone really think that Chua Lee Hoong’s article will persuade converts to condemn Chee? Or will her article provoke an adverse and opposite effect similar to the backlash to the establishment by the overkill on the James Gomez during the election form incident?

   My impression is that our leaders are sorely lacking from lessons in subtlety. A nudge, some careful restrain and a step back at appropriate times will often reap more returns than blind headlong charges capitalizing solely on force superiority.

Been writing a few responses on the issue of Singapore Malaysia relations and the water agreement between the two country.

The most recent comment is posted on Endoh's Dungeon :

I feel that Malaysia and Singapore's relations have always been underscored by rivalry - and for Mahathir's case it is a double rivalry – not just Singapore vs. Malaysia, but him vs. Lee Kuan Yew as well.

It could have been a matter of bitter regret for him that his stewardship of Malaysia ended with Singapore leading in most of the areas that the two countries is competing in; with him fading into obscurity and much of his influence over UNMO weakened.

In port and shipping Mahathir did pull off a coup by drawing Maersk and Evergreen away from PSA to the Johor Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP). With the participation of the two shipping giants, PTP did very well and currently stand as a strong competitor to our PSA.

If the Causeway is demolished, shipping could then go across the straits between the two countries in a shorter route without passing around Singapore. I am no shipping expert, but this could be a push factor to bring about significantly more ships to PTP; at least Mahathir seems to think that it is so – as early as the year 2000 he have brought up the topic of replacing the Causeway in the bilateral Water agreement talks.

There was much talk that accuses Mahathir of vested interests in the construction of a new bridge. Perhaps he have made promises to various parties and there is probably much money to be made from such a project – in the same manner that BN have been handling most of their Mega Projects. But I do not believe that Mahathir’s sole and primary intent was to plunder Malaysia – I think that there is a genuine wish to see Malaysia prosper and stand up tall.

In my opinion, it is probably a mixture of interest that steers Mahathir’s rhetoric’s on the matter of replacing the Causeway – not just greed, but hope and pride – the hope that with a new shipping route the PTP could outshine PSA and stand proud as a shining legacy of Mahathir for Malaysia and the Malaysians.

------

Earlier on the same blog, there was a minor debate in the comments section on whether Singapore was a bad neighbour sparked off by the Singaporean win on Pedra Branca.

My reply there was drawn heavily from the MFA's FAQ on the matter :
(posting the chunk here, as MFA's linking seems to be frequently broken - not quite the standard I would expect of it.)

Water

Q. Why can't Singapore be more reasonable and pay a little more for the sake of neighbourliness and good bilateral relations?

A. The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.

The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.

Notwithstanding the fact that Malaysia has lost the right to a price review under the Water Agreements, Singapore was prepared to pay more for current water, in exchange for an assured future supply of water after 2061 and in the context of a package deal for resolving outstanding bilateral issues.

Q. How and in what way has Malaysia been twisting and turning during the negotiations?

A. The documents released in Parliament show clearly that Malaysia has repeatedly changed its mind on the price of water and shifted the goal posts whenever we were close to an agreement. They first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, they increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Later they increased their demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. This is a 200-fold increase! The Malaysians also refused to discuss future water supplied to Singapore until 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement runs out.

In Dec 98, Malaysia requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. But Malaysia's constant flip-flops in position made it hard to reach any agreement. Finally, it became clear Malaysia did not want to sell future water to Singapore. They even unilaterally called off the package approach. So there was nothing left to negotiate.

Q. Didn't the Water Agreements provide for a price review after 25 years? If so, why cannot Malaysia ask for a review now?

A. Malaysia has lost its legal right to a price review under the Water Agreements. The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it would not benefit them at that time.

Q. Is it true Singapore is "profiteering" by buying raw water cheap from Malaysia and selling treated water to Malaysia at a high price?

A. No, on the contrary, we are selling treated water cheap to Malaysia and Malaysia is reselling that to Malaysians for a big profit.

The arithmetic is quite simple. For every 1000 gallons of water:
Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents

Singapore pays 3 sen for raw water, but the real cost to us for raw water is much higher because we pay for all the construction costs to build the reservoirs, dams and pipeworks to bring the water to Singapore.

On the other hand, Malaysia makes money from the treated water they buy from us. Each day, Malaysia buys 37 million gallons of treated water. This means that we lose to Malaysia RM70,000 a day for treated water, and Johor makes a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought cheaply from us. That's a profit of RM47 million each year!

Q. Is it true the Water Agreements and the low price of 3 sen were all "fixed by the British" in 1927, working in favour of Singapore as Malaysia has claimed?

A. No. The 1927 Water Agreement did not cover the price of water supplied to Singapore. So it is absolutely wrong to say that the 3 sen price was fixed by the British who "favoured" Singapore. The price was set under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements signed by the Johor State Government and the Singapore City Council. By then, Malaya was already an independent nation, and Singapore had achieved self-government. It is absurd to suggest that the Federal Government of an independent and sovereign Malaya would have allowed the Johor State Government to be manipulated by the British to sign an agreement that was against Malaya's national interests.

Q. What about Malaysia's claim that Singapore is "underpaying" Johor for raw water because Hong Kong buys water from China at RM8 per 1,000 gallons?

A. This is like comparing apples with oranges. Hong Kong pays China RM8, but in turn, China pays for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the reservoirs and the water pipes to deliver the water to Hong Kong. Singapore, on the other hand, pays for all these costs. Over the years, Singapore has spent over S$1 billion on such projects, and continues to pay for their upgrading and maintenance. Malaysia did not have to spend a cent.

Back to top

Pedra Branca

Q. What is the dispute with Malaysia over Pedra Branca all about?

A. The dispute arose in 1979, when Malaysia for the first time published a new map which claimed the island. Prior to that, Singapore had occupied and exercised full sovereignty over the island for more than 150 years since the 1840s without any protest from Malaysia. Previous Malaysian maps, even as late as 1974, showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.

Q. Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute on Pedra Branca before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?

A. In 1981, both Singapore and Malaysia agreed that the ownership of Pedra Branca be resolved through an exchange of documents. However, Malaysia did not respond when Singapore informed Malaysia that we were ready to exchange documents. In 1989, Singapore then proposed to resolve Malaysia's claim through the ICJ process. Malaysia agreed to this in 1994 and both countries settled on the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to the ICJ in 1998. Malaysia did not make any serious attempt to pursue the signing and ratification of the Special Agreement to start the process until 2003.

Q. What is the current status of the Pedra Branca case?

A. On 6 February 2003, the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore signed the Special Agreement to submit the dispute to the ICJ. Having regard to the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ ordered each side to submit three rounds of written pleadings. These were submitted in March 2004, January 2005 and November 2005, respectively. Having decided in May 2006 that no further written pleadings were required and the written phase of the proceedings was closed, the ICJ has since informed the parties that the oral proceedings will take place from 6 - 23 November 2007.

Why is Singapore chasing away Malaysian vessels from Pedra Branca? Does Malaysia not have a right to patrol at Pedra Branca before the ICJ's ruling?

A. Singapore has exercised exclusive control and sovereignty of Pedra Branca since the 1840s. This is the status quo. Until Malaysia's claim is decided by the ICJ, the status quo must remain.

Malaysia took the same position against Indonesian naval intrusions during the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute. In that case, Malaysia took the position that as it was in possession of the islands, the status quo should prevail. However, Malaysia has taken a contradictory position on the Pedra Branca issue by disregarding the status quo and intruding into Singapore waters.

Back to top

Loose Talk Of War

Q. What is this talk of war over the unresolved bilateral issues?

A. It was started by Malaysian leaders and media. Such loose talk of war is irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up emotions that could become difficult to control.

Singapore wants to have good relations with Malaysia. There is much that both countries can gain by working together. Our common interests far exceed our differences.

Back to top

The Way Forward

Q. What next, now that the talks have reached an impasse?

A. It is in the interest of both countries to settle our differences through negotiations. However, as it is clear that we cannot expect renewal of water supply after 2061, the basis for future negotiations on water no longer exists. We are ready to have the dispute resolved through arbitration according to the laws of Johor, as provided for by the two Water Agreements.