China's SCS Strategy Thread

[AndrewS]

No going to happen. Instead of looking at the effect of such blokade on China's trades, we shall look at the importance of Malacca Straits and South China sea to Singapore.

Singapore 's import and exports and transhipment trades go through Malacca Straits and South China sea, is in fact closedly related to China's trade. Moreover these import and export and transhipment was reported at 322% (Three Hundred and Twenty Two %) of Sigapore's GDP in 2024. I don't know if there is any other country that depend on so much of a straits shipping lane on their GDP other than Singapore.

Blocking China's shipping in Malacca straits will kill practically every industry sectors in Singapore, from manufacturing, shipping, banking, insurance, shipyard repairs and mantenance etc. It is a suicide act of stupidity.

Morever, the control of Malacca Straits is jointly undertaken by binding agreement, by 3 countries, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore's unilateral action, if taken, will invite excuses fro Malaysia and Indonesia to attack the island nation. And China will joint these two countries.

It is not a lost-lost situation, it is an extinction for Singapore, they will be erased from the map as a nation. Singapore is a small country of 719 Sq KM, or 1/47 the size of Hainan island, they have no area to fall back during an attack.

So, no, it is not going to happen.

Yes.

And if you read Kaplan's book (Asia's Cauldron), Singaporean government thinking is that freedom of seaborne commercial navigation is an existential matter for Singapore's survival.

If anyone starts blockading the Malacca Straits, it is in Singapore's interest to break that blockade.

And note that it is the US which keeps going on about a Malacca blockade, whilst China will always want to keep the Malacca Straits open.
China-ASEAN trade is also intertwined, so China and ASEAN in general have an interest in keeping the Malacca Straits open.

 

[TK3600]

And I want to emphasize while China has a large core population, it is not immune to mass migration. The staggering number of African illegals in GuangZhou is causing severe problems for the locals. CCP has taken step to mass deport them. I guess you can say there is something MAGA and CCP can agree on. It is something I can agree as well. People needs to stop conflate importing a few qualified professionals to mass migration of poor and unruly.

If your culture disregard family and stopped reproducing, then something long term must be done. Importing people en mass never ends well, ever in history. You accept the mistake and its consequence. Then you solve it, no matter how long it takes. It may take a century and your population halves, it is a necessary sacrifice to pay for the original mistake.

 

[BasilicaLew]

I have highlighted the relevant section already:


”We“ should not allow… (we should) deter invasion

I don‘t see any ambiguity of Singapore’s intention regarding the Taiwan issue. Singapore will join the US to “deter” China from restarting the civil war which your PM called “invasion”.

No doubt China could annex Singapore as a SAR and it would be almost the same as before. So I dont know why they want to side with the US.

 

[CMP]

No doubt China could annex Singapore as a SAR and it would be almost the same as before. So I dont know why they want to side with the US.

Hanjian. That's why.

 

[Heliox]

”We“ should not allow… (we should) deter invasion

I don‘t see any ambiguity of Singapore’s intention regarding the Taiwan issue. Singapore will join the US to “deter” China from restarting the civil war which your PM called “invasion”.

and in the same section you quoted

(we should) also include deterring unilateral moves toward independance.

If you view "We" as being US /western bloc "deterring invasion", then the statement falls on it face as the same "We" will not be deterring independance. The second half of that statement is very much pro-China stance.

"We" deter invasion
"We" deter independance
"We" in this case here is indeterminate.
This usage, in the same sentence with 2 scenarios, is in-line with the rest of PM Wong's interview where he has carefully maintained a middle of the road stance.

Also
"Deter" is not necessarily Singapore "going all the way with the US".
All the way is you implying lending military assets to a kinetic confrontation between China-US?
"Deter" could just be a sternly worded diplomatic statement (on the other extreme of interpreting "deter").

This is what happens when a single sentence is taken out of context of the rest of the article/speech/interview and key words are very narrowly interpreted to then fit a narrative.

 

[vincent]

and in the same section you quoted


If you view "We" as being US /western bloc "deterring invasion", then the statement falls on it face as the same "We" will not be deterring independance. The second half of that statement is very much pro-China stance.

"We" deter invasion
"We" deter independance
"We" in this case here is indeterminate.
This usage, in the same sentence with 2 scenarios, is in-line with the rest of PM Wong's interview where he has carefully maintained a middle of the road stance.

Also
"Deter" is not necessarily Singapore "going all the way with the US".
All the way is you implying lending military assets to a kinetic confrontation between China-US?
"Deter" could just be a sternly worded diplomatic statement (on the other extreme of interpreting "deter").

This is what happens when a single sentence is taken out of context of the rest of the article/speech/interview and key words are very narrowly interpreted to then fit a narrative.

How China deals with its rebel province is not up to you to decide, and definitely not for you to “deter” either side. If Singapore actually respect China’s position, it would not call armed unification an “invasion”.

By butting into Chinese internal affairs, you are taking the American side, no matter how you ”interpret” your PM’s words. Your PM clearly signaled your country will intervene in Chinese internal affairs, kineticly by sending your forces or passively by allowing American assets on your soil.

 

[Heliox]

How China deals with its rebel province is not up to you to decide, and definitely not for you to “deter” either side. If Singapore actually respect China’s position, it would not call armed unification an “invasion”.

By butting into Chinese internal affairs, you are taking the American side, no matter how you ”interpret” your PM’s words. Your PM clearly signaled your country will intervene in Chinese internal affairs, kineticly by sending your forces or passively by allowing American assets on your soil.

So what you're saying now is - this is China's internal affairs and Singapore (or any other country for that matter) should not butt in or have a say. Which is fine. It is totally consistent with China's position to date and something I totally agree on. Melding your current reply, I'll project that even if any country counters Twain independence, which is technically taking China's side, this is still not welcome by China (or you?) as it conflicts with the China's internal matters remain China's own matters.

The above however, is not what started this discussion - alleged position by President Shanmugaratnam linked to supporting article that do not, in fact, support the false statement.

Likewise, the later digression - that Singapore is "going all the way with the US' (now by PM Wong), is based on a link you provided which again did not support the allegation that Singapore has taken a side.

My interest in the above is as stated earlier, that of highlighting pov that purport to be supported by linked articles/events but are actually built on a false premise. I think I've said enough to support my stand that the articles quoted and used to try to paint Singapore in a particular manner are misquoted. I have no more to add to this matter and will leave you be with your opinion.

 

[vincent]

So what you're saying now is - this is China's internal affairs and Singapore (or any other country for that matter) should not butt in or have a say. Which is fine. It is totally consistent with China's position to date and something I totally agree on. Melding your current reply, I'll project that even if any country counters Twain independence, which is technically taking China's side, this is still not welcome by China (or you?) as it conflicts with the China's internal matters remain China's own matters.

The above however, is not what started this discussion - alleged position by President Shanmugaratnam linked to supporting article that do not, in fact, support the false statement.

Likewise, the later digression - that Singapore is "going all the way with the US' (now by PM Wong), is based on a link you provided which again did not support the allegation that Singapore has taken a side.

My interest in the above is as stated earlier, that of highlighting pov that purport to be supported by linked articles/events but are actually built on a false premise. I think I've said enough to support my stand that the articles quoted and used to try to paint Singapore in a particular manner are misquoted. I have no more to add to this matter and will leave you be with your opinion.

FYI. My comments are not related to your president Shanmugaratnam‘s speech. Purely on your PM’s interview.

My response to your original request for pointing out the part of the Shanmugaratnam‘s speech caused the insinuation from the tweet was purely providing the source. Not saying the tweet’s interpretation was right or wrong.

Your PM is a very seasoned politician/bureaucrat. He knew full well the words he used carry strong meanings. The section of the interview I pointed out carries no ambiguity which side he is on.

 

[Moonscape]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Routine mishaps, or something more going on?

 

[broadsword]

They went down without fighting. Kinda wasted.