Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
I IS A RECRUIT FROM RAVEN COY SMLJ KIDOriginally posted by zenden9:Hey Kid,u watched too many time 300,is it?
-
orh i know ur CSM, better behave or elseOriginally posted by Freedom Fighter:I IS A RECRUIT FROM RAVEN COY SMLJ KID -
lol so?Originally posted by casshern:orh i know ur CSM, better behave or else
u tink i mus scared of u issit?
RAVEN WARRIORS FEAR NO ONE! -
Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:IF WAR IS INEVITABLE
I WILL DEFEND SG WITH MY RIFLE AND MY BUDDY AND ME!
SAF WILL TAKEN DOWN THE ENEMIES SWIFTLY AND DECISIVELY!
THE REASON WHY OUR ENEMIES FEAR THE DARKNESS IF BECAUSE WE WILL TAKE THEM DOWN WITH OUR M16S AND SAR21S!
TONIGHT WE DINE IN
You A.W.O.L oreddy ar not?
THE COOK HOUSE! -
let's see at the Malaysian side.
Pulau Batu Puteh case begins tomorrow
New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
November 5, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
PUTRAJAYA: A 12-day hearing on the territorial dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore will begin at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherlands, from tomorrow.
The proceedings come more than four years after the two countries signed an agreement to refer the case to the court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
In the agreement signed on Feb 6, 2003 here, Malaysia and Singapore requested the court to determine to whom the sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, and the two adjacent marine features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to.
The agreements were ratified by parliaments of both nations which agreed to accept and be bound by the court's decision. Pulau Batu Puteh, called Pedra Branca by Singapore, is 7.7 nautical miles off Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore.
It is about the size of a football field, and holds a lighthouse, communication tower, helipad and jetty constructed by Singapore.
The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh arose in 1979 after Malaysia published new official maps showing it as part of its territory.
After 1980, Singapore prohibited local fishermen from carrying out their activities and seeking shelter during bad weather.
At present, the island is under Singapore's control.
Singapore asserts that it has sovereignty as it has maintained the Horsburgh lighthouse there since 1851.
Malaysia's stand is that she was not making a claim over Pulau Batu Puteh as it was always part of her territory.
In Malaysia's view, the lighthouse was built and administered only by consent of the Sultan of Johor, which was granted in 1844.
Both countries tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, but at their first meeting in February 1993 Singapore extended its claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Subsequently, both countries agreed in 1994 to refer their dispute to the ICJ but it was put on the back burner pending the settlement to the Sipadan and Ligitan territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia.
The ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, ruled in favour of Malaysia. The Malaysia-Singapore dispute will be heard by a 16-man panel led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh and two ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore.
Court president Rosalyn Higgins had disqualified herself as she was involved in preparing the case for Singapore.
The Malaysian legal team is led by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo G. Cohen and Penelope Nevill.
Both parties, apart from raising principles and rules of international law, will also rely on historical background and map evidence, to argue their case. Judgment is expected in the middle of next year. -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
It is typical of the Malaysian standard of news reporting - half-truths without further details nor elaborations; misquotes, and irrelevant matching of facts and circumstances.
let's see at the Malaysian side.
Pulau Batu Puteh case begins tomorrow
New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
November 5, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
PUTRAJAYA: A 12-day hearing on the territorial dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore will begin at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherlands, from tomorrow.
The proceedings come more than four years after the two countries signed an agreement to refer the case to the court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
In the agreement signed on Feb 6, 2003 here, Malaysia and Singapore requested the court to determine to whom the sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, and the two adjacent marine features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to.
The agreements were ratified by parliaments of both nations which agreed to accept and be bound by the court's decision. Pulau Batu Puteh, called Pedra Branca by Singapore, is 7.7 nautical miles off Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore.
It is about the size of a football field, and holds a lighthouse, communication tower, helipad and jetty constructed by Singapore.
The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh arose in 1979 after Malaysia published new official maps showing it as part of its territory.
After 1980, Singapore prohibited local fishermen from carrying out their activities and seeking shelter during bad weather.
At present, the island is under Singapore's control.
Singapore asserts that it has sovereignty as it has maintained the Horsburgh lighthouse there since 1851.
Malaysia's stand is that she was not making a claim over Pulau Batu Puteh as it was always part of her territory.
In Malaysia's view, the lighthouse was built and administered only by consent of the Sultan of Johor, which was granted in 1844.
Both countries tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, but at their first meeting in February 1993 Singapore extended its claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Subsequently, both countries agreed in 1994 to refer their dispute to the ICJ but it was put on the back burner pending the settlement to the Sipadan and Ligitan territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia.
The ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, ruled in favour of Malaysia. The Malaysia-Singapore dispute will be heard by a 16-man panel led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh and two ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore.
Court president Rosalyn Higgins had disqualified herself as she was involved in preparing the case for Singapore.
The Malaysian legal team is led by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo G. Cohen and Penelope Nevill.
Both parties, apart from raising principles and rules of international law, will also rely on historical background and map evidence, to argue their case. Judgment is expected in the middle of next year.
What has the ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia on 17 December 2002 ?
How did the ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia on this date, when the ICJ began its hearing on this Pedra Branca issue on 6 November 2007 ?
The dishonesty of inserting irrelevant events onto this current proceedings, and dishonest practise of not reporting the current proceedings in full, will surely distort the expectations of ordinary Malaysians to the final outcome.
Such dishonest reporting can only result unrealistic emotional outburst in the event of any ICJ rulings that is not in favor of the Malaysians.
Unless there is a black hand with its own black agenda guiding the New Straits Times, it will surely do a better service to all Malaysians - as well as to the political and diplomatic efforts of both the Malaysian and Singapore Governments to maintain an even keel - by reporting the current ICJ proceedings with more transparent honesty.
Singaporeans will have to prepare for the worst, as we prepare of the best possible outcome from this ICJ hearing.
We will need to prepare for any negative reactions from those ultra-nationalist Malaysian Malay politicians with its own private agenda to score points in using Singapore as a punching bag. -
Cool it dude... just cos their state controlled media is prone to selective reporting is no reason for u to be prone to over-selective reading.Originally posted by Atobe:Both countries tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, but at their first meeting in February 1993 Singapore extended its claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Subsequently, both countries agreed in 1994 to refer their dispute to the ICJ but it was put on the back burner pending the settlement to the Sipadan and Ligitan territorial dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia.
The ICJ on Dec 17, 2002, ruled in favour of Malaysia. The Malaysia-Singapore dispute will be heard by a 16-man panel led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh and two ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia and Singapore.
Court president Rosalyn Higgins had disqualified herself as she was involved in preparing the case for Singapore.
The Malaysian legal team is led by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo G. Cohen and Penelope Nevill.
Both parties, apart from raising principles and rules of international law, will also rely on historical background and map evidence, to argue their case. Judgment is expected in the middle of next year.
[/color]
Read with the previous paragraph, the "2002 judgement" refers to the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute with Indonesia where the ICJ ruled in favour of Malaysia...
Agree though that its a rather convoluted way to structure a story
In any case, que sera sera... We've done our part, stated our facts, they will do the same next week and we trust the ICJ to come up with a fair judgment based on the merit of the case.
Frankly, coverage this time round is rather scant... Might be that both sides do not want to engage in "megaphone diplomacy".
Reasons for this could be due to:
(a) Both sides feel that its interests are best served by letting the ICJ do its job and hence refrains from making inflammatory comments
(b) Characteristic of opportunistic UMNO politicians, they know there is a higher chance that MY will lose this one and are more cautious about making any statements that might return to bite them in the arse, esp since elections are round the corner.
(c) Because elections are round the corner, its more productive to play the "race card" than the "Singapore card"... The Malay vote is still critical esp now that Anwar is back in the game and PAS had never left it... -
Ok lah.....
Remember the Land Reclaim case some times back..... Umno was SOOOOO sure that they would win the case. Talk non-stop on their paper and telling the Malaysia public......
Then what happen..... -
Originally posted by Atobe:It is typical of the Malaysian standard of news reporting - half-truths without further details nor elaborations; misquotes, and irrelevant matching of facts and circumstances.
What has the ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia on 17 December 2002 ?
How did the ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia on this date, when the ICJ began its hearing on this Pedra Branca issue on 6 November 2007 ?
The dishonesty of inserting irrelevant events onto this current proceedings, and dishonest practise of not reporting the current proceedings in full, will surely distort the expectations of ordinary Malaysians to the final outcome.
Such dishonest reporting can only result unrealistic emotional outburst in the event of any ICJ rulings that is not in favor of the Malaysians.
Unless there is a black hand with its own black agenda guiding the New Straits Times, it will surely do a better service to all Malaysians - as well as to the political and diplomatic efforts of both the Malaysian and Singapore Governments to maintain an even keel - by reporting the current ICJ proceedings with more transparent honesty.
Singaporeans will have to prepare for the worst, as we prepare of the best possible outcome from this ICJ hearing.
We will need to prepare for any negative reactions from those ultra-nationalist Malaysian Malay politicians with its own private agenda to score points in using Singapore as a punching bag. Hi, never expect.... after five year,.... and u still show great concern on this topic well done Atobe 
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=31400 -
Wow... Bro. U dig 5 yrs old topic.....Originally posted by NDU: Hi, never expect.... after five year,.... and u still show great concern on this topic well done Atobe
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=31400 -
Actually I'm quite fine with this report, it is pretty alright, it was published before Nov 6.Originally posted by Atobe:It is typical ....
However, I find it amazing that none of our arguments went into their papers for the first 3 days of the proceedings.
-
Can a casino be built on the island?
-
Too small..... no place to have a theme parkOriginally posted by charlize:Can a casino be built on the island? -
I think we can build a monument there la. Or haha, I was watching braveheart where the scots faced the mighty english army and lifted up their kilts (Yeah, they wear nothing underneath it!) and showed the english army their bare arses. Think a statue built to that specification with its back facing North will suffice.
-
Regardless what is the outcome,i pay respect to Republic Singapore navy,they are patrolling there 24 /7.
Furthermore we must remember how our four Navy ladies sacrificed their
lives there few years back.
-
i very kan chiong abt this lighthouse mahOriginally posted by hloc:Wow... Bro. U dig 5 yrs old topic..... so... always follow up on this issue -
In case anyone's interested in the written proceedings of the case filed with the ICJ, here's the link
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&k=2b&case=130&code=masi&p3=1
Warning: each document is abt 200 pages long
In gist, very "cheong hei" lah... and judging from the series of presentations by SG over the past week, the oral proceedings will not be that much different from the positions held in the written proceedings...
The MY case is interesting... They definitely know their history
The entire case hinges on the fact that "the Brits asked us permission, hence, the lighthouse is yours, but the rock is mine. Even if the rock with the lighthouse on it isn't mine, the other 2 pieces of rocks are mine!"
SG's case is interesting too...
It hinges on the actual taking into possession of the rock as a dependence of the straits settlements, administering the lighthouse and subsequently administering and exercising effective authority over the area for the past 100+ years. To SG, the other 2 pieces of rocks are part of Pedra Branca and do not constitute a separate geographical feature so Malaysia's claim is a not meaningful.
If u care to plough through it, there are some precedences cited that strengthens SG's case...
Also some hilarious corrections by SG of MY's "omissions" to certain key quotes from historical documents.
My favorite one's about the MY claim that the Temmengong had visited the rock in his official capacity without seeking British permission and this proves that he believed he was in his own sovereign territory:Quotation as it appears in Para. 148 of MalaysiaÂ’s Memorial
SG reproduced the whole passage in full to demonstrate that permission WAS sought from the British because he had come in the vessel of his host
“On the evening of the 3rd of June, the Tomungong took his departure. He came in a beautiful fast sailing sampan ... rigged with graceful latteen sails.”Actual Passage from Thomson’s Account (quoted in full on pg.114 of SG's Counter-Memorial)
SG moves on to add that theTemmengong spent his time there fishing and only stayed one night cos he couldn't stand the mosquitoes
“On the evening of the 3rd of June, the Tomungong took his departure. He came in a beautiful fast sailing sampan belonging to the Governor of the Straits Settlements rigged with graceful latteen sails.”
[Words in italics were omitted by Malaysia from para. 148 of her Memorial.]
Honestly, I'm glad its sent before the ICJ... at least u'll get a clear decision. Politicians can talk till the cows come home and shed other pple's blood and tears and u would STILL not have a clear resolution... -
Haha, saw in the newspaper ystd, about the 1953 letter stating something abt Malaysia not recognising that Pedra Brance belongs to them or smth to that effect,
and they (malaysia) said that the contents of that letter were not clear to them.
dumbass alert! -
Thanks for the memories..Originally posted by NDU: Hi, never expect.... after five year,.... and u still show great concern on this topic well done Atobe
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=31400
Only you could remember this thread that you started, as it is not easy to search backwards for some old threads. -
The Malaysian Government - especially the Malay political leadership - always has an agenda for every actions that is publicly executed.Originally posted by CX:Cool it dude... just cos their state controlled media is prone to selective reporting is no reason for u to be prone to over-selective reading.
Read with the previous paragraph, the "2002 judgement" refers to the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute with Indonesia where the ICJ ruled in favour of Malaysia...
Agree though that its a rather convoluted way to structure a story
In any case, que sera sera... We've done our part, stated our facts, they will do the same next week and we trust the ICJ to come up with a fair judgment based on the merit of the case.
Frankly, coverage this time round is rather scant... Might be that both sides do not want to engage in "megaphone diplomacy".
Reasons for this could be due to:
(a) Both sides feel that its interests are best served by letting the ICJ do its job and hence refrains from making inflammatory comments
(b) Characteristic of opportunistic UMNO politicians, they know there is a higher chance that MY will lose this one and are more cautious about making any statements that might return to bite them in the arse, esp since elections are round the corner.
(c) Because elections are round the corner, its more productive to play the "race card" than the "Singapore card"... The Malay vote is still critical esp now that Anwar is back in the game and PAS had never left it...
With their local media also similarly influenced by government pressures, the paucity in reporting in some transparent manner should be cause for concern from our side.
Whether Malaysia or Singapore benefit from the outcome of this ICJ hearing and gain possession of these pieces of rocky outcrop in the middle of the sea, the population should be given the benefit to judge for themselves - the entire background development, so as NOT to lead to any negative emotional resentment that result in aggression.
The ground must be prepared from the onset of this ICJ hearing.
With the Malaysian media giving little transparent coverage in full report of the ICJ proceedings during Singapore's allotted time to present Singapore's position, and only providing slanted and severely editted reporting is surely blind siding the Malaysian population.
The following is a sample taken from The Star, Sunday, 11 November 2007 - and clearly show the unrealistic presentation of Singapore's position, which surely borders on dishonest reporting :-:
Singapore: Johor govt letter disclaimed isle ownership
The Star - Sunday, 11 November 2007
THE HAGUE: Singapore dwelt at length on a 1953 letter by the acting Johor state secretary which it claimed disclaimed its title to Pulau Batu Puteh.
It argued that the letter of Sept 21, 1953, to Singapore’s Colonial Secretary stated that “the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.”
Pulau Batu Puteh, which Singapore refers to as Pedra Branca, is the subject a sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore.
The case is being heard at the International Court of Justice here.
Prof Alain Pellet, who is representing Singapore, argued in his oral presentation that the letter had established the absence of JohorÂ’s title over Pulau Batu Puteh, and subsequently MalaysiaÂ’s. He contended that on the strength of the reply from Johor, Singapore could claim sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh.
The letter was in response to an enquiry dated June 12, 1953, by the Singapore Colonial Secretary seeking to clarify the status of Pulau Batu Puteh, where a lighthouse had been built, with a view to determine the boundaries of the colonyÂ’s territorial waters.
Prof Pellet, who referred to the letter on numerous occasions during the proceedings, dismissed MalaysiaÂ’s contention that the letter was only in reference to the Horsburgh lighthouse and not the island.
He contended that the letter had explicitly sought to clarify the “status of Pedra Branca”.
And the answer given was that “the Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca,” he said.
He added that even if Johor had ownership of the island before 1953, through the letter it was now disclaiming such an ownership.
SingaporeÂ’s Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar wrapped up the first round of the republicÂ’s oral presentation, contending that MalaysiaÂ’s theory that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to the country was inconsistent with the letter where Johor never regarded the island as theirs.
The Malaysian delegation is headed by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, who is Ambassador at Large and also the Prime MinisterÂ’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs.
He is MalaysiaÂ’s agent for the case while Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, acts as co-agent.
The court will hear Malaysia’s oral presentation on Tuesday. – Bernama
Comparing this report in Malaysia's ''The Star'' to the last day of the Singapore allotted time to present the Singapore side, and the report that was published in the Singapore ''Straits Times'' - there seems to be a purposeful agenda on the Malaysian side in withholding relevant information for the Malaysians to understand the complete picture.
This development should be cause for concern for all Singaporeans, who visit Malaysia on a daily basis for work or family ties, especially when ICJ make known its decision that may or may not be beneficial to Malaysia {or Singapore}. -
Singapore had `control of island since 1851'
New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
November 9, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
SINGAPORE has had total control over Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh) since 1851, the International Court of Justice heard yesterday. Rodman R. Bundy, a counsel appearing for Singapore, said the British took possession of the island between 1847 and 1851 and constructed the Horsburgh lighthouse.
Thereafter, Singapore, was open on the activities on the island which confirmed their ownership, including its territorial waters. He said none of these activities drew protests from Malaysia.
"Singapore has exercised regulatory authority and jurisdiction over personnel residing on the island, maintaining peace and good order," he said.
"The island is used as a meteorological data collection station and Singapore has exclusive control over visits by third parties to Pedra Branca.
"She had also investigated navigational hazards and ship wrecks in the territorial waters of Pedra Branca and considered sea reclamation works to extend the island." He said the Singapore flag had been raised for more than 150 years on the island but drew no protest from Malaysia, unlike the 1968 incident at the nearby Pulau Pisang, where the flag was eventually brought down.
He said Malaysia's inaction confirmed its earlier decision that it had disclaimed ownership of the Pedra Branca in 1953.
Bundy was submitting on the territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh and the adjacent features of Little Rocks and South Ledge.
Both countries are asking the court to decide on the sovereignty of the island.
Professor Alain Pellet, who is also representing Singapore, told the panel of 16 judges that it was impossible for Malaysia to find evidence or confirmation that ownership of the island belonged to Johor.
"None of the documents produced could convince the court that Johor had the original title over Pedra Branca." Malaysia in its written submission asserts that: * Pulau Batu Puteh, the two features and other islands in and around the Singapore Strait were part of the Johor Sultanate before 1824.
* The Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 had no effect on the sultanate as the agreement only covered islands and territories to the south of the strait.
* Neither Great Britain nor Singapore ever claimed sovereignty over the three features at any time prior to the critical dates in relation to the present dispute (1980 as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh and 1993 in the case of Little Rocks and South Ledge), and; * Singapore's legislation and treaty practice, its publications and maps as well as statements by the island republic's officials all confirmed that the three features were not territories of Singapore.
Hearing on 28-year Pulau Batu Puteh dispute begins
New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
November 7, 2007
Author: V. Anbalagan
RESOLUTION of a 28-year dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh and two adjacent marine features began at the International Court of Justice yesterday.
Singapore, which began submissions, contended that Johor had no claim over the islands, which it referred to as Pedra Branca, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge marine features.
The island republic's ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh told the court that Singapore had had sovereignty over the island for the past 150 years.
"Malaysia said, prior to 1847, the island was part of Johor but there is no proof to support its claim," he said.
Koh said the British acquired sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh to build a lighthouse in 1851.
He said Singapore was part of the Straits Settlement in 1867 and became part of the British colony.
"So Singapore, a former British colony, is successor to the title to Pedra Branca and also the two marine features which are located nearby," he said.
He was making his opening address to settle the territorial dispute between the island republic and Malaysia.
He said the dispute had been an irritant in the bilateral relations between the two countries.
"After almost 28 years, we are very pleased that the dispute will finally be brought to an end." A 16-judge panel, led by court vice-president Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawaneh, will hear submissions from both parties scheduled for 12 days.
It is to decide the ownership of the 137-metre by 60-metre granite outcrop, which is located 7.7 nautical miles off Johor and 25 nautical miles from Singapore.
Situated where the Straits of Johor meets the South China Sea, it houses a light house, communication tower, helipad and a jetty.
Malaysia first claimed the island in 1979 when the country published new official maps, which included Pulau Batu Puteh as part of its territory.
This drew a protest from Singapore which currently has exclusive control over Pulau Batu Puteh, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge marine features. The court is expected to issue its judgment next year and both countries have said they would abide by its ruling.
Koh yesterday supported his submissions with maps and documents.
He said although Malaysia was formed in 1963 and Singapore became an independent state in 1965, many legal proceedings took place prior to that.
He said the lawful taking of Pulau Batu Puteh was effected by a series of actions such as the landing of a British agent in 1847 and the inaugration of the Horsbrough light house in 1851. He said Malaysia had been silent over Pulau Batu Puteh and only asserted sovereignty in 1979.
"The taking over of the island was through peaceful means and there was no opposition from any party," he said adding that there was also no evidence that the British sought permission from Johor.
Indeed, he said the Dutch governor-general in Batavia (Indonesia) in the 1880s recognised the British acquisition of Pulau Batu Puteh.
The Malaysian legal team is led by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed who is the Malaysian agent, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Penelope Nevill, Professors James Crawford, Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Marcelo and G. Cohen. Hearing continues.
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved. -
Like I said... I think you're choosing to read too selectively.Originally posted by Atobe:[/color]
Comparing this report in Malaysia's ''The Star'' to the last day of the Singapore allotted time to present the Singapore side, and the report that was published in the Singapore ''Straits Times'' - there seems to be a purposeful agenda on the Malaysian side in withholding relevant information for the Malaysians to understand the complete picture.
This development should be cause for concern for all Singaporeans, who visit Malaysia on a daily basis for work or family ties, especially when ICJ make known its decision that may or may not be beneficial to Malaysia {or Singapore}.
If anything at all, I feel that the case is remarkable for its low key appearance in the mass media on both sides.
Singaporeans who visit JB should already excercise caution in any case due to the crime situation there... and criminals don't just rob pple because they're singaporeans. they rob pple cos they think there's have something of value which they want.
In this respect, I've encountered more Malaysians who've been victims of crime in JB than Singaporeans.
I tend to think that this "low key" approach is both country's way of ensuring the least embarassing exit possible since nobody really knows how the ICJ will finally rule. -
heard around that Msia has a trump card
-
Originally posted by CX:
Reading too selectively ?
Like I said... I think you're choosing to read too selectively.
If anything at all, I feel that the case is remarkable for its low key appearance in the mass media on both sides.
Singaporeans who visit JB should already excercise caution in any case due to the crime situation there... and criminals don't just rob pple because they're singaporeans. they rob pple cos they think there's have something of value which they want.
In this respect, I've encountered more Malaysians who've been victims of crime in JB than Singaporeans.
I tend to think that this "low key" approach is both country's way of ensuring the least embarassing exit possible since nobody really knows how the ICJ will finally rule.
Should one not read - in between the lines as well - especially when the positioning of critical statements from the appropriate paragraphs can give new meanings to the entire intent ?
You may - of course - even suggest that one should not read too much in between the lines.
Unfortunately, if one is to be prepared - it is advisable to read carefully and be selective as well as cautious, including reading in between the lines.
This will separate those who are alert by being extra cautious to the nuances, and those who will remain indifferent to any obvious signs.
There also is a difference between those neurotically apprehensive and those who are carefully inquisitve for one's own good.
Draw the line any way you like, from the historical experiences dealing with the Malaysian Malay Ultra Nationalists - it is best to err on the side of being extra-cautious. -
We will know tomorr..... Malaysia's turn to speak in court.Originally posted by Master -_-:heard around that Msia has a trump card