Skip to main content

Belt, Road and Shanghai Security Cooperation - Capitalism first, democracy second.



Despite uncertainties ahead, perhaps the only certainty for big development is ‘One Belt One Road’. To guard and protect the developments along the belt and road, Shanghai Security Cooperation, with the joining of India and Pakistan as full members in 2017, is playing a key role in the new silk roads.

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a political, economic and military organisation and her main concern is security. The SCO is primarily centered on its member nations' Central Asian security-related concerns, often describing the main threats it confronts as being terrorism, separatism and extremism.

Under this framework, democracy is secondary. SCO’s main focus will be economic development under the state-led capitalism. China and Russia are key partners in SCO, with India and Pakistan joining SCO soon, in term of population, this will be the biggest Co-op in the world.

Looking back in history, this is just a continuation process of the past 2500 years of silk and spice roads.


UNESCO has maintained a site for silk and spice routes that provides historical background of the past.

State capitalism over democracy

2017 is an interesting year for state-led and state-sponsored capitalism over the world. In the SCO zone and Belt/Road development areas, we will see big developments led by states and state-owned businesses, of course with Chinese investments and AIIB (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) money.

Let take the example of Aleppo, there is a recent peace deal led by Russia and Turkey. When there is stability and security in Aleppo, foreign investments and business will come, in particular Aleppo is part of the silk road. In history, Aleppo was taken over by Alexander the Great in 331 BC, more than 2300 years ago.

The Aleppo peace deal is an initiative without American participation. What does it mean? Peace in the middle east can go without the USA but with Russia, SCO and bigger countries in middle east.   

And it seems to match Donald Trump’s foreign policy as he wants to engage in his state-led capitalism. Trump wants manufacturing back, big corporations (with tax cut) back, infrastructure development back in USA. His policy, although without certainty, will be very different from Democrats or may even move away from the known and usual democracy principles.   

In Europe, we face uncertain elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany. States will have to play bigger roles to convince voters they can deliver security and stability to the people. What can democracy help to ensure security in Europe?

Singapore is an odd example

Singapore is well known for her state-led economy and capitalism. Even the town council management is an extension of state-sponsored business activities.

Singapore’s mindset, in fact, is very close to SCO which places security, stability, non-interference in domestic politics over democracy. This framework works well for Singapore. Since independence, Singapore is operating under state capitalism with full control of internal affairs.  By this analogy, Singapore can easily and comfortably fit into belt, road and SCO zone developments.  However, we seem to at odd in this certain development in 2017. Why?

If you look at the way we handle the Terrex issue, we are just see the small issue of protecting assets and fail to see the bigger issue. No matter how well you protect your assets, there is always a bigger picture of guanxi.

2017.png

No wonder, if you read Chinese, the advertisement put up by Zaobao at the right, seems to suggest our economy is in bad shape and we need to start a future economy???

In discussion of future economy, are we just concerning about ‘protecting our assets’ or trying to improve relationship?

Comments

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 ...

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...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...