Posts

Why SG and HK can be considered twins.

Yishen Kuik

In my previous post I called Singapore and HK twins, which puzzled some. And others wondered why I left out the desire of Hong Kongers to be sovereign.

Penang, ...Singapore, Malacca and Hong Kong are quadruplets reborn in the East India Company era as British colony city states (in that birth order). The Chinese, Indians and Near East Jews moved in under the British to find opportunities in these 4 cities.

Under Pax Britannica, merchant families often sent one brother to Singapore, one brother to HK, one brother to Malaya and one brother to India or China. This is why we have a Har Par Villa in HK and in Singapore; Sin Chew Jit Poh newspapers in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and HK; Shaw Brothers cinemas in Malaysia, Singapore and HK. The Sassoon name can be found across Calcutta, Singapore, HK. The British city ports were all a fluid single "country" in those days, so HK and Singapore very much were twins at birth and our first 100 years of history.

Malacca and Penang had their handover to the mainland much earlier in the 50s and ceased to be city states. Around the world, other city states faced mass extinction in the wake of the two world wars until there are only two handfuls of city states left today : the Vatican, Monaco, Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong, Qatar, Malta, Brunei, Kuwait, & Bahrain. Of these only Singapore and HK have meaningful populations - the rest have <1mm citizens. Hence we are closely related as political entities, especially so since we are both majority Chinese. We are geopolitical twins.

As twins we in Singapore understand better than most the true difficulty in HK's desire for sovereign independence.

We have learned the hard way:
1) of the need to raise an army through conscription to achieve self-defence, because city states do not have enough population to do otherwise,

a) of the serious challenge of convincing all parents you need to take their sons away for the military

b) of the extreme and painful lengths necessary in order for conscription to be fairly applied. The natural tendency is for the rich and powerful to seek exemption, which even a marginally bigger country with 20mm people can get away with but not a city state.

2) of the city-state's perennial struggle with water. Like Singapore, HK has too many people to depend on local reservoirs and relies on water supply from the mainland. This is a permanent knife on our throats which is why we need an effective army to enforce the supply contract. Waiting for the ICJ to rule in your favour doesn't help you perish from thirst. And the ICJ cannot enforce a ruling. It doesn't seem likely HK can ever force PRC to honour a water supply treaty. Without water, even a democratically elected HK prime minister will always wear Beijing's leash.

So we know even if China gave HK independence without a bloody civil war, which would itself be a pipe-dream, HK would only be reborn as a cripple state, at the mercy of being squeezed every year either on water, food or electricity (HK imports 25% of its electricity from the mainland).

HK will need to radically overhaul its mentality and devote a huge chunk of GDP and land towards defence which unlike Singapore it currently spends zero. 20% of our precious land is set aside for defence, but the bigger price is the human commitment of all males from 18 to 40.

It will need 20 years to build up the local skill base to operate and staff a modern army, air force and navy. And finally it will need to forge the strength of national unity and character it takes to pull everyone to make those sacrifices that we went through from 1965 to 1985.

We are geopolitical twins with similar constraints and considerations. And that is why we understand HK possibly better in some ways than it understands itself in this desire for sovereign independence. As a city state on the doorstep of a power it cannot best, cooperation and subjugation is the likely outcome, the way that France exerts significant control over Monaco.

A post-script about British rule in HK:

In 1985 Portugal was applying to join the EU. The UK found Portugal was planning to give Macau residents Portuguese citizenship before handover. Because the UK had no intention of giving HK residents UK citizenship, the Foreign Office put pressure on Portugal to drop their plan for fear it would reflect poorly on the UK and force them to do the same. They also feared HK citizens might claim Portuguese citizenship through Macanese links and settle in the UK through Schengen.

Portugal refused to comply and issued citizenship to Macau. As a smoke screen, the UK decided to create a British National Overseas passport for Hong Kongers, a document which only confers 6 month visa free stay in the UK, falling quite short of what it says on the cover.

See More

Critical Spectator on tour. Cheers to all the fans (and haters too).

Image may contain: 2 people, sky, grass, outdoor and nature
Videos
Hello Singapore, greetings to all the fans and haters again! If you were hoping I'm going to end in the jaws of a lion then I have some bad news for you. I've been slow with responding to some questions made here, since I was busy chasing animals in Kruger National Park (with my camera) last week (a report from that visit is coming). It should not suggest, however, that I've not been observing what's going on in Singapore - specifically the drama around PM's comments re: Vietnam's de facto invasion of Cambodia. Now, I'm not going to delve deep into historical facts here, as others have done it already. It's easy to sit in your armchair today, free from any threats, and praise Vietnam for removing the Khmer Rouge. But the regional (and global) reality in 1978 was not so simple and such a strong unilateral move from one of the largest countries in the area was seen as a direct threat to others - especially as communism around the world did not appear to falter. So it was in i.a. Singapore's interest not to legitimize forceful military removal of a foreign government. Let's be quite clear: Vietnam's intervention was not motivated by humanitarian reasons. Anyway, all of that is in the history books and it's not what I wanted to write about here. What did bother me, watching this diplomatic row, is the amount of vitriol poured on the Singaporean PM... by Singaporeans themselves. Now, you may like or not like LHL. Heck, you may hate his guts, it's your right and I'm not here to dispute it. But it's one thing to despise a politician and entirely different thing to assault the fundamental interests of your own country. Some people appear to be blinded by hate to a point where they eagerly gang up with foreign countries to attack their very own government, which publicly defends the international principles that protect Singapore's existence (it's doubly ironic considering how many of them like to decry "foreign interference" in local politics). It is profoundly disturbing to anybody who is concerned about its future, as it is an example political recklessness of the highest caliber - with complete disregard for the consequences to the country. Appeasement is a tool of last resort in foreign policy. Any strong, independent state has to promote and defend its best interests. It's not without a reason defense spending has been so high here for decades - so now the small city-state can afford not to be a pushover. From Singapore's perspective General Prem will be remembered for standing up to Vietnam what contributed to security of other ASEAN members. It is as important today as it was then and his passing was a good opportunity to remind everybody about it. So why should Singaporean authorities stay silent? When a friend passes away you praise him for what made him dear. It is quite perplexing that so many people portraying themselves as patriots are so eager to embrace cowardice - or even support it as a means of conducting foreign policy. It is also rather amusing to see so many think that the offending statement was published without consideration for diplomatic repercussions. The cost of words is weighed carefully in foreign relations. And, sometimes, the price for staying silent is, ultimately, much higher than the immediate backlash for defending what's right.
186
87
World Population by 2100
65
11
Photos