From "foot in mouth" leaders... O Lord, deliver us!

Quite early in his political career, it  was LKY himself who warned all and sundry: "Do not make enemies by accident." Now he is waving a red flag in front of bulls to the north and south, and not accidentally, mind you. I am paraphrasing his thinly-veiled warning to them: "You hit me, I will hit you where it hurts most."
 

And why does he think they will try to hurt Singapore? Angst is why, he says so himself -- in a new book entitled "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard truths..." And how will they try to hurt us? See a list of possibilities below.

First, what creates the closest bond between people and nations? Nothing beats having a common enemy. Also, a "beggar thy neighbour" policy gets people and nations all riled up, especially when they can clearly see you are getting richer -- at their expense, so they believe. Hence, the angst.

We have been causing a brain drain in neighbouring countries, mainly from Malaysia, for more than 50 years. Brilliant non-Malay students from Malaysia have been offered Asean/Singapore scholarships to study in Singapore. They are now doctors and pharmacists, engineers, etc. in Singapore. How many from Indonesia? Your guess is as good as mine.

Indonesians living in a country where poverty is endemic among the masses have another gripe. They know Singapore is a haven or refuge for super wealthy Indonesians (who probably pay no income tax either in Singapore or Indonesia; only their factories and industrial enterprises need pay tax over there.)

Their children can go to universities anywhere. And don't forget the Indonesian maids in Singapore. What do their compatriots at home think of their contributions here?

To Malaysians at least, Singapore could offer this defensive argument: "Your Bumiputra positive discriminatory policy is to blame, they have no hope of entering your universities; even if we do not lure them to Singapore, non-Malay brilliant students could choose to go west for further studies and still be lost to Malaysia." To mollify the Indonesians, no simple words come to mind.

So there is no escaping from this fact: For far too many years, Singapore has ruffled feathers to the north and south.

Does anyone remember, just before Mao Tse-tung's triumphant forces drove Chiang Kaishek's army to flee to Taiwan, how Singapore's colonial masters took deliberate and calculated steps to ensure that we would not be regarded by our neighbours as a "Third China"?

This and subsequent actions of our locally-elected leaders spelt doom for pro-Chinese middle school students and the Middle Road union leaders.

The picture today is somewhat a little mirky, dimmed by the passage of time: Did the PAP leadership merely acquiesce in the detention of large numbers of "communist front" agitators, or did LKY and his lot play a more active role in the pre-detention deliberations?

That is now a moot point. Lim Chin Siong and many others paid the price – a few detained for decades!

Who knows how our neighbours are reacting to the influx of Chinese immigrants? Has the "Third China" label come back to haunt us? It began with "study mamas" from the Middle Kingdom entering Singapore in droves, accompanying their children enrolled in  Singapore schools. We also have broadcast the fact that Chinese ping-pong stars are now carrying the Singapore flag to international tournaments!

And let's not gloss over the harlots infesting Geylang vice joints. On national TV we learn that many are Chinese immigrants. Add to our headline prayer: "From Geylang harlots... O Lord, deliver us!"

To summarise: Our neighbours have been given yet another reason to be suspicious of this "Third China" in this region.

 So how can these neighbours hurt us? Invade Singapore? The SAF can be counted on to resist resolutely. The attendant massive destruction of industries and infrastructure on this island rules out this option. No land that has had its infrastructure destroyed or suffered from a "scorched earth" military strategy is worth occupying.

Consider a "worst case scenario" -- well, more than one. Wikileaks recently gave our neighbours to the north an inkling of how our officials regard their leaders as an incompetent bunch of has-beens. Okay, so our foreign policy officials have declared that we were misquoted with words taken out of context. Not really new, this problem, but damaging to relations between close neighbours.

After his return from England with his "double first" in law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after trying his hand at practising law (just one memorable high point --  playing second fiddle to D.N. Pritt who secured the release of the Fajar Eight, who had been prosecuted by the colonial masters on sedition charges) found his true calling as unpaid legal adviser to the Middle Road unions and, thanks to what has been recognised as political acumen, was elected No. 1 in the PAP ranks, narrowly beating Ong Eng Guan by just the one casting vote of Dr Toh Chin Chye. This paved the way for his elevation to Prime Minister of Singapore.

As P.M. he declared in a public speech that if he and 300 of his chosen ones (associates, sycophants and officials) were to be in an airliner and if it crashed, killing all aboard, Singapore could not survive. Was that an early symptom of "foot in mouth" disease?

This brash style of leadership bred an early generation of arrogant, loutish officials who irritated their Malayan counterparts, who told me then: "Your people from Singapore come to meetings with us and are so damned arrogant, Your leaders have perfected mind control over the masses, so your Singapore officials dare to lecture us on how to run our country. They don't have our racial problems, and we have not just racial problems."

Shades of Indira Gandhi: "Mr LKY, How dare you try to tell me how to run my country? Yours is a tinpot democracy." (William Safire probably took his cue from Indira when he called LKY a tinpot tyrant, a tinpot dictator. Mind you, the late Mr Safire was recognised as a man who had a way with words. "Nattering nabobs of negativism!" He penned this as speech writer for Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who used it to berate the "liberal" media.)

So on to Worst case scenario: With GPS technology, it is possible to send a guided missile or rocket from any point just 30-50 miles distant from the north or south to blow up any or all of the oil refinery islands south of our main Singapore island. How about missiles launched from a vessel on the high seas?

Result: Massive repair bill, months of work needed before resumption of production. Also, much more damaging, this sends a signal to MNCs that investing in Singapore is NOT entirely safe. Note: The missile or rocket can also be guided to land on any of several major MNC targets (now grouped conveniently in industrial hubs) or even on the Istana set in its extensive palatial grounds -- so collateral damage here would be minimal.

Another Worst case scenario: The target could also be the Marina Barrage's sea gates, designed in Japan, fabricated in Taiwan and transported in barges to Singapore. Perhaps the Keppel master builders of oil rigs worth billions in the market today could repair the damage by fabricating replacements for the gates.

Main objective achieved: Economic damage (Beggar thy neighbour, sweet revenge.)

So what can Singapore do to retaliate? Mobilise the SAF to go in with tanks, mobile howitzers, or attack the capitals of our neighbours from the air? Appeal to the Security Council? Can Singapore lay the blame for such a dastardly attack at the door of any neighbour?

We have Osama Ben Laden and other terrorists operating world-wide. Destroying  the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York was relatively easy. What's to stop a maverick group, so angered by reckless statements of Singapore officials, from plotting with terrorists to launch attacks on Singapore?

Another Worst case scenario: Re-examine the Kra Canal project. If Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand (even China -- to Hong Kong's advantage) can persuade Singapore to believe they have an interest in digging this canal, Singapore could:

(a) Send in SAF parachutists, supported by forces in tank landing craft, or launch an air attack to disrupt the digging operations (act of naked aggresssion, not likely to be ignored by the Security Council);

(b) Persuade the project leaders to desist, by agreeing to pay in perpetuity, as long as the canal remains only on paper, a sum of money in billions or trillions, like royalties paid to copyright owners.

This sum can be based on the estimated loss of maritime traffic through the Straits of Malacca to Singapore – so our advantage of location, location will then be no longer Singapore's trump card. Again, beggar thy neighbour, sweet revenge. Ha! That's what I think of the downstream problems generated by someone who clearly has "foot in mouth" disease -- an affliction Singaporeans cannot afford to ignore.

Granted, this Kra canal project has been examined and re-examined over the years – and so far, the cons outweigh the pros. But who has a reliable crystal ball? The word from the top? "Don't worry, they'll never proceed with this canal. We can afford to continue to shoot from the mouth. Our enemies can't hurt us this way."

A correspondent has a theory: "I think the more LKY pushes the idea of war with neighbouring countries, which has been on his back burner ever since he took power, the more the seed is sown in the minds of Singaporeans that it is a likelihood.

"Of all the countries/borders on the planet, and in spite of its history, I don't see this as a flashpoint at present but something that LKY is promoting as an idea to whip up nationalism and encourage others to take pot shots.

"All countries overspend on military might. The more they spend, the more they get involved in war.

"It's like the story of the Cherokee boy who sat with his grandfather and talked about how challenging life was. The boy was confused and sad. The grandfather put his hands on the boy's shoulder: 'There are two wolves in all of us who fight for control. One is dishonest, cunning, violent, self-interested and seeks power over others. The other wolf is compassionate, courageous, honest, loving, humble and joyful.'

The boy asked: "Which wolf wins?" The grandfather replied: "The one you feed."

If any reader of my blog or any ISD officer is labouring under the misapprehension that I am a trouble-maker, gleefully painting these worst case scenarios, let me set the record straight.

Quoting from the Singapore Herald's National Day edition on Aug. 9, 1970: "To be a Singaporean is to have a stake in a society that works. Given this stake, every Singaporean has a duty to ensure that, as the years go by, this society will continue to work better and better

Another quote: "I was showing a visitor around Singapore. And everywhere we went, I could not help swelling with pride because all around us visual proof of dynamic progress abounded --  progress of the kind that must be evident to all who have a modest memory and a pair of eyes."

Yes, indeed, there is proof of dynamic progress to be seen every day. Let us not  provoke our neighbours with reckless "I dare you" challenges. They could be tempted to teach us a lesson by destroying some of these symbols of our progress.

What is all this about? In case you missed it, this is the background:  The Straits Times (partner in the book project) broke the story on Friday, 14 January.

The project began in August 2008. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who had already published his first two memoirs (obviously, an exercise in self-promotion, with help from a gaggle of S.T. journalists in editing his manuscripts), decided to write a third.

He called S.T. editor Han Fook Kwang to seek his opinion on the draft chapters he had written. He told the editor he wanted to remind young Singaporeans about the harsh realities facing Singapore. Mr Han persuaded him to have a team of journalists ask him questions (based on what he had written) and record his answers so that Singaporeans would not reject his third volume of memoirs out of hand as "the same old tune."

So the book, in Q & A format, after 16 interviews x 2 hours each, is out. Extensive  S.T. coverage on Friday. Next, The Sunday Times went to town again, reporting on the book and quoting LKY verbatim:

"They (younger Singaporeans) do not know the threats we face from neighbouring countries. For example, on our National Day, Aug. 9, 1991, the Malaysian and the Indonesian armed forces held joint exercises at Kota Tinggi with parachute drops.

"Hence we mobilised our forces, in addition to forces parading for the National Day celebrations. I did not believe they wanted to invade us, but they wanted to intimidate and con us, so that we know our place at the bottom of the pecking order in the region.

"We need a sturdy, strong and capable SAF, not only to defend Singapore but return blow for blow when necessary. If we do not have this strong SAF, we are vulnerable to all kinds of pressures from both Malaysia and Indonesia."

He added that Singapore "must never forget that the more prosperous and vibrant we are, the more the angst of the people in our region."

The reference to Kota Tinggi is worth noting. In the early 1960s, with Israeli officers (masquerading as Mexicans) training our Natoinal Servicemen, it was proposed that to fight a war against Malaya, Singapore forces should push north, supported by tanks, and hold the line at Kota Tinggi. This plan was bruited about quite openly and was generally acknowledged as a military objective worth serious study. No doubt the Malayans knew all about this.

Perhaps we should consider recruiting more Mexican/Israeli military strategists to help us take the next step?

"Foot in mouth" malady spreads:  About a year ago, give or take a couple of months (who keeps track of such trivialities?)  our Law  Minister, Mr K. Shanmugam, just out of the blue, suddenly announced in a well-publicised speech:

"We do not subscribe to the notion that Singapore needs the Press to keep a check on the Government." Just where was he going with this? Was he trying to be His Master's Voice?

Let's get this straight. No newspaper in the world, as far as I know, has ever printed/declared on its masthead this motto: "We are here to keep a check on the Government."

The motto of the New York Times is: "All the news that's fit to print."

Dear Mr Shanmugam, please note that yours is a skewed view of what newpapers are all about. Do you remember when an old school complex was about to be set aside to be a dormitory for immigrant construction workers from India, Bangladesh, etc.

The neghbourhood residents of Serangoon Gardens were up in arms. Their protests were reported in The Straits Times. Whereupon, the Government took steps to mollify them, adjustments were made, plans were re-drawn so that a new approach road could be built to bypass the homes of the residents.

That is how newspapers do their job, to report and let the Government take note of grievances. THEY DO NOT ACT AS A CHECK ON GOVTS.

Dear Mr Law Minister: Perhaps you may care to give us your honest views on how you think governments should do more to keep a check on newspapers? I, and many Singaporeans, I am sure, look forward to hearing from you – with bated breath.

       (To be continued – more editing…)