Skip to main content

One year later, we finally know that Singapore has different views on the war in Ukraine.


 One year later, we finally know that

Singapore has different views on the war in Ukraine.


When the war broke out, we only knew there was one view.  We said we respect international rule of orders.  And we classified the war as an invasion.  

We now know that there are different views about the war.  Perhaps, after one year of fighting in Ukraine, we have received different feedback and unexpected outcomes, far from what we expected..  

In Singapore diplomatic circles, there are at least two views about the war.  One side is 100% opposed to the invasion and the other side is urging us to look at the historical perspects. The latter seemed not politically correct as it was against the western interests.  

Officially, we joined the West and imposed sanctions on Russia.  Throughout the year, Singaporeans only know the official standpoint and have no knowledge of diverse views.   

Perhaps, we are betting on the wrong side. The war fails to bring down Russia and Ukraine has become a victim. If the war continues, more will suffer, both rich and poor.   

We should thank Sylvia Lim and Balakrishan for clarifying the points in parliament and the government acknowledging the existence of the diverse views.  And not forget, Shanmugan, his different views are known to the ‘highest levels of cabinet’.  

The debate in parliament is not a useless clarification. It helps us to understand different views can happen and things, as Lawrence Wong said, can change quickly and unexpectedly.   

Will the different and diverse views shift the position of Singapore in a new geopolitics reality? Or will the diverse views force Singapore to move to a neutral ground and towards the ASEAN standing? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...
275 comments
Read more

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...
65 comments
Read more

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...
50 comments
Read more