Netizens berated author on SCMP article: ‘Ancient Chinese understood the importance of honoring agreements’

“Malaysia’s decision to scrap the KL-Singapore rail project takes Wee Kek Koon back to Mahathir's first premiership, when relations between the countries were ‘fraught with difficulties',” South China Morning Post (SCMP) wrote as its caption for Wee Kek Koon's article, 'Ancient Chinese understood the importance of honoring agreements'

Wee writes, “Malaysia’s decision to scrap the US$25 billion Kuala Lumpur-Singapore rail project has left me disappointed,”

He goes on to state, “Travelling to Kuala Lumpur on a bullet train would have been just 90 minutes – much faster than the five hours by road,” Wee wrote, “It would probably have been even quicker than a direct flight, if one considers the amount of time one must spend waiting in airports and negotiating the distances and traffic between airports and city centers.”

Wee who had lived in Singapore but is now living in Hong Kong wrote, “Another concern is Malaysia’s unilateral abrogation of the agreement,”

“During Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s first premiership (1981-2003), relations between the two countries were fraught with difficulties,” he stated, “Several bilateral agreements were re-examined and questioned by Mahathir, causing anxiety among Singaporeans.”

Wee then said the ancient Chinese understood the importance of agreements, which they entered into through formal and informal means, such as written contracts, blood oaths, verbal promises, and the likes.

Historical figure, Liu Bang was referenced by Wee as a benevolent ruler who earned the support of the public, paving the way for him to defeat his rivals and, eventually, reign as the founding emperor of the Western Han dynasty (202BC).

However, despite Wee's best attempt, many netizens fail to agree with Wee Kek Koon's argument and stance, berating him with their comments on the SCMP Facebook post:

Jolovan Wham wrote: “How did this racist article even get past the editor?”

Sunny Tan wrote: “Don’t the ancients also teach one to live within one's own means? Is it wise to ruin yourself financially so you can look good by your neighbours? Dear writer, maybe it's time to get some good wisdom yourself eh?”

BC Hong wrote: “For 100 years, China laboured under a rash of Enequal Treaties. When New China under CCP was formed, all the Unequal Treaties were reviewed. The West made a huge stink about the Uncivilized Chinese who doesn't respect Treaties. It wasn’t so long ago and if China still thinks all Treaties have to be honoured, they should look at their own history. Stop throwing labels against others.”

Hk Yoong wrote: “Don't (think) its relevance in the issue at hand. If anything, Liu Bang is hardly an example to cite. Did he not break the the three covenants he made with Xiang Yu? Has Wee got the grasp of the basic knowledge of Chinese history at all? Or is he even familiar with Chinese culture?”

Tan Chia Khuan wrote: “Unfortunate that a pompous writer is abusing Chinese historical wisdom on modern statesmanship without understanding the actual political and economic contexts. SCMP you can do better than this.”

Responding to Tan, Raymond Weng Pong Woo wrote, "Unfortunately the writer got his Chinese history wrong, especially on Liu Bang who actually reneged on his agreement with his rival to achieve victory on the battlefield. Makes me wonder why is this faux Sinophile Singaporean lecturing Malaysia on ancient Chinese history."

Dwight Lewis wrote: “All commercial contracts have exit clauses to allow either party to walk away under unforeseen circumstances. In other words, the said party has to do so by complying to the terms and conditions in the contract. Whether or not the other party (SG in this case) “religiously” stick to the penalty terms or allow leeway to the requested party (MY), this is subject to the negotiation skills, bargaining stakes, and opportunity costs both sides have in hand.  In essence, having a contract signed and then choose to cancel it, so long as exit clauses are followed and negotiated, this is totally fine.”

Nabil Bin Ahmad wrote: “Stop referring ancient stories. Doesn't make the PRC any more trustworthy. Honestly, how many projects were copied? How many projects been canceled there? But more importantly, Malaysia has seen what the PRC did to Sri Lanka. We will not make the same mistake and end up selling our country to fulfill the Great Beltway.”

Daniel Wei Chi wrote: “Dont forget how Liu Bang can win against its rival, Han Yu. He broke the promise and agreement after the pact has been signed. He attacked the same night when han yu camp celebrating. Please get your facts right! This is the famous phrase: 出意反意。that make Han Yu suicide.. Malaysia jusT do whatever needed to win the battle.. don’t mislead those who didnt know that history pls! And don’t become half-baked.”

Xiaohao Mok wrote: “Something is not right about the analogy. Liu removed all the laws governing all agreements of the previous dynasty.”

Chris Jag Low wrote: “Class writer. Didn't explain why Mahathir scrapped HSR. This clown author wanta Malaysia to be deeper in Debt. Really Low class writing of this article.”

Liam Janssens wrote: “Ancient Chinese understood the importance of honouring agreements? Definitely not the Chinese in modern China! Modern China is notorious for not honouring international agreements. Recent examples: (1) China has since October 2017 been supplying oil illegally to North Korea in blatant violation of UN sanctions against the country over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. (2) Ever since 2014, the sly old Chinese have ‘torn up’ the Sino-British Joint Declaration and condemned it as null and void unilaterally. For God’s sake, the joint declaration is a legally binding treaty signed between Britain and China registered with the UN as a guarantee of autonomy and universal suffrage to Hong Kong - a lifeline to the people of Hong Kong amid fears about the handover in 1997.”

Vengadesen Gurgusamy wrote: " Lopsided win lose agreements made by corrupt leaders and taken advantage ruthless governments got no basis of talking about honouring agreements. Tun will do what is just. Pedra Branca unjustified withdraw case, if need to pay compensation pay."

K K Lim Ning wrote: " Don't forget that the majority of the railway is to be located in West Malaysia. Do Singapore has to bear the cost of building that stretch? If not, than what right has it to say that the agreement as sign by a highly corrupted PM, has to be enforce especially when that country is mired in deep debt.

Ren Ner wrote: "the keyword being "don't sign bad contracts with known crooks and dictatorship at the expense of a country's citizens". I think the world was well aware of the Washington post's expose on the Wolf of Wall Street and money laundering in Swiss and Singapore bank's long before the signing of the HSR agreement, yet the writer felt it was honorable with continuing agreements that are by a crook. The moral hypocrisy."

This entry was posted in Comments.

---