So North Korea launched a missile about 7 minutes ago in the direction of northern Japan. Basically the entire north got woken up at 6am by an emergency alert.
Update, it flew over. If we find anything we have to tell the cops and fire department.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
Myanmar's campaign against the Rohyinga Muslim minority in the country's north has escalated to the point of ethnic cleansing or even genocide. 150,000 have fled the country since October as the military burns villages and slaughters their way through the region, and almost 100k of those were over the last week or so. People are hiding in the jungle and walking days without food to reach the border with Bangladesh.
Western media and governments were full of praise for Myanmar's government a few years ago, as they appeared to be making moves away from military rule. But the government of Aung San Suu Kyi, a previously imprisoned political figure and demonstrably undeserving Nobel Peace Prize winner who many hoped would lead the country's transition toward democracy, has instead zealously pursued the vicious anti-Rohingya campaign, and the situation in Myanmar has only worsened over the last few years.
“There are no more villages left, none at all,” said Rashed Ahmed, a 46-year-old farmer from a hamlet in Maungdaw Township in Myanmar. He had already been walking for four days. “There are no more people left, either,” he said. “It is all gone.”
And yet the world is mostly silent, from what I can tell. No calls for violent regime change from the usual interventionists in either party, no push for sanctions. The Obama administration actually lifted sanctions while Naypyidaw was escalating its ethnic cleansing campaign, ostensibly to reward them for moving away from military rule but more likely (IMO) for reasons of economy and geopolitics vis a vis China.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
I doubt Trump is thinking that at all. Trump just views the world as zero-sum and the US as the biggest bully that can get away with anything.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
Well, considering the huge,serious long-lasting ramifications of bombing Syria without even a declaration of war had for the Obama government, I'm sure Trump's is quaking in their boots.
But that's West Asia, not East Asia. You can drop cluster bombs on West Asia a month after getting the Nobel Peace Prize and everyone just nods like it was their idea too. It's not like they take those things back after all.
I don't usually say this sort of thing, but you know what? Fuck Nikki Haley, that delusional warmonger.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
Well, considering the huge,serious long-lasting ramifications of bombing Syria without even a declaration of war had for the Obama government, I'm sure Trump's is quaking in their boots.
But that's West Asia, not East Asia. You can drop cluster bombs on West Asia a month after getting the Nobel Peace Prize and everyone just nods like it was their idea too. It's not like they take those things back after all.
Look at the domestic fallout from the Iraq War instead.
Syria is a whole different ballgame because, ultimately, America has little to no skin in the game so the domestic blowback is pretty muted.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
Saw this on my way home yesterday, and it seems the person cared enough to ruin a spare tire for it because those are some serious staples.
The Korean obsession with Dokdo/Takeshima is so weird.
Like, an outside observer would assume that they didn't already have control of the islands.
I'm sure quite a few people feel the same way about Taipei (and the R.O.C.) feel towards Taiping Island: why the hell do they care so much?
Granted, it's probably just my own bias but South Korean considerations aren't exactly the same: the R.O.K. is not an isolated, unrecognized state, the Liancourt Rocks are small features (compared to the Taiping, the largest feature in the Spratleys), and they aren't yet of much strategic value (versus Taiping, which is garrisoned and militarized and of immediate strategic value to a country that can barely conduct naval exercises as it is).
I suppose the Tokto islands are at least a quiet point of agreement between Pyongyang and Seoul (if they even are), the same way that Taiping/Itu Aba might be the one thing Beijing and Taipei both agree on nowadays. Unlike Liancourt, Taiwan has had a half-century to invest in and militarize Taiping, and is substantially less likely to give them up today than they were, say, 20 years ago (and furthermore, everyone in Taiwanese government who matters knows that they won't get shit for them even if they did). I'd darkly assume that possession of Liancourt/Tokto/Takeshima will only become more aggravated and irreconcilable with time.
Mortious, are you in the United States? I'd be really surprised to see that over here all the same.
Synthesis on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The Korean obsession with Dokdo/Takeshima is so weird.
Like, an outside observer would assume that they didn't already have control of the islands.
I'm sure quite a few people feel the same way about Taipei (and the R.O.C.) feel towards Taiping Island: why the hell do they care so much?
Granted, it's probably just my own bias but South Korean considerations aren't exactly the same: the R.O.K. is not an isolated, unrecognized state, the Liancourt Rocks are small features (compared to the Taiping, the largest feature in the Spratleys), and they aren't yet of much strategic value (versus Taiping, which is garrisoned and militarized and of immediate strategic value to a country that can barely conduct naval exercises as it is).
I suppose the Tokto islands are at least a quiet point of agreement between Pyongyang and Seoul (if they even are), the same way that Taiping/Itu Aba might be the one thing Beijing and Taipei both agree on nowadays. Unlike Liancourt, Taiwan has had a half-century to invest in and militarize Taiping, and is substantially less likely to give them up today than they were, say, 20 years ago (and furthermore, everyone in Taiwanese government who matters knows that they won't get shit for them even if they did). I'd darkly assume that possession of Liancourt/Tokto/Takeshima will only become more aggravated and irreconcilable with time.
Mortious, are you in the United States? I'd be really surprised to see that over here all the same.
I'm in New Zealand, and we have a decent Korean population.
As an aside, after I posted this I tracked down a Korean colleague, and even though she's been in NZ for most of her life, she's very adament that those islands belong to Korea.
The Korean obsession with Dokdo/Takeshima is so weird.
Like, an outside observer would assume that they didn't already have control of the islands.
I'm sure quite a few people feel the same way about Taipei (and the R.O.C.) feel towards Taiping Island: why the hell do they care so much?
Granted, it's probably just my own bias but South Korean considerations aren't exactly the same: the R.O.K. is not an isolated, unrecognized state, the Liancourt Rocks are small features (compared to the Taiping, the largest feature in the Spratleys), and they aren't yet of much strategic value (versus Taiping, which is garrisoned and militarized and of immediate strategic value to a country that can barely conduct naval exercises as it is).
I suppose the Tokto islands are at least a quiet point of agreement between Pyongyang and Seoul (if they even are), the same way that Taiping/Itu Aba might be the one thing Beijing and Taipei both agree on nowadays. Unlike Liancourt, Taiwan has had a half-century to invest in and militarize Taiping, and is substantially less likely to give them up today than they were, say, 20 years ago (and furthermore, everyone in Taiwanese government who matters knows that they won't get shit for them even if they did). I'd darkly assume that possession of Liancourt/Tokto/Takeshima will only become more aggravated and irreconcilable with time.
Mortious, are you in the United States? I'd be really surprised to see that over here all the same.
I'm in New Zealand, and we have a decent Korean population.
As an aside, after I posted this I tracked down a Korean colleague, and even though she's been in NZ for most of her life, she's very adament that those islands belong to Korea.
Ah, that would make sense--I neglected to consider the rest of the Anglophone world.
Oil (and as important, fishing rights) would fall under strategic consideration I would say.
So we're going to throw him out of a helicopter too right?
Just shoot him in the street.
EDIT: To be absolutely clear, this is the sort of behavior that Duterte himself has encouraged, summary executions of those who are even accused of being involved in drug trafficking or use.
Of course the most hilarious/sad part is that it's apparently the third agency to get that budget, alongside the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
PSN: jrrl_absent
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
So, uh, what the hell just happened in Singapore so that the new president won by default without a vote because supposedly nobody else was eligible? Because I'm reading about this and all I can figure is "shady shit happened" but I'm not well-versed enough in Singaporean shady politics to understand it. Anyone, please?
So, uh, what the hell just happened in Singapore so that the new president won by default without a vote because supposedly nobody else was eligible? Because I'm reading about this and all I can figure is "shady shit happened" but I'm not well-versed enough in Singaporean shady politics to understand it. Anyone, please?
So, uh, what the hell just happened in Singapore so that the new president won by default without a vote because supposedly nobody else was eligible? Because I'm reading about this and all I can figure is "shady shit happened" but I'm not well-versed enough in Singaporean shady politics to understand it. Anyone, please?
To run for president in Singapore, candidates first need to get a certificate of eligibility from the government's elections committee. In addition to the normal stuff, they can't be a member of a political party, have to be deemed of good character, and have to have previously served in either high government positions, as the CEO of a major company, or in a comparable position.
The shady stuff happened last year when parliament changed the rules for who could be president. Singapore has three major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay, Indian) and it was decided that if any ethnic group had not been represented as president in the previous five presidencies, the position was reserved for them. Second, the criteria for what was a major company was increased from S$100 million of equity to S$500 million.
Of the five announced candidates, only one (the one backed by the government party) was deemed eligible. Two were ineligible for not being Malay and the others because the companies they had headed were not big enough. In any case, the cynical view is that the government tailored the new rules for their candidate.
Also, don't forget that while not powerless, the prime minister holds most power in Singapore, not the president.
ok, hm. This requires some context. You need to know two things: first, politics in Singapore tends to revolve around a consensus (accepted by government and mainstream opposition alike) that the ruling PAP is relatively competent, popular, and would probably win free and fair elections (not by the landslides it currently does, but probably still a majority), but that voters in Singapore generally like to see their arrogance and high-handedness taken down a notch.
Second, that the PAP sustains an authoritarian structure in a democratic Westminster parliamentary system by personal union - that is, a lot of the same people rotate in and out of nominally non-partisan bodies, like the senior civil service, statutory bodies, directorial boards of state-owned corporations, senior ranks of the armed forces, etc. Singapore is small enough that this works.
With that in mind: the President of Singapore started off as a ceremonial role, intended to give Singapore a head-of-state both akin to the British governor and to the nine Malay Sultanates that make up the states of the Malaysian federation (so Yang di-Pertuan Negara, literally "he that is the nation state"). As with British queens and governors, this was a ceremonial role.
(first President of Singapore Yusof bin Ishak)
As Lee Kuan Yew (PM from 1959 to 1990, one of the world's longest-ruling PMs) sought to hand over to Goh Chok Tong (PM from 1990 to 2004) in the late 1980s, he got a bee in his bonnet about constitutional safeguards and attempted various means to ensure that successor governments would face more constraints on their power, but without curbing their discretion. One of these mechanisms was an elected presidency with power to veto budgets that draw upon Singapore's vast accumulated reserves from years of fiscal surpluses - the fear was that district gerrymandering (a phenomenon since 1975) created risks of unexpected opposition victories (true - that's how gerrymandering works) and hence an office with electoral legitimacy was needed to hold off a one-off "freak election".
The Presidency is nominally non-partisan; due to the reasoning behind its existence, candidature has odd requirements like:
He or she must have for a period of not less than three years held office —
as Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or Permanent Secretary;
as chief executive officer (CEO) of a key statutory board or government company: the Central Provident Fund Board, the Housing and Development Board, the Jurong Town Corporation, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Temasek Holdings, or GIC Private Limited (formerly known as the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation);
as the most senior executive of a company with an average of $500 million in shareholders' equity for the most recent three years in that office, and which is profitable after taxes or
in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President.
The strictness of these qualifications led to the 1999 and 2005 elections being walkovers as S. R. Nathan was the only qualified candidate on nomination day.
This plan went wrong almost immediately. A lot has been written about Ong Teng Cheong's presidency: how a PAP stalwart and former Deputy Prime Minister ever came into public conflict (however tame that conflict would be in another country) for the normally rigidly-disciplined cabinet politics of Singapore. My read is that once Ong left the Cabinet, he was excluded from the pulse of day-to-day concerns, and the exclusion was perhaps especially rigid in order to give Goh's government some credibility beyond standing in now-Senior Minister (no, really) Lee Kuan Yew's vast shadow. Note that Ong was, and remained, a loyal PAP member throughout - as I said, the point is that voters like to see someone with the chops to do so take the government down a notch. The parliamentary opposition is too full of clowns and prima donnas to do so.
The government appears to agree. The problem here is that Presidency was effectively a massive demotion from Deputy Prime Minister - once the candidate steps out of the vast array of vaguely incestuous governing bodies to become President, it was relatively difficult for them to return; they had been out of the loop too long. Since then the party's favoured candidates for the Presidency have not been people who might want to continue their cabinet career - S. R. Nathan was a retiring ambassador and Tony Tan had already retired from the cabinet six years earier.
So, fast forward to today. The excitement is not over the walkover, nor the ethnic minority candidate - S. R. Nathan had already walked over twice. The excitement is that in 2011, in the "election of the four Tans", Singapore saw the wrong PAP stalwart Tan Cheng Bock very nearly defeat the distant Tony Tan. Tan Cheng Bock is mainly popular because 1) again, notch, and 2) he is relatively anti-immigration, and 3) his emphasis on presidential powers, and his successful history as a civil servant and PAP MP, suggested a return of Ong Teng Cheong: someone with the credibility to hold the government to account without necessarily running against the government agenda. Tan Cheng Bock almost certainly only lost due to vote splitting amongst those voting against the favoured candidate.
(note that the winning PAP candidate Tony Tan (35%), PAP candidate Tan Cheng Bock (34%) and the also PAP candidate Tan Kin Lian (25%) easily drubbed the only parliamentary-opposition candidate, SDP Tan Jee Say (5%) - party is not the main axis in this fight)
Against this insurgent anti-immigration Chinese candidate, this time running without any vote split, the name the party picked out of the hat to succeed Tony Tan was... Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob. Who is Malay, and a woman. Surveys have suggested that about 40% of the Chinese majority in Singapore say that they will not vote for a non-Chinese candidate. So the government decided that Yacob needed a finger on the scales to win, and amended the Constitution so that if an ethnic group has not yielded a president for five successive terms, then the presidency shall only be from that ethnic group. Since S. R. Nathan was Indian and Tony Tan was Chinese, that effectively means that the President shall be Malay, and so it shall not be Tan Cheng Bock.
The other reform made was to increase the required valuation of the company for senior-executive candidates from 100 million to 500 million. This also would have ruled out Tan Cheng Bock. However, this also ruled out all the other Malay candidates (this is probably unintentional and was perhaps meant as a backstop in case the ethnic requirement did not survive the judicial challenge - the campaigning period is very short due to Singapore electoral law, and so it was not foreseeable that the only-hundred-odd Malay Singaporeans who meet all of the tightened requirements might not choose to run)
So, walkover.
Now a lot of Singaporeans would normally accept the idea of ethnic reservation in Chinese-dominated Singapore. And many would probably have voted for Halimah over Cheng Bock at the ballot box anyway! But, again, it is the arrogance and high-handed presumption of the government over what is transparently a move to crown Halimah as President that is aggravating a lot of people. If it's not supposed to be elected, then don't make it elected - Singaporeans were fine for many decades over not electing a President.
How is ethnicity determined? Is it getting harder with what I assume is an increase in interracial marriages over the decades? Genuinely curious.
There's a "community committee" made up of five-member subcommittees for each ethnicity. So long as the X subcommittee agrees that you're a member of the X community, you're good to go.
Halimah Yacob, the new president, is actually half-Malay, half-Indian.
Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia unambiguously defines a Malay as:
"Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or was on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or (b) is the issue of such a person;
Emphases added. This is contextually important because Article 153 of the Constitution, to which Article 160 applies its definition, asserts:
Article 153: Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak
153. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
(3) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.
(4) In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.
(5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.
(6) Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
(7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation—
(a) deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him; or
(b) authorize a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or
(c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorize a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorize a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
(8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
(9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
(9A) In this Article the expression “natives” in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.
(10) The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.
The Singapore constitution contains no such provision. Upon independence there was a debate whether (e.g.) a Christian individual of Malay descent would be considered Malay, or whether a Muslim individual of European descent who habitually spoke Malay and conformed to Malay customs would be considered Malay. The UMNO Singapore chairman argued that the former would not be Malay and the latter would be Malay. There were representations from Christian Malays objecting to this.
In any event, the constitutional committee punted - the three-part definition of a Malay was not adopted and the state constitutional definition prevailed instead.
Article 152 Minorities and Special Position of Malays
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
and that's it.
The community committee that @cckerberos mentions was later added in 1988 - it underpinned the Group Representation Constituency mechanism
“Group representation constituencies
39A.—(1) The Legislature may, in order to ensure the representation in Parliament of Members from the Malay, Indian and other minority communities, by law make provision for —
(a)
any constituency to be declared by the President, having regard to the number of electors in that constituency, as a group representation constituency to enable any election in that constituency to be held on a basis of a group of 3 candidates; and
(b)
the qualifications, in addition to those in Article 44, of persons who may be eligible for any election in group representation constituencies, including the requirements referred to in clause (2).
(2) Any law made pursuant to clause (1) shall provide for —
(a)
the President to designate every group representation constituency —
(i)
as a constituency where at least one of the 3 candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community; or
(ii)
as a constituency where at least one of the 3 candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities;
(b)
the establishment of —
(i)
a committee to determine whether a person desiring to be a candidate belongs to the Malay community; and
(ii)
a committee to determine whether a person desiring to be a candidate belongs to the Indian or other minority communities,
for the purpose of any election in group representation constituencies;
(c)
all the candidates in every group to be either members of the same political party standing for election for that political party or independent candidates standing as a group;
(d)
the minimum and maximum number of Members to be returned by all group representation constituencies at a general election; and
(e)
the number of group representation constituencies to be designated under paragraph (a)(i).
(3) No provision of any law made pursuant to this Article shall be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12 or be considered to be a differentiating measure under Article 78.
(4) In this Article —
“election” means an election for the purpose of electing a Member of Parliament;
“group” means a group of 3 candidates nominated for any election in any group representation constituency;
“person belonging to the Malay community” means any person, whether of the Malay race or otherwise, who considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Malay community by that community;
“person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities” means any person of Indian origin who considers himself to be a member of the Indian community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Indian community by that community, or any person who belongs to any minority community other than the Malay or Indian community.”.
The recursiveness of the definition was noted at the time; liberals objected to the explicit CMIO-ization of Singapore society. The tacit issue was that, contrary to expectations at the time, the Malay community in Singapore had become more Muslim in its composition and religious fervour since independence, and feedback indicated that the UMNO Singapore chairman had won after all.
The recent changes copied this recursive-committee approach (note emphasis):
“person belonging to the Chinese community” means any person who considers himself to be a member of the Chinese community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Chinese community by that community;
“person belonging to the Malay community” means any person, whether of the Malay race or otherwise, who considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Malay community by that community;
“person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities” means any person of Indian origin who considers himself to be a member of the Indian community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Indian community by that community, or any person who belongs to any minority community other than the Malay or Indian community;
SINGAPORE - Dressed mostly in black, hundreds of people on Saturday (Sept 16) mounted a silent protest at Hong Lim Park against the reserved presidential election.
The protest was organised by Mr Gilbert Goh, who was clad in a black t-shirt with the words #notmypresident on it - a hashtag that some Singaporeans have used protest against not being able to vote.
President Halimah Yacob was elected unopposed on Wednesday, and inaugurated the day after.
Both young and old took part to express their disquiet over this year's election, carrying placards with the hashtag #notmypresident, and declaring Sept 11, the day the walkover was announced, "the day democracy died".
White banners were laid out on the grass, with protesters scrawling statements like "Nobody voted for Halimah! She is an appointed president!"
Sales assistant Anthony Lim, 25, told The Straits Times he was at the protest because he felt the reserved election undermined meritocracy.
He added: "I have met Madam Halimah before and like her but I am against the process by which she became president. I feel sorry she has to face so much anger."
Dr Tan Cheng Bock at the Hong Lim Park silent protest against reserved election
Also in the crowd were opposition leaders such as Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss.
Retired deliveryman S Kumar, 68, was there with four of his friends.
"Now the entire election is over - without us getting a chance to make our choice. I want to be here to show that I'm against how the whole thing played out," he said.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Oh wow, thank you for the explanations @ronya . All the news articles about it I'd seen before either glossed over the details or left them out entirely (I guess assuming the reader already knew or they didn't know/care themselves).
I would ask if this would cause any other changes in the future but I guess there's no way to tell at this time.
Every time you get in depth about Singapore, it's both informative and kinda hilarious because the viewpoint is just so different in some cases.
I kinda love the idea that what annoys people about essentially rigging the election is the fact that they wasted everyone's time having one instead of just being upfront about the whole thing.
Every time you get in depth about Singapore, it's both informative and kinda hilarious because the viewpoint is just so different in some cases.
I kinda love the idea that what annoys people about essentially rigging the election is the fact that they wasted everyone's time having one instead of just being upfront about the whole thing.
I feel obliged to point out that this remark is not dissimilar to those expressed during glasnost, i.e., that mass support for socialism really does still exist amongst the people. It is much easier to write off the starry-eyed dreamers as dreamers, when those dreams are determinedly avoided by the careerists because of (real or perceived) threats to their careers. The opinion of political observers (e.g., C George, Barr, etc) seems to be that the median Singaporean voter really does think in this way (c.f. the "by-election strategy" of opposition politician Low Thia Khiang, i.e., running not for government but to form the opposition), but of course observers were wrong about the Soviets too...
this being said, there probably are some salient cultural differences, yea. Consider that the government is puzzling so hard over a position it could abolish at any time - the party controls a sufficiently large proportion of Parliament that it can modify the Constitution at will, as it did here. I gave a narrative that is fairly hostile to the state narrative - someone more predisposed might highlight that, e.g., the role of the Head of State has drifted quite dramatically from being the Head of the Anglican Church and/or Islamic faith, well past its budget-focused reforms of the 1980s, and instead much more towards the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act-themed powers of interethnic intermediation. The Ong Teng Cheong-era counter-reforms have largely neutered the powers of the President with regards to senior civil service appointments - which leaves the President full time to oversee the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and the Malay Community Committee and the Indian and Other Minorities Communities Committee and the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (better known by its Malay name, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura) - and these are councils with real teeth, e.g., amongst others, advising the Home Minister on deploying those terrifying powers of detention without trial. Never mind the televised confessions of the 1980s - as recently as 2009 the Internal Security Department paid a friendly visit to the National Council of Churches during the AWARE saga, and the Archbishop was so moved that he issued a public statement denouncing an energetically homophobic pastor for using the pulpit to engage in politics the next day. Real teeth. So one might reasonably say that the Presidency should perhaps have some enforced credibility on minority representation. It's not completely unreasonable. But, yeah, it's really too bad it turned out the way it did.
So it is the Communist Party Congress in China and also the rubber stamp of Xi Jinping's second term as the head of state. No surprises were to be had or so we thought. Xi through his consolidation of power and purges of the party under his anti-corruption movement has now been able to write himself into a place of power we have not seen since Deng. This is a big moment as even though Xi may not officially be in charge in 5 years he has been able to develop a system giving him control of the CCP till he dies or when he wishes to hand over the reigns. It is an interesting turn as the CCP spent a lot of effort to move away from the cult of personality after Deng and Mao but now it has quickly returned full circle.
gavindelThe reason all your softwareis brokenRegistered Userregular
edited October 2017
Deng Xi has been consolidating for a while now. Between the new currency restrictions, the crack downs on Muslims and protests, and his purge of the party to reduce corruption (whether real or convenient, I imagine), he has been making very clear that he is the one in charge.
Deng has been consolidating for a while now. Between the new currency restrictions, the crack downs on Muslims and protests, and his purge of the party to reduce corruption (whether real or convenient, I imagine), he has been making very clear that he is the one in charge.
I think you mean Xi as Deng has been dead for about two decades. But I think his purges via the anti-corruption stuff is one of his biggest power grabs.
+3
Options
gavindelThe reason all your softwareis brokenRegistered Userregular
Anti-corruption purges are a pretty potent stick when you get to define what corruption is.
Just leaving a speaking event at the Bush 41 presidential library on North Korea. I'll give some more extensive notes when I get home but it was very interesting. Main speaker was a North Korea SME from Russia.
So to follow up on the previous post I was able to make it to a speaking even hosted at the George HW Bush Presidential Library on the topic of North Korea.
Here are some of the things that I took away from the talk that I thought were very important points:
KJU has as a goal the development of an effective nuclear force. The catalyst for this wasn't and isn't POTUS Trump. The catalyst is actually Libya. KJUs primary personal goal is the perpetuation of his rule. The increased tests lately are not a product of diplomatic (twitter or otherwise) relations between NK and the US but rather are just a natural step in this development and coincide with advances in their program.
The North Korean nuclear program is actually very inexpensive. NK isn't starving their population in order to build nukes and aren't pressured to pay wages in the same way the United States Government would be.
North Koreans are no longer starving, malnutrition is still happening but there is no longer starvation. This is due primarily to KJU implementing agricultural reforms that almost exactly mirror the initial agricultural reforms China experienced under Deng Xiaoping. The most important reform was a change from a Stalinist system of fixed compensation for agricultural production to the Chinese model of a fixed "tax" with the farmers able to use the leftover yield as they wish. This increased agricultural efficiency significantly starting in 2012. However it's officially kept quiet by Pyongyang.
KJU heavily favors a market economy over a centrally planned economy. Most of the business operations in NK are actually private enterprises that due to the political system are on paper run by the government. But internal investment in real estate development and business (restaurants, shops, buses, trucks/transportation, even mines) is almost all private. The economy is still all cash so this system is sort of exploitable in that as part of the deal to establish a business the government takes a fixed percentage of projected income which can be very low compared to actual income.
The understanding in the west that the elites are concentrated in Pyongyang for political reasons is actually no longer accurate. The delineation between those who live in Pyongyang and those who live without is now income based after a real estate boom that began way back in 2005.
KJU has also been working to reform state owned enterprises.
The desired end state of KJU and the elites is a stable market system combined with the survival of the NK state as it exists now.
Surveillance and police state are still strong. However, those being targeted for purges are all elites and almost exclusively in the military and secret police. Even without the purges military and secret police leadership are now experiencing shuffling more often to prevent any power build up. Those elites who work have been working on economic activity have not experienced any purges and are very unlikely to.
KJU has significantly increased border security even along the NK-China border has coincided with a crackdown on smuggled media in order to control the movement of information in and out.
KJU and the elites see unification as of now as a threat to their existence with the primary barrier to unification being the economic disparity between North and South.
There was likely a lot more really good information and as soon as the video is put up on the Bush School YouTube or the page I'll post it or a link here.
Posts
Update, it flew over. If we find anything we have to tell the cops and fire department.
Western media and governments were full of praise for Myanmar's government a few years ago, as they appeared to be making moves away from military rule. But the government of Aung San Suu Kyi, a previously imprisoned political figure and demonstrably undeserving Nobel Peace Prize winner who many hoped would lead the country's transition toward democracy, has instead zealously pursued the vicious anti-Rohingya campaign, and the situation in Myanmar has only worsened over the last few years.
And yet the world is mostly silent, from what I can tell. No calls for violent regime change from the usual interventionists in either party, no push for sanctions. The Obama administration actually lifted sanctions while Naypyidaw was escalating its ethnic cleansing campaign, ostensibly to reward them for moving away from military rule but more likely (IMO) for reasons of economy and geopolitics vis a vis China.
Somehow we keep sending people visibly aroused by the prospect of war to be our United Nations ambassadors. Bolton, Rice, Powers, and now her. It's not "do we send a warmonger or someone who maybe doesn't fall in love with every bombing campaign?" its "do we send the warmonger literally frothing at the mustache to begin bombing, or do we send the warmonger who's content to merely purse their lips until we begin bombing?"
For quite a while I tried to justify the shit these people spew, particularly the ones in the Obama government, for reasons for pragmatism and polite "Oh well, I know she's angry Syria apparently made us bomb their own soldiers in their own country against our own will like some kind of psychic chess master, but at least she doesn't have a permanent milk mustache." For a while it just seemed natural to give Haley, a Trump appointee, the same privilege.
I give up. They want war, they get their war, so they want more war. They're horrible, they're going to get enough people killed that if they were Russian we'd make them persona non grata, and when they're not actively horrible it's because it'd get in the way of their book deal keeping them preoccupied before the next bombing campaign starts. Courage: A Profile in Valorously Bombing the Shit out of Foreigners.
With the current government's chronic shuffling of personnel, I wonder what horrible human being will replace her.
[/angry rant]
At this point a war is probably the only thing that can save Trump's ratings, and by extension the Republican party's, even temporarily. I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely political, the Pubs are desperate for some kind of win on something since their administration has been a complete circus fire so far and they're desperate for somebody, anybody to see them as serious adults who can actually accomplish things, and what could be more serious than war? This would of course be a temporary popularity boost at best, as the American public seem to be all about invading and/or bombing smaller countries until the purple hearts start piling up.
I don't mean to sound bitter or jaded, but I am so that's how it comes out.
War, huh, it's good for the approval ratings:
For about 6-12 months, anyways.
I doubt Trump is thinking that at all. Trump just views the world as zero-sum and the US as the biggest bully that can get away with anything.
Well, considering the huge,serious long-lasting ramifications of bombing Syria without even a declaration of war had for the Obama government, I'm sure Trump's is quaking in their boots.
But that's West Asia, not East Asia. You can drop cluster bombs on West Asia a month after getting the Nobel Peace Prize and everyone just nods like it was their idea too. It's not like they take those things back after all.
Look at the domestic fallout from the Iraq War instead.
Syria is a whole different ballgame because, ultimately, America has little to no skin in the game so the domestic blowback is pretty muted.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Like, an outside observer would assume that they didn't already have control of the islands.
I'm sure quite a few people feel the same way about Taipei (and the R.O.C.) feel towards Taiping Island: why the hell do they care so much?
Granted, it's probably just my own bias but South Korean considerations aren't exactly the same: the R.O.K. is not an isolated, unrecognized state, the Liancourt Rocks are small features (compared to the Taiping, the largest feature in the Spratleys), and they aren't yet of much strategic value (versus Taiping, which is garrisoned and militarized and of immediate strategic value to a country that can barely conduct naval exercises as it is).
I suppose the Tokto islands are at least a quiet point of agreement between Pyongyang and Seoul (if they even are), the same way that Taiping/Itu Aba might be the one thing Beijing and Taipei both agree on nowadays. Unlike Liancourt, Taiwan has had a half-century to invest in and militarize Taiping, and is substantially less likely to give them up today than they were, say, 20 years ago (and furthermore, everyone in Taiwanese government who matters knows that they won't get shit for them even if they did). I'd darkly assume that possession of Liancourt/Tokto/Takeshima will only become more aggravated and irreconcilable with time.
Mortious, are you in the United States? I'd be really surprised to see that over here all the same.
I'm in New Zealand, and we have a decent Korean population.
As an aside, after I posted this I tracked down a Korean colleague, and even though she's been in NZ for most of her life, she's very adament that those islands belong to Korea.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Ah, that would make sense--I neglected to consider the rest of the Anglophone world.
Oil (and as important, fishing rights) would fall under strategic consideration I would say.
Duterte's son is being accused of being involved with a $125 million drug shipment into the Philippines.
Just shoot him in the street.
EDIT: To be absolutely clear, this is the sort of behavior that Duterte himself has encouraged, summary executions of those who are even accused of being involved in drug trafficking or use.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No he will have a calm and through trial that he will not have to divulge any info that might incriminate him and get away scott free
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/625546/house-votes-to-give-p1-000-budget-to-_/story/
For reference, Php1000 is slightly less than $20.
Of course the most hilarious/sad part is that it's apparently the third agency to get that budget, alongside the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
PSN: jrrl_absent
@ronya
Singapore is not a democracy. Much like China and a lot of places like that. you have to be approved by the ruling authority.
To run for president in Singapore, candidates first need to get a certificate of eligibility from the government's elections committee. In addition to the normal stuff, they can't be a member of a political party, have to be deemed of good character, and have to have previously served in either high government positions, as the CEO of a major company, or in a comparable position.
The shady stuff happened last year when parliament changed the rules for who could be president. Singapore has three major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay, Indian) and it was decided that if any ethnic group had not been represented as president in the previous five presidencies, the position was reserved for them. Second, the criteria for what was a major company was increased from S$100 million of equity to S$500 million.
Of the five announced candidates, only one (the one backed by the government party) was deemed eligible. Two were ineligible for not being Malay and the others because the companies they had headed were not big enough. In any case, the cynical view is that the government tailored the new rules for their candidate.
Also, don't forget that while not powerless, the prime minister holds most power in Singapore, not the president.
ok, hm. This requires some context. You need to know two things: first, politics in Singapore tends to revolve around a consensus (accepted by government and mainstream opposition alike) that the ruling PAP is relatively competent, popular, and would probably win free and fair elections (not by the landslides it currently does, but probably still a majority), but that voters in Singapore generally like to see their arrogance and high-handedness taken down a notch.
Second, that the PAP sustains an authoritarian structure in a democratic Westminster parliamentary system by personal union - that is, a lot of the same people rotate in and out of nominally non-partisan bodies, like the senior civil service, statutory bodies, directorial boards of state-owned corporations, senior ranks of the armed forces, etc. Singapore is small enough that this works.
With that in mind: the President of Singapore started off as a ceremonial role, intended to give Singapore a head-of-state both akin to the British governor and to the nine Malay Sultanates that make up the states of the Malaysian federation (so Yang di-Pertuan Negara, literally "he that is the nation state"). As with British queens and governors, this was a ceremonial role.
(first President of Singapore Yusof bin Ishak)
As Lee Kuan Yew (PM from 1959 to 1990, one of the world's longest-ruling PMs) sought to hand over to Goh Chok Tong (PM from 1990 to 2004) in the late 1980s, he got a bee in his bonnet about constitutional safeguards and attempted various means to ensure that successor governments would face more constraints on their power, but without curbing their discretion. One of these mechanisms was an elected presidency with power to veto budgets that draw upon Singapore's vast accumulated reserves from years of fiscal surpluses - the fear was that district gerrymandering (a phenomenon since 1975) created risks of unexpected opposition victories (true - that's how gerrymandering works) and hence an office with electoral legitimacy was needed to hold off a one-off "freak election".
The Presidency is nominally non-partisan; due to the reasoning behind its existence, candidature has odd requirements like:
This plan went wrong almost immediately. A lot has been written about Ong Teng Cheong's presidency: how a PAP stalwart and former Deputy Prime Minister ever came into public conflict (however tame that conflict would be in another country) for the normally rigidly-disciplined cabinet politics of Singapore. My read is that once Ong left the Cabinet, he was excluded from the pulse of day-to-day concerns, and the exclusion was perhaps especially rigid in order to give Goh's government some credibility beyond standing in now-Senior Minister (no, really) Lee Kuan Yew's vast shadow. Note that Ong was, and remained, a loyal PAP member throughout - as I said, the point is that voters like to see someone with the chops to do so take the government down a notch. The parliamentary opposition is too full of clowns and prima donnas to do so.
The government appears to agree. The problem here is that Presidency was effectively a massive demotion from Deputy Prime Minister - once the candidate steps out of the vast array of vaguely incestuous governing bodies to become President, it was relatively difficult for them to return; they had been out of the loop too long. Since then the party's favoured candidates for the Presidency have not been people who might want to continue their cabinet career - S. R. Nathan was a retiring ambassador and Tony Tan had already retired from the cabinet six years earier.
So, fast forward to today. The excitement is not over the walkover, nor the ethnic minority candidate - S. R. Nathan had already walked over twice. The excitement is that in 2011, in the "election of the four Tans", Singapore saw the wrong PAP stalwart Tan Cheng Bock very nearly defeat the distant Tony Tan. Tan Cheng Bock is mainly popular because 1) again, notch, and 2) he is relatively anti-immigration, and 3) his emphasis on presidential powers, and his successful history as a civil servant and PAP MP, suggested a return of Ong Teng Cheong: someone with the credibility to hold the government to account without necessarily running against the government agenda. Tan Cheng Bock almost certainly only lost due to vote splitting amongst those voting against the favoured candidate.
(note that the winning PAP candidate Tony Tan (35%), PAP candidate Tan Cheng Bock (34%) and the also PAP candidate Tan Kin Lian (25%) easily drubbed the only parliamentary-opposition candidate, SDP Tan Jee Say (5%) - party is not the main axis in this fight)
Against this insurgent anti-immigration Chinese candidate, this time running without any vote split, the name the party picked out of the hat to succeed Tony Tan was... Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob. Who is Malay, and a woman. Surveys have suggested that about 40% of the Chinese majority in Singapore say that they will not vote for a non-Chinese candidate. So the government decided that Yacob needed a finger on the scales to win, and amended the Constitution so that if an ethnic group has not yielded a president for five successive terms, then the presidency shall only be from that ethnic group. Since S. R. Nathan was Indian and Tony Tan was Chinese, that effectively means that the President shall be Malay, and so it shall not be Tan Cheng Bock.
The other reform made was to increase the required valuation of the company for senior-executive candidates from 100 million to 500 million. This also would have ruled out Tan Cheng Bock. However, this also ruled out all the other Malay candidates (this is probably unintentional and was perhaps meant as a backstop in case the ethnic requirement did not survive the judicial challenge - the campaigning period is very short due to Singapore electoral law, and so it was not foreseeable that the only-hundred-odd Malay Singaporeans who meet all of the tightened requirements might not choose to run)
So, walkover.
Now a lot of Singaporeans would normally accept the idea of ethnic reservation in Chinese-dominated Singapore. And many would probably have voted for Halimah over Cheng Bock at the ballot box anyway! But, again, it is the arrogance and high-handed presumption of the government over what is transparently a move to crown Halimah as President that is aggravating a lot of people. If it's not supposed to be elected, then don't make it elected - Singaporeans were fine for many decades over not electing a President.
Cherian George has written a bit about it here.
There's a "community committee" made up of five-member subcommittees for each ethnicity. So long as the X subcommittee agrees that you're a member of the X community, you're good to go.
Halimah Yacob, the new president, is actually half-Malay, half-Indian.
Emphases added. This is contextually important because Article 153 of the Constitution, to which Article 160 applies its definition, asserts:
The Singapore constitution contains no such provision. Upon independence there was a debate whether (e.g.) a Christian individual of Malay descent would be considered Malay, or whether a Muslim individual of European descent who habitually spoke Malay and conformed to Malay customs would be considered Malay. The UMNO Singapore chairman argued that the former would not be Malay and the latter would be Malay. There were representations from Christian Malays objecting to this.
In any event, the constitutional committee punted - the three-part definition of a Malay was not adopted and the state constitutional definition prevailed instead.
and that's it.
The community committee that @cckerberos mentions was later added in 1988 - it underpinned the Group Representation Constituency mechanism
The recursiveness of the definition was noted at the time; liberals objected to the explicit CMIO-ization of Singapore society. The tacit issue was that, contrary to expectations at the time, the Malay community in Singapore had become more Muslim in its composition and religious fervour since independence, and feedback indicated that the UMNO Singapore chairman had won after all.
The recent changes copied this recursive-committee approach (note emphasis):
I would ask if this would cause any other changes in the future but I guess there's no way to tell at this time.
I kinda love the idea that what annoys people about essentially rigging the election is the fact that they wasted everyone's time having one instead of just being upfront about the whole thing.
I feel obliged to point out that this remark is not dissimilar to those expressed during glasnost, i.e., that mass support for socialism really does still exist amongst the people. It is much easier to write off the starry-eyed dreamers as dreamers, when those dreams are determinedly avoided by the careerists because of (real or perceived) threats to their careers. The opinion of political observers (e.g., C George, Barr, etc) seems to be that the median Singaporean voter really does think in this way (c.f. the "by-election strategy" of opposition politician Low Thia Khiang, i.e., running not for government but to form the opposition), but of course observers were wrong about the Soviets too...
this being said, there probably are some salient cultural differences, yea. Consider that the government is puzzling so hard over a position it could abolish at any time - the party controls a sufficiently large proportion of Parliament that it can modify the Constitution at will, as it did here. I gave a narrative that is fairly hostile to the state narrative - someone more predisposed might highlight that, e.g., the role of the Head of State has drifted quite dramatically from being the Head of the Anglican Church and/or Islamic faith, well past its budget-focused reforms of the 1980s, and instead much more towards the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act-themed powers of interethnic intermediation. The Ong Teng Cheong-era counter-reforms have largely neutered the powers of the President with regards to senior civil service appointments - which leaves the President full time to oversee the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and the Malay Community Committee and the Indian and Other Minorities Communities Committee and the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (better known by its Malay name, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura) - and these are councils with real teeth, e.g., amongst others, advising the Home Minister on deploying those terrifying powers of detention without trial. Never mind the televised confessions of the 1980s - as recently as 2009 the Internal Security Department paid a friendly visit to the National Council of Churches during the AWARE saga, and the Archbishop was so moved that he issued a public statement denouncing an energetically homophobic pastor for using the pulpit to engage in politics the next day. Real teeth. So one might reasonably say that the Presidency should perhaps have some enforced credibility on minority representation. It's not completely unreasonable. But, yeah, it's really too bad it turned out the way it did.
China’s leader elevated to the level of Mao in Communist pantheon
So it is the Communist Party Congress in China and also the rubber stamp of Xi Jinping's second term as the head of state. No surprises were to be had or so we thought. Xi through his consolidation of power and purges of the party under his anti-corruption movement has now been able to write himself into a place of power we have not seen since Deng. This is a big moment as even though Xi may not officially be in charge in 5 years he has been able to develop a system giving him control of the CCP till he dies or when he wishes to hand over the reigns. It is an interesting turn as the CCP spent a lot of effort to move away from the cult of personality after Deng and Mao but now it has quickly returned full circle.
I think you mean Xi as Deng has been dead for about two decades. But I think his purges via the anti-corruption stuff is one of his biggest power grabs.
"For my friends anything, for my enemies the law"
The guest speaker was Dr. Andrei Lankov who studied and lived in Pyongyang and has been a Korea SME for decades. He was introduced by the former USAID director Mr. Andrew Natsios who is a faculty member here as well as co-chairman of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.
Here are some of the things that I took away from the talk that I thought were very important points:
There was likely a lot more really good information and as soon as the video is put up on the Bush School YouTube or the page I'll post it or a link here.