Invite your colleagues and friends interested in investing to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thank you (and their larger pockets!) later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
When America is weak, the world notices. Few weeks ago I predicted that the Chinese would step it up in the South China Sea vs. the Philippines. Here we go:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/oct/22/p...Philippines says a coast guard ship and supply boat were rammed by Chinese vessels at disputed shoalYup.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Dope1:
When America is weak, the world notices. Few weeks ago I predicted that the Chinese would step it up in the South China Sea vs. the Philippines.Right, that never would have happened under Trump.
Oh wait.
Aerial photos taken by the US Navy show just how close a US Navy ship came to colliding with a Chinese warship that had challenged the US vessel's presence in the South China Sea.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Decatur was performing a "freedom of navigation" operation on Sunday, sailing close to Chinese-claimed reefs in the Spratly Islands, when it was approached by a Chinese destroyer, the Lanzhou.That was October 4, 2018.
That was a US Navy guided-missile destroyer challenged by a Chinese warship, not a Chinese coast guard ship and a Philippine coast guard ship and a supply boat.
Congratulations, you're a prophetic genius.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/us-china-d...
No. of Recommendations: 3
doped: When America is weak, the world notices.
Yawn.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Dope: When America is weak, the world notices. Few weeks ago I predicted that the Chinese would step it up in the South China Sea vs. the Philippines. Here we go:
You are a dope, Dope. I lived On the island of Negros in the Philippines for 10 years an watched this up close for 10 years. This has been ongoing and shifts around. The Chinese have interfered with Fonops nearly every time. They've rammed fishing and coast guard vessels multiple times. Indonesia actually sunk a few Chinese fishing boats.
There''s a history of China invading Vietnam, and there are pictures of The Chinese strafing some Vietnamese troops hip deep in the water of a disputed island that is underwater part of the time. The Chinese lay claim to anything in the nine dash line and don't recognize anyone's claim there. According to them they own the South China Sea. We have Vietnam as an ally against China.
If anything the Chinese were very happy with Trump because he withdrew the US from the TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, and they jumped in after that void to make deals with some of the Asian Nations. Chalk that one up to a Trump blunder. And as I recall, wasn't this so called prediction made by BMH anyway and not you?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Right, that never would have happened under Trump.
Did they collide?
No?
Then you have nothing, as usual.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Yeah, I was going to call you on the weak USA. But another poster already pointed out that Trump abandoned Asia/Pacific, leaving China to fill the void. I complained about that at the time on tmf, and have continued to comment occasionally, as necessary.
Granted, for part of Trump's time, the Philippines leader hated the US (Duterte). But that is no excuse to abandon the region. But that's what he did.
No. of Recommendations: 1
They have been harassing our treaty ally for years. Including ramming. That they haven't collided with a US Navy ship just indicates they would rather run us off than start shooting. But shooting is coming so long as we have a POTUS that won't abandon the region. Because China will not stop.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Matt Gaetz didn't break the republican party and neither did Donald Trump. What broke it was dumb people. Yup...
Example: "When America is weak, the world notices. Yup." ~Dope
No. of Recommendations: 2
I remember you bringing this up.....well, here we are now.
I wonder if the Left *wants* the mass wars.
They need a reset if they are to change governing systems and usurp liberties.
Not to mention, their way of life has made most of the Western World broke and insolvent and that too requires distraction and cataclysm.
Like I've said: People should NOT enlist in the armed forces.
Draft at the Ivy League first, and then start with the highest 401K Balances.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah, I was going to call you on the weak USA. But another poster already pointed out that Trump abandoned Asia/Pacific, leaving China to fill the void. I complained about that at the time on tmf, and have continued to comment occasionally, as necessary.
Biden IS a weak President, and now the world is reaping the consequences. That has nothing to do with Trump.
On the charge of "Trump abandoned Asia", I believe that's an attempt at criticizing his decision not to pursue the Asian Trade Pact. The Trump administration's philosophy wasn't so much aimed at groups of nations for trade pacts; they thought it better to sign deals with individual countries on terms more friendly to the United States.
No. of Recommendations: 3
ou are a dope, Dope. I lived On the island of Negros in the Philippines for 10 years
Good, then there's no need for me to point the islands out to you on a map.
No. of Recommendations: 9
No, this was Trump. It wasn't just leaving the trade pact. I thought that was a horrible deal. We abandoned the region, and China was able to step in and assert more influence. Had we not left, they wouldn't have.
Japan responded with an increase in their defensive posture, new weapons development, and expanding their definition of "home defense" (their forces are only supposed to be home defense). Japan could do that. The Philippines, Vietnam, and other nations in the region really can't.
Biden has reestablished ties, and reasserted our commitment to the region. You may think him weak, but on China he is doing vastly better than Trump did.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, this was Trump. It wasn't just leaving the trade pact. I thought that was a horrible deal. We abandoned the region, and China was able to step in and assert more influence. Had we not left, they wouldn't have.Sadly, we've not done much in the Pacific for a long time. I don't get the "abandoned the region" and the implication that China was somehow ignored by Trump; all the man did was talk about China and the threat they pose...to much criticism from the democrats, I'll add.
Japan responded with an increase in their defensive posture, new weapons development, and expanding their definition of "home defense" (their forces are only supposed to be home defense). Japan could do that. The Philippines, Vietnam, and other nations in the region really can't.Japan's been giving China the side-eye for years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-USA-trump-japan...'We are committed to the security of Japan and all areas under its administrative control and to further strengthening our very crucial alliance,' Trump said. 'The bond between our two nations and the friendship between our two peoples runs very, very deep. This administration is committed to bringing those ties even closer,' he added.
A joint U.S.-Japanese statement said the U.S. commitment to defend Japan through nuclear and conventional military capabilities is unwavering.Biden IS a weak President. That this particular blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while is a bug, not a feature.
You may think him weak, but on China he is doing vastly better than Trump did.Trump actually recognized the problem of China and called it out, repeatedly. No US President ever raised the rhetoric on them the way he did. Let's also recall the USMCA:
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/usmca-trade-pa...The USMCA zeroes in on the automotive sector. Under the new deal, cars and trucks must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in the US, Mexico, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs. The limit was 62.5 percent under NAFTA.
This will require automakers selling to North American consumers to stop sourcing some parts from cheaper destinations in Asia, including China, Vietnam, and India ' to avail of tariff benefits, significantly adding to final market costs.As for Vietnam
https://vietnamembassy-usa.org/news/2017/11/us-pre...At the invitation of President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Tran Dai Quang, President of the United States of America Donald J. Trump paid a State visit to Hanoi, November 11 ' 12, 2017. The two leaders discussed measures to strengthen and expand the Comprehensive Partnership between the two countries based on mutual understanding, shared interests, and a common desire to promote peace, cooperation, prosperity and security in the Indo-Pacific. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to deepening ties on the basis of previous Joint Statements between the two sides, respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, and each other's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respective political systems....so saying "Trump abandoned Asia" is a bit off the mark. Especially in light of
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics/inside-us-...American and Australian officials have been in highly secret talks for months over a plan to share technology for nuclear-powered submarines, a process that was hatched more than a year ago and accelerated after President Biden took office in January.In other words, Trump set this up and Biden (again finding an acorn) kept it going, as he should have. Shafting France was another side bennie and there's no way Biden would have done that on his own.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The US has had its eyes on how a new Pacific Campaign would unfold for some time. Let's look at the NGAD program:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/piecing-...The Air Force has invested more than $2.5 billion since 2018 to develop that successor: the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) family of systems. By 2025, that number will have grown to at least $9 billion. While still highly classified, the Air Force has gradually begun to reveal limited details about NGAD, which it describes as a 'family of systems' that will collaboratively gain air dominance in combat. NGAD is being specifically designed to fight China over long distances:
Other service leaders have said recently that there could be two versions of NGAD, one optimized for the Pacific theater's long-range requirements and another for the more compact European theater. The knock on the F-22 is its range.
But how is the NGAD being procured? That's the real revolution here:
Former USAF acquisition executive Will Roper revealed in September 2020 that an NGAD 'full-scale flight demonstrator' had already flown, adding coyly that it had 'broken a lot of records.' He told reporters later that he had fought to make that revelation to reassure the Air Force community that the service's embrace of digital engineering was delivering 'real things in the real world.'
Roper's concept for NGAD was to draw both traditional prime contractors as well as startups to compete; new aircraft didn't necessarily have to be built by the companies that designed them. Roper envisaged short production runs of 50 to 100 airplanes, each succeeded in close order by another more advanced design, with new types developed roughly every five years. This development frequency would replace the 'winner-take-all' competitions that characterized the F-22 and F-35 programs with a more iterative, rapid development cycle to slash the Air Force's technology refresh rate from decades to years. The approach, which the Air Force has not abandoned, meshes well with Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.'s admonition to the service to 'Accelerate Change ' or Lose.' In other words, they fundamentally re-did how the Air Force generates technology so as to not empower 1 defense contractor and eviscerate the others.
Now, what about the Navy? Gonna need one of those to face China.
https://theconversation.com/whats-the-purpose-of-p...President Trump visited Newport News at the beginning of March to deliver a speech aboard the soon-to-be commissioned USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. It provided a timely reminder of his campaign pledge that he would increase the size of the fleet from the current figure of 272 to 350 ships over the next three decades. This is significantly more than the Obama-era plans to increase the fleet to 308 ships.
How this decision fits with any broader grand strategy is unclear. Critics have debated whether Trump has one. Indeed, a recent New York Times story suggested the growth of the military may simply be for the purpose of possessing raw military power rather than part of any serious strategizing.Indeed. I always turn to the New York Times when I want read some Afred Thayer Mahanian level strategery on all things United States Navy. This NYT article is something else:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/world/americas/...https://archive.ph/dhemOMr. Trump has mostly expressed his military thinking through calls to build up major weapons systems, such as aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons, designed to fight major wars.
Michael C. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist, said, 'That does mean a military force more optimized for potential conflict with China, with Iran and, ironically, with Russia.'
Every president has worked to retain military superiority over major adversaries. But Mr. Trump is unusually single-minded in his focus on preparing for great power conflict, which the world has averted since World War II.Nice analysis, NYT. The concept you're reaching for there is called "Power Projection", which is why you build aircraft carriers.
No. of Recommendations: 5
BTW, China has applied to be part of the TPP. Things Dope ignores:
Forbes:
Removing the United States from the Asia-Pacific trade pact designed to promote U.S. economic and strategic interests over China's will go down as one of the worst decisions by an American president in the past 50 years, according to trade and foreign policy analysts. Now that China has applied to join the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, Donald Trump's decision looks even worse than it did in 2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/1...Cato Institute
ebruary 10, 2022 10:45AM
5 Years Later the United States Is Still Paying for Its TPP Blunder
By Colin Grabow
________________________________________
SHARE
Last month'January 23 to be exact'marked the five‐year anniversary of President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Trans‐Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The country has been paying for it ever since.
Comprised of the United States and eleven other Pacific Rim countries'including economic heavyweight Japan'the TPP was found by a 2016 Cato analysis to result in net trade liberalization. A study by the U.S. International Trade Commission calculated a real U.S. GDP increase of $42.7 billion through 2032 as a result of TPP membership while a Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) working paper foresaw gains to U.S. real incomes of $131 billion through 2030.
But the United States withdrew from the TPP, and those gains never happened.
The TPP, however, was aimed at more than just lowering trade barriers. It was also an attempt by the United States'along with like‐minded allies'to help shape the rules governing trade in the Asia‐Pacific region. As Asia's center both geographically and economically, China is already assured of having a significant say in such matters. The TPP was meant to ensure the United States had a prominent seat at the table when such rules were being hammered out'before it opted to push away.
In other words, U.S. losses from its TPP withdrawal have not just been economic but geopolitical. And if the TPP was deemed a useful tool in countering China's influence during the years it was being negotiated, it would be even more of an asset now given the bilateral relationship's increasingly acrimonious nature.
https://www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-sta...Rand Corporation:
Strategic Consequences of U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Timothy R. Heath
Since negotiations concluded for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in late 2015,
observers have argued that Asian policymakers would interpret failure of the pact as a sign of America's declining interest in the region or inability to assert leadership. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned in 2015,
'Failing to get the TPP done will hurt the credibility and standing of the U.S., not just in Asia, but worldwide.'Now that the U.S. has abandoned the pact, have the warnings proven prescient or overblown?
The TPP is a regional trade agreement involving the U.S. and 11 other Asian-Pacific countries that together comprise 40 percent of the world's economic output. The TPP's economic objectives included liberalization of trade in Asia, market reforms, and strengthened trade rules to support America's competitive industries and accord with the modern realities of digital commerce.
But the TPP also aimed to further the country's strategic interests in at least in three ways. First, U.S. leaders and strategists saw it as a way to strengthen the country's leadership in Asia by complementing its diplomatic and military power. Second, the TPP served as part of a broader effort to shore up an international order premised on market economics and liberal values. Third, the pact aimed to strengthen key partners; most notably Japan and Vietnam, by spurring badly needed domestic economic reforms and boosting growth.
Emphasized:
Withdrawal from the TPP has exacerbated regional doubts about U.S. international leadership and of its role in Asia.
A weakening of the U.S. leadership role has added to the deepening strategic rivalry between China and Japan.
A risk is growing that countries frustrated with an unresponsive Western-led international order will consider alternative institutions.https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/03/strategic-conseq...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Sadly, we've not done much in the Pacific for a long time. I don't get the "abandoned the region" and the implication that China was somehow ignored by Trump; all the man did was talk about China and the threat they pose...to much criticism from the democrats, I'll add.
Dope, he essentially did. Shinzo Abe put together the Quad, US-Japan-India-Australia, then the Ausies walked. IIRC Chenywas at the first meeting. For a while it was going to be US-Japan-Australia, then back to the Quad. There was diplomacy going on under Obama about it too, but once the Aussies came back it moved. We got the Aussie contract for Nuclear Subs away from the French, remember?
As Much as Trump talked about China, and he did, I'm glad he didn't get in the way of the Quad, because he doesn't like alliances. I'm reading his people want to get out of NATO, and these alliances are going to become critical going forward because we won't always be top dog. I don't think Trump or you understand that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I am traveling, so can only check-in occasionally. I was starting to compose a reply, and you already got the major points.
Tpp had major problems, IMHO. But just walking away created a leadership void that China tried to fill. It gave China an opportunity, and they are now in a better position in the region because of it. Add one of the articles said, some smaller nations are worried now that we aren't reliable, and are now open to making friends with the local bully ("better to be at Satan's side than in his path").
I can't say whether China was emboldened by this, but they have become more bellicose and belligerent since then. Fortunately, we have a POTUS that will stand by the treaty of 1951. I do expect some shooting battles in the near future.
I'll provide a few more links without excerpting.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/By-abandoning-Asia...https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/03/07/how-dona...https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/09/17/asia-...
No. of Recommendations: 8
Tpp had major problems, IMHO.
It was roundly criticized, but as you can see, CATO, etc., liked it. The remaining participants got together and revamped it, which was what WE SHOULD HAVE HAD LED. My emphasis for our righties. Trump left like a whimpy little wet rag. We had it in our hand and threw it away - for pettiness - because it was an Obama accomplishment. Nevermind the fact it wasn't Obama's -
<snip>The impetus for what became the TPP was a 2005 trade agreement between a small group of Pacific Rim countries comprising Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. In 2008, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would begin trade talks with this group, leading Australia, Vietnam, and Peru to join.<snip>
Oh, you could say Trump didn't have good advisors, but Trump himself doesn't understand the advantage of alliances and trade deals - so he's not open to listening. He'll just cast about till he finds someone who agrees with his stupid approach.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wow.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, it's really heating up over there. China is being very aggressive in asserting domination over the region. They have been ramming Filipino boats, and using water cannons on them. The Philippines hasn't really asked for our help yet, but we are bound by treaty to provide it if requested.
China has rejected the international court's decision that China does not own most of the South China Sea, and they are hopping mad that we continue to conduct freedom of navigation missions in the area. They are also in conflict (to a lesser extent) with Vietnam, and of course Taiwan is still a major problem.
I predict that shots will be fired before this is over.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They're going to push until someone tells them to F off. It's how bullies and international thug regimes act, which is what China is.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Usually, with a bully, you have to pop them in the nose once. Then they'll back off.
So someone is going to have to shoot back at one of their "coast guard / militia" ships. Maybe sink it. They'll be lots of protests, and such, but unless they're willing to go to war (unclear), they would have to back off.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I was just talking about some of this yesterday. My physical therapist for my carpal tunnel is Filipino and the whole office is Filipino. We went back and forth on Duterte. So I told him about an interview that Reza of Rappler did with Duterte and that Duterte was favorably disposed toward China long before he ran for Pres. He told me Rappler was no good and I told him Reza wasn't against him back then. But you see Duterte actually say that he prefers China to the US. (There's an old story to this.)
The old story is there was a fellow looking for Japanese treasure on Mindanao who, among other things, would go to the back and parts of caves and blow them open to see if there was treasure hidden there. He searched in a lot of places. He was fiddlin with the dynamite in a hotel, it blew up, and was rushed to the hospital. Duterte is pissed so he puts armed guards at the guys hospital room. The fellows wife is a nurse who flies to Manila and the embassy arranges for him to be picked up out of the hospital flown to Manila and put on a plane to the USA. She does all of the nursing during this. Duterte's guards weren't there when they came so Duterte decides the CIA came and got their CIA agent. He's pissed at the US, but he's normally pissed at the US.
Anyway there's the incident where the US won't sell em the M4s for the police. The police are doing the drug operation and have launched into ferreting out the drug operations and executing drug gang people. If you are on top, you're generally not executed, but there was a political drug clan in Mindanao where they surrounded a politico's ranch house and went in shooting. Quite the shoot up and the message was out.
Anyway, Duterte became disenchanted with the Chinese when they continued to screw with his fishermen and then reneged on the big loans for him to create huge infrastructure for the nation. There were these huge plans that just fizzled out and went nowhere. There was going to be a train connecting parts of Mindanao to each other, and then a train from the top of Luzon ( the biggest island) to the bottom. Nothing. And if he did something they didn't like they'd stop buying bananas and farmers were hurt.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, Duterte didn't like us, whether or not it was justified (I had heard it was an actual operative that was removed from custody while he was mayor or governor, but your story seems more reasonable).
Plus, Trump basically dumped the Asia/Pacific region. China was the only one that could step into the void, and they did so with relish. I believe it was during the Trump years that China drew their dotted line (similar to Libya back in the 80s...their "line of death"), and the US did little to oppose it because Trump didn't care.
However, it was about the time that they lost the ruling in international court that they started building their artificial islands (2013). Obama (then POTUS) did nothing. So now they have several outposts in international waters (and I think one in Philippine waters) that they have to right to, and dislodging them would involve blood. Not a great option.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, Duterte didn't like us, whether or not it was justified (I had heard it was an actual operative that was removed from custody while he was mayor or governor, but your story seems more reasonable).
If you go back and read the stories in the newspapers, the further you get away from the time of the bombing the more inaccurate it gets. But one journo actually put together an article on all of his treasure hunting.
Plus, Trump basically dumped the Asia/Pacific region. China was the only one that could step into the void, and they did so with relish. I believe it was during the Trump years that China drew their dotted line (similar to Libya back in the 80s...their "line of death"), and the US did little to oppose it because Trump didn't care.
Yep. If Trump was what he said he was, he would've renegotiated the TPP and we would be looking good in Asia right now/
However, it was about the time that they lost the ruling in international court that they started building their artificial islands (2013). Obama (then POTUS) did nothing. So now they have several outposts in international waters (and I think one in Philippine waters) that they have to right to, and dislodging them would involve blood. Not a great option.
There was a standoff between the Phils and China at Scarborough Shoal. Kerry went out there and negotiated it down, China reneged on leaving Scarborough, it looked bad, so we helped take it to the International Court, won, but China ignored it and insists on 9 dash line. The fisherman shelter shacks became artificial islands, but we did manager to head of the third one. So we did FONOPs and wanted to build radar on the China side of Palowan, so we're arming the Phils better, they got Israeli weapons :) , and have more bases there now.
Our Senators grandstanded on human rights, stopped a sale of M4s to the police, Duterte got pissd called Obama a "son of a whore" told EU "fuck you" and went after the opposition and vocal critics. Operation Tokhang was a success on drugs because, unkoown to us, The Phils had become the spot to manufacture and ship elsewhere, so they found enough labs to service more than the Philippines. But murder went up from 9.5 to 11.5 per 100k and that doesn't count those "resisting arrest". Me personally? Most people would claim they knew how to get shabu(meth) in 20 minutes. During Duterte - stopped. It came back, but no where near as strong.
Marcos isn't well liked and is perceived as weak, they're waiting for Sarah, Duterte's daughter.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Duterte was always a concern to me because of his human rights abuses. Yes, they targeted drug dealers, and drugs went down. They amounted to summary executions. I've seen reports that a large number of innocents were executed by cops, while chasing the drug dealers. But those reports were anecdotal. I haven't seen any reliable statistics (maybe there aren't any?).
I was also concerned about Marcos. While Ferdinand is gone, Imelda is still there. I feared she might get a toe-hold in the administration, and we'd end up with another seizure of power**. But that hasn't happened, and doesn't look like it's going to happen. We were in the Philippines in January, and things seemed to be OK. The Jeeps were still running, even though supposedly they were banned while we were there because they have no pollution controls. Even though we were well outside the touristy areas much of the time, everything seemed calm and safe.
**More than one Filipino has told me that Imelda was the evil one, not Ferdinand. He was just her puppet, in essence.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Duterte was always a concern to me because of his human rights abuses. Yes, they targeted drug dealers, and drugs went down. They amounted to summary executions. I've seen reports that a large number of innocents were executed by cops, while chasing the drug dealers. But those reports were anecdotal. I haven't seen any reliable statistics (maybe there aren't any?).
Yes, they amounted to EJKs, with all of the attendant problems. And there was one journo trying to keep track, but it's impossible. So it's a combination of increased gun deaths per 100k and overall increased deaths, and I lost track some time ago. I don't argue that it didn't work, because it seemed to. That's not condoning it, but Camobodia tried it and it didn't work. I'm sure someone is writing that Duterte's war was a failure.
I was also concerned about Marcos. While Ferdinand is gone, Imelda is still there. I feared she might get a toe-hold in the administration, and we'd end up with another seizure of power**. But that hasn't happened, and doesn't look like it's going to happen. We were in the Philippines in January, and things seemed to be OK. The Jeeps were still running, even though supposedly they were banned while we were there because they have no pollution controls. Even though we were well outside the touristy areas much of the time, everything seemed calm and safe.
Things do seem to be OK, but with Marcos a certain amount of corruption has returned and people seem to be waiting for Sarah, Duterte's daughter, to get elected and be tough.
Lee Kuan Yu's criticism of the Phils was that they were a soft and forgiving culture. His culture isn't. He got tough with the socialists who caused chaos, but at the same time his government sponsored businesses - and he was tough there, requiring that they make money. Singapore Airlines is one. Lee's dream was to be part of Malaysia, but that failed. The S in Malaysia is for Singapore. There was too much ethnic strife. Malayans don't like Chinese, but Chinese are highly influential. Singapore is partially socialist, but the Brits characterize it as a benign dictatorship. It works, no one disputes that, but they do execute drug sellers who have X amount or more. Punishments for drug use increase in harshness.
