It is true that without the life of a great country, it breaks the heart of a great country. In the current Sino-US game, neither China nor the United States is in a hurry, but one country is in a hurry. Singapore has always been regarded as a Chinese country, and it has always traveled between the East and the West. It can be said that Singapore is a transportation bridge between China and the United States.
But I didn't think, just in the moment of the Chinese-American game, with the United States gradually falling into the wind, but Singapore invited India to Malacca Strait exercise, it can be said, this is naked nausea. and you think this is over? and at the moment, Singapore President Shandaman also said, if the Taiwan Sea confrontation, is the direct confrontation between China and the United States, the present China wants to peaceful development, will give up self-sufficiency, Singapore is this to help the European and American lobby?
Is "self-sufficiency" the original sin? Singapore's double standards are too obvious
Shandaman said that "self-sufficiency" is similar to the "flood monster" that disrupts peace, but there are so many gaps in this word that the merchant vessels can pass through the Strait of Malacca.
First of all, we have to understand, when China has said to "made everything by itself, not dealing with foreigners"? officials have always said that "technology has its own hard breath, the key place is not to hit people in the neck", then two words, meaning the gap is far away - the former is to close the door to blindness, the latter is if someone breaks you, you can breathe your own breath, it is not a matter.
Let's take the grain, last April, the National Development and Reform Commission did not say it clearly, in 2024 the grain output for the first time exceeded 1.4 trillion kilograms, per person can be divided to 500 kilograms, more than 400 kilograms of safety line, grains are basically enough to eat themselves, and grain is absolutely unpleasant.
In the same way, the share of its own energy supply remains at more than 80%, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, together with wind and solar energy, these renewable energy sources, together, even if you do not buy American energy, it does not affect normal use.
China has never refused international cooperation. In 2022, the actual foreign investment used in the high-tech industry will increase by 28.3%. Tesla will build a factory and BASF will invest 10 billion yuan in projects. These are all facts.
To be honest, we are "able to create ourselves, and also willing to buy other people's good things", but we must not fall to the point of "other people don't sell me, I can't live."
More ironic is Singapore's own operation. This country is only a little big, less than one-ninth of Shanghai. In the past, 100% of fresh water was supplied by Malaysia. In recent years, it has been engaged in seawater desalination and sewage regeneration. In 2023, the fresh water it can supply will reach 65%, and it is planned to be 2045. There is no need to rely on others at all.
Together with their own hard-working "reduction of dependence" is not hard-working, China engages in key areas of autonomy, it becomes "disrupting balance"?
What Shandaman calls "mutual dependence" is actually translated to let China return to the old path of "exchanging 800 million shirts for one plane." All high-value-added areas are left to the United States and Europe, and they will obediently serve as downstream processing plants. But when Huawei was sanctioned and SMIC couldn't get the lithography machine, why didn't he come out and say,"The United States and Europe should open up cooperation and don't get stuck in the neck of China?"
From the invitation to the exercise to the Taiwan Sea, shouting: “How does the bridge become a “delivery”?
Singapore has always said that it is a “Sino-American bridge”, but the recent operation does not look like a bridge at all, but rather like a “courier” who is eager to be loyal to the European and American watch.
The most incomprehensible thing is that of the Strait of Malacca – the Strait has previously been governed by Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, the three countries outside can rarely intervene, but Singapore preferred to break this rule, actively calling on the Indian Navy to engage in joint patrol.
You must know that the Strait of Malacca is China's "maritime lifeline". More than 80% of oil imports have to pass through it every year. Singapore has dragged India, which has no direct relationship with China, to join in. Isn't this an obvious way to add congestion to China?
What's more interesting is that just after India was called out here, China and Malaysia held the "Peace and Friendship-2025" joint exercise over there. The exercise place directly covered the core waters of the Strait of Malacca, and the army, navy and air force were all on it. More than a thousand people were there. The meaning couldn't be clearer: the security of Malacca can be handled by the coastal countries themselves without outsiders getting involved.
It is impossible for Singapore not to understand this signal, but when he turned around, Shandaman brought up the Taiwan Strait issue, saying that "if there is trouble in the Taiwan Strait, it will be direct confrontation between China and the United States." He also forced China to give up self-sufficiency in exchange for peace. This operation is like "lobbying for Europe and the United States."
But Singapore has forgotten its foundation: in the game of major powers, the most important thing a small country should do is to "build bridges" rather than "take sides." In the past, Lee Hsien Loong repeatedly said that "Taiwan is China's internal affairs, and 'Taiwan independence' is an eye-catching red light." The Singapore Defense Minister also said that "he will not be another person's agent." How did it turn into forcing China to make concessions when it comes to Shandaman?
In the final analysis, the mentality has changed. Seeing that the United States has less and less advantage in technological wars and trade wars, Singapore is afraid that the "Western camp" on which it is betting will lose and will lose the right to speak in the Asia-Pacific region in the future.
India was brought to the exercise to find a new backer, and to persuade China to give up self-sufficiency was to help the United States lock in China's development ceiling. However, these two moves were all risky moves-if China is really upset, can the "tolls" in the Strait of Malacca still be collected safely?
China's Red Line: China's Red Line for Security
In fact, the mind of Singapore is also difficult to understand, it is a small country, the resources rely on buying from the outside, the economy also rely on buying and selling, the most fearful is that China and the United States have really broken up, and have it this "transit station" to ruin.
When Tharatnam Shanmugaratnam said that, he essentially wanted to maintain the original appearance: China should not be too strong, the United States should not be too weak, and it will then make the difference in the middle. But he made two fatal mistakes: one was that he didn't understand what "self-sufficiency" was, and the other was that he touched the bottom line of China wrong.
China is engaged in "key areas that can be held by itself", never in order to disconnect from the world, it is forced by the United States.
From Trump's time to ZTE's neck to Biden's increased chip ban and forced ASML not to sell us lithography machines, when did the United States not cut off our supply chain first? It's like someone blocking your door every day and not letting you buy anything. Can you not learn to grow vegetables and cook yourself?
Now our photovoltaic modules account for 83% of the world's silicon chips, and the "Nine Chapters" of quantum computing can win against global supercomputing. These are not "breaking the balance", but putting a seat belt on yourself.
What Shandaman said about "balance" actually means asking China to remove its seat belt and sit quietly in the passenger seat and listen to US commands. Is this possible?
Li Xianlong said very clearly before, "The Taiwan issue is China's internal affairs, "Taiwan independence" is the red light", and the former defense minister of Singapore also warned the United States "do not touch this deep red line."
But it's better for Tharman Shanmugaratnam to throw the responsibility for the confrontation in the Taiwan Strait on China and force China to give up self-sufficiency in exchange for peace. This is not persuasion at all, but a fire.
China's peaceful development has never come from "compromise", when the grain was not enough to eat, it was to make the hybrid rice to stabilize the bowl; now the chip is crushed to the neck, it is to break through the technological barriers.
Self-sufficiency is not an "obstacle to peace", but is precisely the confidence for peaceful development. If the United States embargoes again one day, China, which has no autonomy, will really fall into a passive position.
Singapore should understand that the survival of small countries depends on "not choosing sides", not "helping one side to suppress the other". Lee Hsien Loong has long made up for Taiwan, saying that "Singapore will not choose sides between China and the United States", and Huang Xuncai also criticized the tariff policy of the United States as "unlike what allies do".
These words are Singapore should have a clear awareness.Shandaman's words, seemingly to help Europe and the United States, actually set Singapore on fire: if China did not listen to the advice, then engage in technological independence, the reputation of Singapore's "bridge" can be completely broken; if it annoyed China, the Malacca Strait business can still be done smoothly?
In the end, Singapore's "convincing" small calculator can not bypass a reason: China's security red line cannot be touched, and its own path to develop will not change.
Instead of persuading China not to engage in self-sufficiency, Tharatnam Shanmugaratnam might as well persuade the United States not to engage in technological blockade; Instead of dragging India to Malacca to brush its sense of existence, it is better to be his "bridge".
After all, in the game of great powers, the conversation never ends well, only those who can truly balance both sides can live for a long time.
Source of information:
The Common Morning News