Thoughts on the NDR 2018

I had my wish list for the NDR.

China-US Trade War

For the US-China trade war, one potential PM-to-be had spoken about it. But he was speaking at the American Chamber of Commerce, and his message was for the Americans:

"Your choice of where you put your investment, your choice of where you make those strategic moves for your company, will cumulatively build up a picture of what the US stands for in this region… The choice you will make individually will collectively inform Washington where their priorities will be."

There was no message for Singaporeans.

The better message was from Bilahari Kausikan.  But his message was more on the idea of a Singaporean identity, and the Singapore Reality resisting the imposition of the Chinese (China) framework and identity on Singapore:

This is in brief, how it works: An overly simplified but superficially plausible narrative of China’s rise is spread by various means.

Most people who are not very interested in international affairs, do not realise they are being fed over-simplifications and swallow them.

Inducements and the possibility of coercion, typically economic, encourages others to suspend their critical faculties or play along.

Appeals to ethnic pride are made to yet others.

In the context of the global resurgence of identity politics, all this creates an environment that makes some Singaporeans susceptible to psychological manipulation.

The aim is to instill a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitability and desirability of a Chinese identity for multiracial Singapore.

After all, if China’s rise and America’s decline are inevitable, why not get on the right side of history?

The ultimate objective is to get Singaporeans – and not just Chinese Singaporeans -- to pressure the government to align Singapore’s national interests with China’s core interests.

Some of our national interests will in fact be aligned with Chinese interests.

Just as some of our interests will align with American interests, or Japanese interests, or Russian interests, or Indian interests, or French, Australian, Malaysian, or Indonesian interests; or for that matter, the interests of Swaziland or Vanuatu.

But it must always be our national interests and if there are alignments of interests, they must be determined by our choices and not because of manipulation by any foreign country.

Kausikan's series of talks and warnings were socio-psychological defence - to shine a light on Chinese attempts to impose a Chinese identity on multi-racial Singapore and ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans are aligned with China's/Chinese interests.

But that is not NDR's subject matter. At least not as Kausikan had presented it.

And certainly, while the warning is needed, it is one thing to have a retired civil servant sound the warning, and another thing, a very high diplomatic signal thing, for the PM to sound the warning during NDR. That may not be the equivalent of a declaration of war, but it would be seen as VERY UNFRIENDLY for Singapore's PM to accuse the China of psychological manipulations.

In any case, that is NOT what I thought he should have talked about. I would have like to hear assessment of the situation, possible denouement of the war, and scenarios - a) US "wins" the trade war, b) China "wins" the trade war, c) the war drags on with no clear winner, d) the war escalates and spills over into other domain (e.g. military).

Chan Chun Sing's speech touch on that a little - the audience and his consensus is that this will drag on for a while. The problem is, because he was speaking to American businessmen, he did not address the issues that a prolonged trade war would have on Singapore.

PM Lee was reported to have said this at the NDR:

Turning to concerns about the US-China trade war, Mr Lee said there can be no winners in such a conflict and warned that small and open economies like Singapore will suffer "collateral damage".
More broadly, he noted that the world was at a "turning point", given growing doubts about the relationship between the major powers, and questions about the longevity of the existing international system. "We hope all countries will act with restraint and wisdom, overcome the current challenges, and find a new way to move forward together," said Mr Lee.

How... underwhelming.

Perhaps this is all he is at liberty to say. Perhaps it would be impolitic to say anything else.

But I suspect, he said little because he had little to say.

Disappointing.


Lease Decay Issue

PM Lee address this in a way with the option of Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme.

This will allow owners of old flats nearing the end of lease to "surrender" their flat to HDB/Govt for some benefits.

Not as generous as SERS, but better than nothing.

The problem is that owners are supposed to vote for it. And this will be at about the same time the govt will offer Home Improvement Programme II (HIP 2) to these 70 year old flats.

The immediate response to HIP 2 is, what idiot will throw money at a 70 year old flat with $0 value within 30 years, and little hope of selling the flat in those remaining years?

Good question. But HIP 2 is NOT meant as a real option. HIP 2 is a sales tactic or heuristic called "arbitrary coherence".

When HIP 2 and VERS is offered, residents will note that HIP 2 will cost them some money, but VERS will GIVE them some money. What will you choose then?

Sure, some stubborn people (like myself) may still go with HIP 2. For various reasons.

But the justaposition of HIP 2 (cost money) and VERS (get money) is just too obvious.

Which is not to say that pundits did not gush over the NDR announcements, and property agents did not have wet dreams.

But I'm with the cynics on this: this is just a "holding statement". Nothing final, nothing to finalise for another 15 years at least.

They might as well have taken my proposal. It is as good a holding statement as any.


Malaysia, Mahathir, Water

Well, like the topic of China, he also address our ties with Malaysia:

Addressing questions over the fate of two major infrastructure projects with Malaysia for the first time, Mr Lee noted that the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore high speed rail and Rapid Transit System (RTS) link to Johor are both governed by legally binding bilateral agreements.
"These set out clearly the duties of each party, and what happens if either party wants to change or to terminate the agreements," he said. "Both sides have to carry out what has been agreed to, unless we mutually agree to vary the terms."
On the 1962 Water Agreement, however, Mr Lee said it is "sacrosanct" and both countries "must proceed strictly in accordance with its terms".
Malaysia has criticised the agreement for being unfair, and said it could be reviewed - a suggestion which Singapore has repeatedly rejected, pointing out how Putrajaya had lost its rights to review the price of water in 1987.
Despite the recent disagreements, Mr Lee said Singapore has worked well with Malaysia over the years, and expressed hopes that both countries can continue to take their deep partnership forward.
He added: "Ultimately, the fundamentals of our relationship with Malaysia have not changed. We are closely bound by ties of kinship and history, geography and economy.
"We need to work together to tackle common challenges. And when our interests diverge, we must find constructive ways to resolve our differences.
"If we keep Singapore-Malaysia relations stable and close, we can pursue win-win cooperation and each focus on our own domestic priorities."

Two words come to mind: Tactful horseshit.

BUT... perhaps this is all he can say.

LKY had more gravitas, more social and political capital.

Or he just don't give a horseshit what morons think of him, and just say what he believes is true.

LHL does not have that luxury.

That's why I miss LKY's candour, his tough love, his NDR.

He would've provided an analysis of the situation in Malaysia.

He would point out the challenges facing the PH govt. He may even analyse the weakness or weak links in Mahathir's government.

He would point to Anwar the Prince-in-waiting. He would explain the time pressure on Mahathir. And he might even hint at Mahathir's role as a "cleaner" to clean out Najib's corrupt government.

He would definitely ruffle feathers. Then he would make pointed warnings.

Or threats. Or rather promises.

To Mahathir or Malaysia.

And the Malaysian media will go nuts and lynch him in ink and electrons.

But he would be unperturbed.

Truth is Truth.

 And the corollary to that is "And Morons are Morons".

Or he may do things his way. Whatever his way is.

But whatever he does, he would leave me feeling that yes, we have nothing to worry about. That the barbarians at the gates are toothless, and clawless, and hapless.

After LHL's NDR, I just feel like I've been through ruthless haggling with with a poor trader at Chatuchak.

And I won.

But I feel... dirty.