Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
I have, have you?Originally posted by NDU:you been there before?
im just sharing what i know, maybe after these few years, our navy have change alot of the rule and regulation, for your info, when we visting this pcs of rock, we are not allow to wear any uniform, and i understand that, alot of Navy personal whom went there, was being informed that, LIGHT- HOUSE WAS SUPPOSE TO RUN AND MAINTAIN BY PORT, NOT MILITARY! .... this was what we are being told. dont forget that, we fly PSA ENSIGN at the light- house, not NAVY ENSIGN....
I sailed by there in one of my offshore fishing trips, didn't stop by because there is no convenient store, but that doesn't mean anything as long as it flies Singapore flag, whether it is RSN ensign or PSA ensign!!!
When the lighthouse becomes useless for marine navigation, it may be run by the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board and flies the STPB ensign, who cares.
-
the verdict will only be out next year.
-
Well, there are Police Coast Guard personal in uniform posted on the island for week long 'tour'...... And my friends when sending and picking up the Coast Guard people does have to get onto the island..... and yes.... they were in uniform too....Originally posted by NDU:heard it when im still in the service lor, that was what we were told,
and thats why, NO NAVY UNIFORM or etc was allow on that pcs of rock.
you can check with any of your friend that from Navy, i think they can share more with you. -
Blog with disputed photo lifted Wiki content
Netizens hit out at KL legal team in Pedra Branca case after plagiarism is uncovered
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
22 November 2007
Home
IN THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - A PICTURE Malaysia produced to argue its case in the Pedra Branca dispute has sparked a controversy on the Internet.
Several netizens, notably Malaysian bloggers, are chiding the country's legal eagles for relying on an anonymous blog that has been shown up for plagiarism.
Some have also gone onto the blog www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com to post harsh criticisms of the author, who pleaded with them yesterday not to use four-letter words.
'My younger sibling, who is 11 years old, also visits my blog and these words are not appropriate for her,'' he wrote in a posting titled 'Why the anger?'.
Malaysia had cited the blog as the source of a photograph it produced last week in an international court, to show Pedra Branca's supposed closeness to Johor.
Singapore, in its response, raised questions about the blog and this was reported in The Straits Times on Tuesday.
The report led the writer of a Singapore blog called Simplyjean to analyse the blog.
Simplyjean found its author had lifted chunks of text from Wikipedia, whose contents can be edited by anyone.
The discovery fired up several Singaporean and Malaysian blogs.
One blogger, Malaysian Jeff Ooi, yesterday bemoaned in a post his country's use of a suspect photo from an anonymous blog containing plagiarised content to 'present its case at all places, the International Court of Justice'.
Another Malaysian Tony Yew said on his website muststopthis.blogspot.com: 'How lame can our guys be?
'Putting up an argument with plagiarised work from Wikipedia! Sheesh...there goes Pulau Batu Puteh!'
Pulau Batu Puteh is Malaysia's name for Pedra Branca.
Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
On Monday, Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said the photo Malaysia produced was shot using a camera with a telephoto lens, which exaggerated the closeness of Pedra Branca to the Johor coast.
In questioning the blog, Mr Chao saidthe photo had been put up just four days before the start of the ICJ hearing.
In the blog, its author claims to be a lover of lighthouses and 'leuchtturm' is the German word for lighthouse.
Simplyjean found the following sentence on the design of lighthouses was lifted from Wikipedia: 'Often these are cylindrical to reduce the effect of wind on a tall structure on less stable soil. An example of this is Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse.'
The only change the author of leuchtturm3 had made was to use Pulau Batu Puteh Lighthouse in place of Cape May Lighthouse. But it was done in a way that anyone who clicks on the hyperlinked words Pulau Batu Puteh is led to a page on Cape May Lighthouse in Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, some netizens posted criticisms on the leuchtturm3 blog of what they called the 'doctored picture'.
Yesterday, its author confessed he knew little about Singapore or Malaysia and hoped to visit the region one day when he had the money.
As for Simplyjean, its writer confessed in a post that the Pedra Branca case held little interest initially. 'But when they decided to bring the blogosphere into the news, then I felt that I had to do some justification for the community.'
Simplyjean has this message for the person behind the leuchtturm3 blog: 'To the author (and all other implied parties), you suck.'
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Originally posted by googoomuck:Can't see any flag flying, only the wind sock.. The two pics are taken from different angles, High resolution, very big and clear.
If this is due to the idleness of the staff, it could cause Singapore to lose the case.
http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedraBranca/
http://www.lhdepot.com/database/dataphotopage2.cfm?value=2177
Hi googoomuck, does that answer your question?
This picture's from the website of the Malaysian Bar Association. They're following the matter closely too.
Its not exactly "atop", but horizontally "across"... Kinda like the way HDB flats display the state flag during NDP season Its the red and blue one. -
OK, you got me. However, the blue state ensign is to be worn on coast guard vessels. The national flag is for hoisting on a territory.Originally posted by CX:
Hi googoomuck, does that answer your question?
This picture's from the website of the Malaysian Bar Association. They're following the matter closely too.
Its not exactly "atop", but horizontally "across"... Kinda like the way HDB flats display the state flag during NDP season Its the red and blue one. -
Yup... its used by the coastguards cos its the state ensign.Originally posted by googoomuck:OK, you got me. However, the blue state ensign is to be worn on coast guard vessels. The national flag is for hoisting on a territory.
The navy uses the white war ensign
Civilian ships will use this one:
-
That's why Malaysia did not protest. If the national flag was hoisted, that would be seen as asserting its claim of the territory.Originally posted by CX:Yup... its used by the coastguards cos its the state ensign.
The navy uses the white war ensign
Civilian ships will use this one: -
The State Ensign is treated with the same respect as the National Flag.Originally posted by googoomuck:That's why Malaysia did not protest. If the national flag was hoisted, that would be seen as asserting its claim of the territory.
The Malaysian asked the Singapore Authorities to remove the same Ensign at the lighthouse operated by Singapore on Pulau Pisang - located on the western approach to the Singapore Straits. -
But what I've read is that the flag was flown in Pulau Pisang and Malaysia asked that it be taken down.Originally posted by Atobe:The State Ensign is treated with the same respect as the National Flag.
The Malaysian asked the Singapore Authorities to remove the same Ensign at the lighthouse operated by Singapore on Pulau Pisang - located on the western approach to the Singapore Straits.
(5) Has Singapore openly and continuously displayed State authority over Pedra Branca after 1851?
Singapore states that another telling point of its rightful sovereignty over Pedra Branca is that the Singapore marine ensign has been flown there for about 130 years without protest by Malaysia. Conversely, in 1968 Malaysia requested the Singapore flag be taken down on Pulau Pisang –an isle 7 nautical miles west of Johor’s coast where Singapore manages a lighthouse based on a Johor land grant. Additionally, the Director of Marine of the Federation of Malaya wrote to the Master Attendant of Singapore in 1952 offering to assume maintenance costs of the light on Pulau Pisang but not for Pedra Branca. Given that it is an international obligation that each country should maintain the costs of lights necessary for safeguarding its coasts, the offer omitting responsibility for Pedra Branca is telling. -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Not sure where you got that paragraph from - but the following is printed for your reference and is an abstract from MFA Press Release A :
But what I've read is that the flag was flown in Pulau Pisang and Malaysia asked that it be taken down.
(5) Has Singapore openly and continuously displayed State authority over Pedra Branca after 1851?
Singapore states that another telling point of its rightful sovereignty over [b]Pedra Branca is that the Singapore marine ensign has been flown there for about 130 years without protest by Malaysia. Conversely, in 1968 Malaysia requested the Singapore flag be taken down on Pulau Pisang –an isle 7 nautical miles west of Johor’s coast where Singapore manages a lighthouse based on a Johor land grant. Additionally, the Director of Marine of the Federation of Malaya wrote to the Master Attendant of Singapore in 1952 offering to assume maintenance costs of the light on Pulau Pisang but not for Pedra Branca. Given that it is an international obligation that each country should maintain the costs of lights necessary for safeguarding its coasts, the offer omitting responsibility for Pedra Branca is telling.[/b]
38. Second, as I discussed yesterday, Malaysia insisted that Singapore lower its flag and ensign on Pulau Pisang because it might give rise to an inference that the island belonged to Singapore. Malaysia made no such request regarding the absolutely identical Singapore ensign flown on Pedra Branca. -
I think Malaysia will focus on the national flag in it's argument.Originally posted by Atobe:[/color]
38. Second, as I discussed yesterday, Malaysia insisted that Singapore lower its flag and ensign on Pulau Pisang because it might give rise to an inference that the island belonged to Singapore. Malaysia made no such request regarding the absolutely identical Singapore ensign flown on Pedra Branca.
Singapore is cautious about it and did not not fly the flag at Pedra Branca, only the ensign.
Singapore's counsel Bundy did not mention 'flag flown on Pedra Branca' in his argument on point 38 as this will be making a misrepresentation. -
Malaysia didn't go for the "national flag" argument because it is peripheral and weak.Originally posted by googoomuck:I think Malaysia will focus on the national flag in it's argument.
Singapore is cautious about it and did not not fly the flag at Pedra Branca, only the ensign.
Singapore's counsel Bundy did not mention 'flag flown on Pedra Branca' in his argument on point 38 as this will be making a misrepresentation.
To their credit, their counsel went for something stronger: flag or no flag, so what?
As their own counsel (Sir Elihu) had pointed out, flying a flag doesn't grant sovereignty. The Brits flew one in HK for years, but it was common knowledge that the New Territories were merely leased to the Brits, and they did not hold sovereignty over it.
There is a difference between ownership and sovereignty. Its one of the most compelling arguments I've read from the Malaysian side. -
you past by that light houseOriginally posted by sgdiehard:I have, have you? I sailed by there in one of my offshore fishing trips, didn't stop by because there is no convenient store, but that doesn't mean anything as long as it flies Singapore flag, whether it is RSN ensign or PSA ensign!!!
When the lighthouse becomes useless for marine navigation, it may be run by the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board and flies the STPB ensign, who cares. i LAND on it and walk around it actually, more then 10 yrs ago, theres a time when situation was very kan chiong, and we were order to do SOMETHING on that pcs of rock, and we have to go there at night, and... most of the task was done by our friends at changi, if i can remember correct, during that time, some malaysia org wanted to plant their malaysia flag there. and that was the time we were being informed, during day time, we try not to land there, as, we are not allow to wear our uniform. coz, lighthouse was suppose to be run and maintance by PSA.
as for the flag thingy, since u dont care, i also dont have to waste time on u -
agree, if they are transportaing those personal who posted there, and normally by CPC or PC, then, all personal who TRANSPORTING THEM WILL be navy guyz and they will be in navy uniform.Originally posted by hloc:Well, there are Police Coast Guard personal in uniform posted on the island for week long 'tour'...... And my friends when sending and picking up the Coast Guard people does have to get onto the island..... and yes.... they were in uniform too....
im referring to those guyz POSTED THERE
and being transfer by the navy guyz...THEY CANT WEAR THEIR UNIFORM DURING THE TRANSFER try to check this with you friends again... im referring to GUYZ THAT RUN THE LIGHT- HOUSE -
Originally posted by NDU:you past by that light house i LAND on it and walk around it actually, more then 10 yrs ago, theres a time when situation was very kan chiong, and we were order to do SOMETHING on that pcs of rock, and we have to go there at night, and... most of the task was done by our friends at changi, if i can remember correct, during that time, some malaysia org wanted to plant their malaysia flag there. and that was the time we were being informed, during day time, we try not to land there, as, we are not allow to wear our uniform. coz, lighthouse was suppose to be run and maintance by PSA.
as for the flag thingy, since u dont care, i also dont have to waste time on u
-
Johor official 'had no legal authority to disown island'
By V.Anbalagan
23 November, 2007
THE Johor acting state secretary had no legal authority in 1953 to declare that Pulau Batu Puteh (PBP) was not a territory of the state, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said. He said the Johor Agreement and the Federation of Malaya Agreement, both of which came into force in 1948, provided that all external and defence matters of the state be transferred to the British.
"Such affairs were to be executed through the high commissioner of the federation," he said in the opening session of Malaysia's second round oral submission before the International Court of Justice.
In that year, the nine Malay States, including Johor, the former Straits Settlements (SS) of Malacca and Penang made up the federation.
Under both agreements, Johor, which was a protected state, transferred all of her rights, powers and jurisdiction on defence and external affairs to the British, he said.
Gani said both agreements continued to be in force until the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 came into force.
He said a clause in the Federation Agreement provided that the executive authority of the federation shall be exercised by the high commissioner either directly or through officers subordinate to him.
Gani said another clause in the Federation Agreement clearly showed that no power or authority exercised by the high commissioner could be exercised by a state secretary.
"The Federation Agreement does not provide any executive authority to any state or settlement.
"Johor, therefore, had no power or competence to deal with matters pertaining to external affairs," he said.
Gani said the then Johor acting state secretary, M. Seth Saaid, was merely a civil servant and had no legal capacity to write the 1953 letter to renounce any part of Johor's territories.
On Tuesday, Singapore's agent Tommy Koh, in his closing remark, claimed that Johor in 1953 was a sovereign state and Seth's letter to the Singapore government was binding under international law.
Malaysia had earlier submitted that Singapore was seeking to use the letter as her root to claim title over PBP.
Gani also pointed out that the letter from Singapore representative J.D. Higham was addressed to the Johor British adviser and copied to the chief secretary of the federation.
He said it was not addressed to Seth and the acting state secretary undertook himself to issue the letter to Higham.
"He wrote directly to a local authority of the British colony of Singapore.
"He did not copy his letter to the chief secretary," Gani said.
He added that there was no evidence that the chief secretary or the high commissioner was aware of the contents of this letter.
Gani said the way the correspondence was conducted was procedurally irregular and incorrect.
He said Singapore could not prove PBP was no man's land although she claimed that the British had taken possession of the island between 1847 to 1851.
"Singapore's case simply rests on the inference that PBP was terra nullius (no man's land)," he said.
Gani said Singapore also remained silent or failed to produce the "incontrovertible legal evidence" in the form of documents claimed in 1978 to be in her possession.
He said Singapore's conduct after the critical date of dispute in December 1979 were relevant for assessing state activities carried out by the island republic.
"They are not a normal continuation of Singapore's prior acts of administrating the lighthouse but to strengthen her legal position in the present dispute," he said.
Hearing continues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2007 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved. -
Dunno about everyone else here, but IMHO, I would be scared to death of doing business with the likes of THESE pple...
Today say "like this", tomorrow say "like that", the day after, say "i never say before..." -
The guy who runs the lighthouse is employ by PSA..... not SAF or CPC. Therefore no reason at all he should be in Uniform....... the CPC personal just provide..... err.... 'protection', and last heard, still spend most of their time fishing or playing cards.Originally posted by NDU:agree, if they are transportaing those personal who posted there, and normally by CPC or PC, then, all personal who TRANSPORTING THEM WILL be navy guyz and they will be in navy uniform.
im referring to those guyz POSTED THERE and being transfer by the navy guyz...THEY CANT WEAR THEIR UNIFORM DURING THE TRANSFER try to check this with you friends again... im referring to GUYZ THAT RUN THE LIGHT- HOUSE
Btw..... I don't think they 'can't' wear uniform during the transfer..... just no a good idea when you see the sea condition they have to endure on almost every transfer...... Their uniforms are kept dry, while they transfer over mostly in PT rig...... Around this time of the year the seas are horrible over there. No point getting your uniform wet during the transfer. -
At least better than Indonesia...... their Govt hold 'Golden' shares in the Telcom Market and yet can said that Temasek is in control.Originally posted by CX:Dunno about everyone else here, but IMHO, I would be scared to death of doing business with the likes of THESE pple...
Today say "like this", tomorrow say "like that", the day after, say "i never say before..."
BullSh*tting at its BEST..... 
-
Originally posted by CX:
Dunno about everyone else here, but IMHO, I would be scared to death of doing business with the likes of THESE pple...
Today say "like this", tomorrow say "like that", the day after, say "i never say before..." Originally posted by hloc:
The Malaysian Malays and the Indonesian Malays share a common near similar language even as the Malaysian Malays are supposed to be descendants from Yunnan Province in China {re-Mahathir's book : 'Malay Dilemma'}, and Indonesia's Malay may be part of the same branch as the community spread across the Archipelago.
At least better than Indonesia...... their Govt hold 'Golden' shares in the Telcom Market and yet can said that Temasek is in control.
BullSh*tting at its BEST.....
These were the kind of mentality that Singapore have been dealing with since the time when LKY tried to get Singapore to be independent through merger with Malaysia.
Those Singaporeans who had the longer experience dealing with these people from Malaya and Indonesia had expressed deep reservations and loud concerns to the terms of merger.
Unfortunately, history has shown they were proven right.
It has been 45 years since that fateful evening on 8 August 1965 when Singapore managed to get out of a bad arrangement, and became independent on 9 August 1965 - but it seems that Human Character has still not change after such a long period of time.
It maybe good fortune for Singapore to provide a place of clear and absolute certainty to do honest business in a neighborhood accustomed to double standards, double dealings, double-talk.
This does not mean that Singapore will insulate and isolate ourselves from any relationship with our neighbors, but we simply have to be smarter, more diligent, more astute, more discerning and more careful in our official and unofficial dealings with them. -
I don't like the way you seem to accentuate the "racial" characteristic to raise the point that the 3 countries are "different". I don't think skin colour has anything to do with it.Originally posted by Atobe:
It maybe good fortune for Singapore to provide a place of clear and absolute certainty to do honest business in a neighborhood accustomed to double standards, double dealings, double-talk.
This does not mean that Singapore will insulate and isolate ourselves from any relationship with our neighbors, but we simply have to be smarter, more diligent, more astute, more discerning and more careful in our official and unofficial dealings with them.
I think its more of a cultural thing: That the Malay / Javanese or loosely speaking, "South East Asian" culture, is simply one that stresses informal understandings and "face" rather than strict, contractual/treaty arrangements and commitments.
Thats why the newly signed ASEAN charter is widely perceived to have no teeth. Because nobody seated around that table is comfortable with any text that has "teeth" and even those who want it are astute enough to know that it is probably unenforceable.
It may seem bizarre to many of us, as who would want to do business with someone that doesn't stick to the terms of the contract and keep coming back to tweak the terms and conditions even after the formal signing?
Another example: The extradition and defence co-operation agreement.
To them, its never over because as long as you have friendly contacts, the details can still be "negotiated".
Fortunately for us, this isn't the way diplomacy is strictly conducted in the world. The written word and the signed agreement is still considered binding. That's why SG looks "heavy handed" and "legalistic" when it insists on the letter of the deal.
I frankly think that its a case by case approach: where there is a degree of trust and goodwill, it helps to get a good understanding of both side's perspectives and sign a broad MOU. The implementation agreements and details can indeed, be finalised later.
Where there is very little trust and national interests are jealously guarded, it helps to get 3rd party arbitration because there's no other way to resolve the issue otherwise. -
Originally posted by CX:
Unfortunately, as much as it is distasteful to accentuate the ''racial'' characteristic - it remains a fact that culture is part and parcel of the traditions that makes up the characteristics or traits of the ''Race''.
I don't like the way you seem to accentuate the "racial" characteristic to raise the point that the 3 countries are "different". I don't think skin colour has anything to do with it.
I think its more of a cultural thing: That the Malay / Javanese or loosely speaking, "South East Asian" culture, is simply one that stresses informal understandings and "face" rather than strict, contractual/treaty arrangements and commitments.
Is there such a thing as ''South East Asian culture'' that will identify a common thread through the different peoples of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore ?
Can ''Face'' be part of this S.E. Asian culture or should it be an individual human trait found to be critically important to some, but not by others even from within the same ethnic groups ?
Unfortunately, the ability to respect any agreed and finalized contractural/treaty arrangements is reflective of the strength in individual character - where various individuals will form respective societies, or communities, with all consolidated into a nation that they form. This ability is a hallmark of the discipline of a society, the community that make up a nation.
If a society, or a community is formed by individuals without any basic human traits of personal discipline or personal integrity, and will group together to form the sum-total as a Nation, can such a nation or country have any ability to respect any international agreements/treaties ?
Regretably, the drafting of this ASEAN Charter was led by a Singaporean as the sitting Secretary-General of ASEAN; one who is accustomed to the Singapore political ways of drafting a laudable legislative show piece that allow loopholes for selective non-compliance when suitable.
Thats why the newly signed ASEAN charter is widely perceived to have no teeth. Because nobody seated around that table is comfortable with any text that has "teeth" and even those who want it are astute enough to know that it is probably unenforceable.
This sham ASEAN Charter was not intended for local implementation by the member nations of ASEAN but to placate EU and the USA - to show that ASEAN has similarly high aspirations.
Can the signature to this ASEAN Charter be of any use when Communist Laos and Vietnam, and Military Ruled Mynmar are all decidely against DEMOCRATIC practices, nor allowing any recognition of human and civil rights for their citizens - which obviously should include Singapore and Thailand ?
The lack of ''teeth'' was purposefully left out so as to allow non-compliance by the member-states of ASEAN, and reinforce the existing principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another member states of ASEAN.
This is another piece of deceptive political works that only the Singapore Government aka the Ruling Political Party is at its best, with 50 years of experience at making the Singapore Constitution into a nonsensical piece of garbage paper.
When the national leadership will allow false hope amongst their citizens even by purposefully risking their own national reputation - to go the full length of tweaking the truth for some pieces of rocky outcrops - we had better be prepared for some fall-out even if the ICJ should find any resolution to the present case for Malaysia and Singapore to accept.
It may seem bizarre to many of us, as who would want to do business with someone that doesn't stick to the terms of the contract and keep coming back to tweak the terms and conditions even after the formal signing?
Another example: The extradition and defence co-operation agreement.
To them, its never over because as long as you have friendly contacts, the details can still be "negotiated".
Fortunately for us, this isn't the way diplomacy is strictly conducted in the world. The written word and the signed agreement is still considered binding. That's why SG looks "heavy handed" and "legalistic" when it insists on the letter of the deal.
I frankly think that its a case by case approach: where there is a degree of trust and goodwill, it helps to get a good understanding of both side's perspectives and sign a broad MOU. The implementation agreements and details can indeed, be finalised later.
Where there is very little trust and national interests are jealously guarded, it helps to get 3rd party arbitration because there's no other way to resolve the issue otherwise.
Is it any surprise that every agreements will have to be a win-win situation, in which ''everyone'' in the system will ''benefit'' from any agreement ?
Is it not a surprise that such a practise can only encourage the festering of the continued habit of ensuring that the ''benefits'' will trickle down the political system ?
It require a political will of a disciplined national leadership to change the mind-set of the society that encourage positive social values. It certainly do not help when the national leadership succumb to the characteristics of the herd that they are leading.
The failure of the Indonesian legislature to accept and ratify the negotiated and formalized treaty between the Governments of Indonesia and Singapore - was perhaps a failure of the Indonesia Government to present the matter to the legislature before formalising the agreement with Singapore.
Singapore should have realised this required process before raising their own misplaced faith in the believing the show is over after the ink is dried on the Agreement. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
True... But to many countries, their "national reputation" pales in importance to their domestic agenda.
When the national leadership will allow false hope amongst their citizens even by purposefully risking their own national reputation - to go the full length of tweaking the truth for some pieces of rocky outcrops - we had better be prepared for some fall-out even if the ICJ should find any resolution to the present case for Malaysia and Singapore to accept.
Its not often that you find an electorate, even in mature democracies, vote in a government because of its foreign policy.Is it any surprise that every agreements will have to be a win-win situation, in which ''everyone'' in the system will ''benefit'' from any agreement ?
Aiyo... Signing a deal from a perspective of mutual benefit is not the same as wanting a cut under the table.
Is it not a surprise that such a practise can only encourage the festering of the continued habit of ensuring that the ''benefits'' will trickle down the political system ?
Truth be told, if it was that simple, we wouldn't be at the ICJ... either party would've been bought off by the side that has more money to spare for this venture.It require a political will of a disciplined national leadership to change the mind-set of the society that encourage positive social values. It certainly do not help when the national leadership succumb to the characteristics of the herd that they are leading.
U assume that the people who are called to positions of authority are individuals of a higher moral standing, or who are subject to a higher standard of morality then the "herd"...
It has been proven time and again that this is often not so... Bill Clinton for instance... But then again, what is a BJ enjoyed in the comforts of the Oval Office when compared to starting a war and causing the death and destruction of a country that is all but broken by sanctions?
Another point is that of accountability, for who will guard the guards themselves? Its circuitous isn't it? When we assume that Leaders need to set positive examples for the untidy herd to follow, so... How does the untidy herd check the powers of the leaders? Since the untidy herd is not of a sufficiently high moral standing as compared to the leaders (or they would be the leaders wouldn't they?)
So it comes down to the point where the leaders eventually descend to the levels of the untidy herd, if it is indeed, the duty of the untidy herd to check the powers of the leader.
It has nothing to do with alpha-males or herds... Its simply a matter of pple getting the leadership they deserve... Through voting, through participation and through plain and simple CARING for what's going on around them.
We can argue till the cows come home on the lack of political space in SG, and the oppressive climate of the ruling party, but seriously... How many pple care?
Our views differes but I know you care. I do too. How many of us are there?The failure of the Indonesian legislature to accept and ratify the negotiated and formalized treaty between the Governments of Indonesia and Singapore - was perhaps a failure of the Indonesia Government to present the matter to the legislature before formalising the agreement with Singapore.
To be fair to the poor civil servants who had to fly over and do all the leg work before getting the big-wigs to come over and sign on the dotted line, I actually believe that there was a great deal of good faith between both parties.
Singapore should have realised this required process before raising their own misplaced faith in the believing the show is over after the ink is dried on the Agreement.
Unless u believe the "conspiracy theories" that it was tied to the sand, that was incidentally being held by the Indonesian authorities at that time.
So in any event, nothing was agreed to and nothing was settled.
Its actually no worse that where we were before since its well known by now that SBY doesn't have enough clout to call the shots anymore. -
Who got see Horsburgh lighthouse before?