20 year impasse

Someone attacked me for posting my views about the 20 year impasse in reaching agreement on the bilaterial issues and challenged me to state what I would have done if I were "PM, SM or MM". It is difficult to be engaged in a discussion with a vile person whose primary purpose is to attack another person under anonymity.

I like to give my views in this hypothetical situation. It would not be possible to judge if my approach would achieve any useful results. I would approach this issue on the personal values that I follow:

- honesty
- fairness
- positive
- courage
- public service

If we are honest and fair, it would be easy to win the trust of the other party. Both parties can look at the positive aspects and focus on what each side could gain from the cooperation.

I sense that one side felt that the Points of Agreement was not fair to them (for whatever reasons) and although it was agreed, they would find other ways to get out of the deal. The other side insisted that "a deal is a deal" and should be honored. This explains the impasse that lasted for 20 years.   Both sides need the courage to recognise that the earlier deal would not work, and that a new approach had to be taken (without waiting for 20 years).

As this is a hypothethical case, no one know whether it would have worked. I invite other people, wishing to give their views, to give their name and to refrain from passing judgement in this hypothetical case, or to make personal attacks.

Tan Kin Lian