15 ms·
Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations
- life_is_shor 7y agoDrug dealer protests drug ban
- chewz 7y ago> we also want China to be able to assume its rightful place as it develops and becomes a superpower in its own right, Singapore economy is depending on trade and prolonged trade war will ruin Singapore with its unsustainable debt. But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms? Withdrawing US fleets from Pacific? Allowing East Asia to become China's vasal teritory? Tolerating growing economic and military threat?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms? > Allowing East Asia to become China's vassal territory? Sure, in much the same way that it was in the past, and in much the same way that all of North and South America are vassals to the United States. It is not realistic for East and even Southeast Asian countries to care more about what the US thinks than what China thinks; I don't understand how people can advocate for this goal with a straight face.
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoEast Asia is vassal to the US at the moment... I think countries like Singapore, Korea, etc do not want the US, Korea, to leave. They are between a rock and a hard place and want to balance the US and China in order not to become too dependent on one and to benefit from both. Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that. What I find interesting is that the West in general, and obviously the US in particular, indeed cannot seem to imagine or accept that their complete dominance of the world is coming to an end. This is a rude awakening. Singapore, which has an history of promoting "Asian values" and is a former British colony with 70%+ ethnic Chinese is very well place to tell us things as they are.
- chewz 7y ago> East Asia is vassal to the US at the moment... Even if it were true I am not sure if people of Singapore, Korea, Japan, Thailand or Taiwan would like to swap places with people of Xinjang or Tibet..
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoIs that the best you can do?
- codedokode 7y agoThey don't want to change places with people of Iraq or Syria either.
- dis-sys 7y ago> Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that. No, that is a fundamental misjudge. Singapore can be safely regarded as one of major anti China forces in the region. If you just look back several years, Singapore actually managed to got itself in the anti China side on almost every single recent major events.
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoSingapore is certainly not anti-China, and this speech shows it.
- zaphirplane 7y agoSouth America is not a US vassals. Some of the tiny countries that were invaded have strong dependency on the US. But Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Venezuela I struggle to believe they are. Where ever did you get that idea from
- londons_explore 7y agoLook at places holding US debt to identify vasal States. The debt is what defends the state. A coup or military takeover and that debt won't get repaid, so there is financial incentives for the US to intervene.
- mdemare 7y agoSo, China is a U.S. vassal state?
- ionised 7y agoCivilization games taught me that vassals, when powerful enough can break their vassalage and become free again. Perhaps that's what is happening with China. It's no longer dependent on the US in the way it was and in time, will eclipse the US as the largest superpower.
- notfromhere 7y agoChina isn't a U.S. vassal. An economic partner of convenience, maybe, the U.S. influence on China's political structure is pretty limited.
- Nasrudith 7y agoThat is so not why treasury bonds are bought and the opposite of how they work. They are bought to be stable and value stores and some exchange rate hedging. It acknowledges supremacy sure in that they think it would be extraordinarily less likely to collapse. They pay the money upfront for them and if the regieme change was illegitimate enough to freeze the bond it would be "free money" until a legitimate claimant comes forward. Like a neighboring city's bank refusing to turn over money from the account of Gotham after joker took over the city. That is the only securing function of it - meaning others lose it if they steal it.
- calf 7y agoIt's easy to understand if you agree that US hypocrisy is crucially protected by manufactured consent and propaganda. Most people fall in two categories, either a) not heard of Chomsky, or b) think he's wrong.
- Reelin 7y ago> Most people fall in two categories, either a) not heard of Chomsky, or b) think he's wrong. On HN of all places I suspect that most people fall in a third category: c) related to designing & parsing grammars
- metrxqin 7y agoAdmit! You are jealous of China's growing economy!
- dx034 7y agoAny nation of the Singapore's size would be ruined without trade. That's independent of debt levels, Singapore has to specialize and just cannot run a self-sustaining economy.
- 87txH5G4 7y agoFYI, the Singapore public debt is objectively not unsustainable. On the surface, Singapore's public debt-to-GDP ratio is at around 110%, which is slightly higher than the US. Over the course of Singapore's history, each term of the government operated on a balanced budget (i.e., revenue >= expenditure). The government bonds are issue to "develop the domestic debt market". In fact, the government is legally not allowed to spend the proceed of the public debt. For more information, see https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/is-it-fiscally-sustainable-for-singapore-to-have-such-a-high-level-of-debt https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/is-it-fiscally-sustaina....
- jacques_chester 7y agoRunning short and long term debt balances to create financial market liquidity isn't uncommon. When Australia reached zero long-term debt in the early 2000s, the government continued raising and retiring hundreds of billions of dollars of debt on a regular cadence to provide AUD liquidity in the debt markets.
- rgbrenner 7y agoChina is highly unlikely to undermine the U.S.-led global system given it has been one of its biggest beneficiaries, Balakrishnan said. They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world... and China wants the benefits of selling into that global market, while reserving their own market for themselves. Every day they are not confronted on this, they send out the message to every other country that free trade with other countries does not require you to open your own markets. They encourage the breakdown of trade and the closure of global markets. Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China. Not to burn the bridge after they're finished with it (that many countries have used to pull themselves out of poverty: vietnam, korea, taiwan, japan, and even singapore).
- Barrin92 7y agoAs Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. If China wants to subsidize its industries and sell Americans cheap goods then that is primarily an issue for the Chinese people, not for American consumers. Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies to competition that no other country has experienced, and has made them more productive as a result. Why would any American want their government to give in to the same mercantilism that China practises, at the expense of their own people? To maintain jobs that pollute the local environment and are largely going to be automated away anyway? The central issue which makes this call for retaliation so intuitive (but mistaken) is that the plight of people who lose their jobs to trade is tangible. The steel worker is a person we can picture. But the collective welfare we all gain by the cheap imports from a country like China is invisible. Industries have lobbies, consumers don't.
- coldtea 7y ago>As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies. At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies. The US itself rose thanks to its protectionist policies. Britain too -- as did all others major powers when it served them well. "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism"
- product50 7y agoIsn't the ball in China's court here? I am not sure what is the expectation of US in this. China has a completely closed market while at the same time they are reaping the benefits of selling in markets of other countries with no penalties. How is that fair? Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies. This honestly needs to change. When China was smaller, these tactics were ok - but to expect the world will close their eyes on their practices at the current scale is fooling oneself.
- londons_explore 7y agoThey aren't stopping other countries doing the same. The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP
- Teever 7y agoThey aren't stopping other countries from doing the same yet. And the reason for that is that they are still the underdog so it makes sense to turn a blind eye to their domestic industries violating American IP laws. Just like it makes sense for the US to enact and attempt to enforce restrictive IP laws on a global scale. Make no mistake once China ascends they will enforce their will on the world just like the US has done and it will be ugly. Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to due process. Say hello to coercive IP law. Say hello to unimaginably restrictive DRM and surveillance.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- infinity0 7y agoThis is the type of comment that really indicates an immensely ignorant oversimplified misunderstanding of the complexity of the Chinese political situation. China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has, even taking into account the latter's short and young history. The last time was in 1912, and very plausibly arguably 1949 too. (The Nationalists were pretty bad, objectively speaking.)
- rangibaby 7y agoLee Kuan Yew had some interesting and prescient insights about China in 1967: https://youtu.be/VexrmTacOAA https://youtu.be/VexrmTacOAA
- xuki 7y agoYou should read his book: One Man's View of the World https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18297494-one-man-s-view-of-the-world https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18297494-one-man-s-view-... It's very concise, written in fairly casual tone and in my opinion, spot on for the most part. One point he kept making throughout the book is Singapore will not stop working with a superpower because another superpower don't like it.
- rangibaby 7y agoThanks for the suggestion, I will check it out
- chvid 7y agoAs others has observed the economies of USA and China are tied at the hip. China sells goods cheaply to USA and takes the dollars it makes and invest in US treasuries. This keeps inflation low and keeps interest rates low. And allows the US to maintain an unnatural high living standard with low savings and asset price inflation. The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force. Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ... The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.
- baybal2 7y agoVery true, given that a great many of Chinese goods are just Taiwanese/Japanese/Korean parts "put in plastic" in South China
- mistermann 7y agoMaybe Singapore is hedging that they might be #2 on the list after Taiwan.
- chewz 7y ago> The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force. I doubt if low inflation enviroment is high on current administration list. On the contrary. Some inflation could stimulate economy.
- kevin_b_er 7y agoYes. China is far closer with more military and no nominal compunctions about human rights that the US sort of has. They'll pick their poison to be China as the greater threat to appease.
- NTDF9 7y agoSingapore is smart. Nobody can rely on a government on the other side of the planet with a history of war-mongering. For Singapore, their geographic proximity is more important than a fiat hegemony.
- lenkite 7y agoPlease read about the colonialist-style policies openly being carried out by China in co-opting land and territory of poorer nations: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank... Speaking personally as a citizen of a neighbouring nation - I would rather have a democratic and open nation like the United States as the sole-superpower of the world. China as an established super-power would be a tyrannical nightmare.
- nailer 7y agoAs someone who watches the very unusual moderation of China-critical comments on HN (+3 one moment, -3 a few hours later) I'm wary of a political piece praising China hitting #1 on HN. I also don't see the value of Singapore - which is openly anti democratic (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democracy_b_7933188 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democrac...) providing advice here - as the same concerns about authoritarian corruption that apply to China also apply to Singapore.
- ptah 7y agoit is up to each nation to choose it's form of government. it is not one size fits all
- kingkawn 7y agoA friend who grew up in Singapore describes it as the capitalist version of North Korea
- clydethefrog 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Penalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Pena...
- nailer 7y agoSaying the people of China have 'chosen not to choose' is bizarre and disingenuous - you are twisting the notion of freedom to imply Chinese people have chosen not to be free. The Chinese people have never in recent memory chosen the Chinese communist party to represent them exclusively.
- ptah 7y agoas opposed to the illusion of choice provided in de facto two party "democracies"?
- runn1ng 7y agoUS should make policies that are good for its citizens, its factories and its companies, not Singapore. Singapore can survive as a country with mostly trade, IP, high tech, low taxes, services. Singapore doesn’t even have power plants, all from Malaysia. But despite the dreams of some people, a big country like US cannot just be a service economy like Singapore.... so while I disagree with Trump on many other issues, I cam’t really fault him here, and I hope next American democratic president will not soften its stance.
- baybal2 7y agoMany people are talking about Vietnam now, but without realising that they are dealing with the same Chinese factory companies who just expanded their business there.
- scrape_it 7y agoAs long as the US is able to maintain both fiduciary and military hegemony, it has nothing to worry. The fact is to aurpass the US, you need to possess better if not technologically superior assets to project. It boggles my mind why this military factor is often ignores by proponents of china maximalists. The us can call upon a dozen carrier strike groups on a moments notice, port call literally anywhere that isnt russia or china, bases distributed globally and unknown next gen technology that isnt even being revealed but kept secret, if the us had sr71 in the 60s they have something in the works that guarantee they will be ahead. Only now china has started producing f16 class jet engines domestically, but still decades behind in many power projection components.until china has projection that aurrounding countries will take seriously, its just another pipe dream, until china can prove itself on a world stage like the US has in its constant state of warring, only then will your financial institutions criticized by Chomsky crowd, be actually legitimized. Much like your local mob or cartel, those who are perceived to have monopoly on violence, often backed up by real violent acts, have weight behind their words. Those who are in competition, risk elimination through in action, so they must constantly maintain high tension with skirmishes here ans there to remind the other side. If you think this way, it makes sense that the governments purpose is to maintain this monopoly on violence, or otherwise risk being overrun by other competing groups, much like narco economoies where the official government body is increasing being weakened through corruption, and losing the valuable monopoly on violence. The US has monopoly on world violence and china wouldnt be the first to challenge it and lose, much as did USSR. Only rarely in Afghanistan and Vietnam, the US simply could not out terrorize the population as did the taliban and viet cong,and thus lost the war.
- macspoofing 7y agoSingapore: Don't make us choose because we will choose China.
- mensetmanusman 7y agoIt would be so much easier to accept China's rise if they weren’t pulling a North Korea and imprisoning a million minorities with dystopian technology solutions. I don’t think China realized how that policy is going to backfire in terms of their relationship with the West. We want to see countries with individual rights rise, not authoritarians.
- HansLandaa 7y agoSo, I'm not making a value judgement of what's going on but I always cringe when I see complicated geopolitical actions being reduced to one line talking points on HN. Of course it is actually much more nuanced in reality. These observations about imprisoning minorities always fail to include information about past terrorist attacks and militant activity in the region. Most of the people in the reeducation centers were sent there for things such as spreading Islamic propaganda glorifying suicide bombings.The reality of the situation is more nuanced than the depiction by western media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China In December 2016 in Xinjiang, Islamic militants drove a vehicle into a yard at the county Communist party offices and set off a bomb but were all shot dead. Three people were wounded and one other died. In July 2011, At least 18 people died in a series of alleged terrorist attacks in the city of Kashgar. According to state-run media accounts, the violence began when two Uyghur men hijacked a truck, ran it into a crowded street, and started stabbing people, killing six. The attack ended when the assailants were overpowered by the crowd, which killed one attacker. On the second day, state media reported that a "group of armed terrorists" stormed a restaurant, killed the owner and a waiter, and set it ablaze. They then proceeded to indiscriminately kill four more civilians. Armed clashes then reportedly ensured, ending with police capturing or killing the attackers. The Turkistan Islamic Party later claimed responsibility for the attack. One of the suspects appeared in a TIP video training in Pakistan. In March 2015 in Guangzhou, three ethnic Uyghur assailants with long knives attacked civilians at Guangzhou train station, 13 injured. In November 2014 in Xinjian, militants with knives and explosives attacked civilians, 15 dead and 14 injured. 14 of the 15 deaths were attackers In May 2014 in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, Two sport utility vehicles (SUVs) carrying five assailants were driven into a busy street market in Ürümqi. Up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers from the windows of the SUVs. The SUVs crashed into shoppers then collided with each other and exploded. 43 people were killed, including 4 of the assailants, and more than 90 wounded. There are many more. Again, I'm not making of value judgement here but I think everyone should think critically and really understand what's going on from multiple points of view.
- sinuhe69 7y agoI wonder why Singapore didn't say such things decades ago when the confrontation between US and the Soviet Union hit up? Because today confrontation still looks very much similar: between the free democratic bloc and a communist aggressive country (or bloc, maybe). Admittedly, the current conflict involves a lot of money and trade but most of all it's about geopolitical power, not soybeans or chips.
- genmud 7y agoBecause they didn't have nearly the developed economy that they do now? They probably also didn't have as much influence and maybe weren't really seen as a regional player?