Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
So when is judgment day?
-
2 more weeks + 6 to 9 mths......Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:So when is judgment day? -
Malaysia said to remain friendly with sg after its turn.
Lets hope they keep their words.......... -
tat's because they expect to win... if they lose then its a diff story
-
Hahaha.... as alwaysOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:tat's because they expect to win... if they lose then its a diff story
-
I suggest reading with a discerning eye for detail and within an appropriate context.Originally posted by Atobe:Reading too selectively ?
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.
I have no objections to your way of reading... I just find it difficult to forge definitive conclusions through the absence of information.
I really can't tell what other pple are thinking when they're not making their views known. They're keeping their cards close to their chest and showing a poker face.
Judging from general norms and past trends, and in light of the limited views articulated in the mass media to date, i am cautiously optimistic that the worst of the rapid anti-SG tirade of the Mahathir years are behind us... Or at least this subject is not being used (yet?) by opportunistic politicians to slam SG for electoral gains.
In any case, once it was agreed that both sides should submit the case to the ICJ for resolution, it is neither appropriate nor sensible to inflame the home crowd while the ICJ is doing its job.
I am not experienced with the inner workings of the ICJ, but there is certainly a risk that causing a media furore can adversely affect a country's international standing and risk its chances of a fair judgement.
That could be why nothing has been said to date beyond "we are confident of our case and morale is high".
The SG media had been just as muffled. Coverage had not moved beyond the bare facts of the case. Its almost verbatim.
Or maybe the press is holding its breath until MY unleashes its first salvo?
This has been a topic I've kept a close eye on for the past few years as well
I'm certainly looking forward to any new developments. -
haha! i think you are the most adorable kid here!Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:lol so?
u tink i mus scared of u issit?
RAVEN WARRIORS FEAR NO ONE!
-
The politics of survival have changed and will continue to mold SG-MY relationships towards greater cooperation, not because we love each other a lot, but because a SG-MY cooperation will ensure that both nations can prosper and grow within the new ASEAN reality of regionalism.
It doesn't serve the international standing of both nations to be seen as bickering especially when the focus on ASEAN could dwindle if the climate is not seen to be ripe for investment and consequently, improved relevance vis-a-vis East Asia.
MY will become pragmatic as the day goes by, and SG will play less of a zero-sum game. -
we already has a monument there.Originally posted by Quincey: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.
its our Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
read the following:
Sir Standford Raffles was a Freemason. So was Thomas Bradell - the first Attorney General of Singapore, William Henry Read, George W. A. Trimmer, Sir Herbert Ralph Hone, Frank Swettenham, Joaquim Parsick P. Joaquim, John Colson Smith, Admiral Henry Keppel, and John Turnbull Thomson. Across the Johor straits, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim and three of his sons were also Masons. Further away, Raja Brooke of Sarawak was also a Mason. Other Masonic figures that passed through Singapore included Marquis of Dalhousie, the Governor General of India and Charles Warren, the former Commissioner of Police of Metropolitan London.
In 1850, Lord Dalhousie (they were addressed as such back in those days) came to Singapore. An obelisk, known as The Dalhousie Obelisk was built to commenmorate his visit.
The Obelisk is a Masonic architecture, is associated with the Sun and is the symbol for continuity, power, regeneration and stability. More than saying ‘Long Live the Queen’, the Masons had erected another stone phallus to mark their global presence, transcending the political and religious boundaries of their era. Singapore counts itself as one of the few places in the world with a contemporary obelisk. The most famous modern obelisk is the iconic Washington Monument.
Lord Dalhousie “emphatically recognized the wisdom of liberating commerce from all restraints, under which ENLIGHTENED policy this settlement has rapidly attained its present rank among British possessions and with which its future prosperity must ever be identified”. From those words, Freemasons believed in unfettered turbo-capitalism. It is not coincidental that many of them worked in the East India Company, one of the progenitors of the Multi-National Corporation that is able to formulate trade policies backed up by gunship.
The Dalhousie Obelisk was designed by John Turnbull Thomson, who was also responsible for the construction of the Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca. The Masons turned up at Pedra Branca in full regalia for the consecration of the lighthouse in the same year when the Obelisk was built. -
Care to cite the source?Originally posted by FG42:we already has a monument there.
its our Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
read the following:
Sir Standford Raffles was a Freemason. So was Thomas Bradell - the first Attorney General of Singapore, William Henry Read, George W. A. Trimmer, Sir Herbert Ralph Hone, Frank Swettenham, Joaquim Parsick P. Joaquim, John Colson Smith, Admiral Henry Keppel, and John Turnbull Thomson. Across the Johor straits, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim and three of his sons were also Masons. Further away, Raja Brooke of Sarawak was also a Mason. Other Masonic figures that passed through Singapore included Marquis of Dalhousie, the Governor General of India and Charles Warren, the former Commissioner of Police of Metropolitan London.
In 1850, Lord Dalhousie (they were addressed as such back in those days) came to Singapore. An obelisk, known as The Dalhousie Obelisk was built to commenmorate his visit.
The Obelisk is a Masonic architecture, is associated with the Sun and is the symbol for continuity, power, regeneration and stability. More than saying ‘Long Live the Queen’, the Masons had erected another stone phallus to mark their global presence, transcending the political and religious boundaries of their era. Singapore counts itself as one of the few places in the world with a contemporary obelisk. The most famous modern obelisk is the iconic Washington Monument.
Lord Dalhousie “emphatically recognized the wisdom of liberating commerce from all restraints, under which ENLIGHTENED policy this settlement has rapidly attained its present rank among British possessions and with which its future prosperity must ever be identified”. From those words, Freemasons believed in unfettered turbo-capitalism. It is not coincidental that many of them worked in the East India Company, one of the progenitors of the Multi-National Corporation that is able to formulate trade policies backed up by gunship.
The Dalhousie Obelisk was designed by John Turnbull Thomson, who was also responsible for the construction of the Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca. The Masons turned up at Pedra Branca in full regalia for the consecration of the lighthouse in the same year when the Obelisk was built. -
KL says it has good case against S'pore
Malaysian Foreign Minister arrives in The Hague to show support on eve of KL's 4-day oral pleading
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home
November 13, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
IN THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS) - MALAYSIAN Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar arrived here last night to show support for Kuala Lumpur's legal team in the Pedra Branca hearing.Today, Malaysia launches four days of oral pleadings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
It follows Singapore's presentation, also over four days last week.
On the eve of Malaysia's big day yesterday, Malaysia's Ambassador to the Netherlands, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, said the team's preparations were going well.
'We are very well prepared to respond to all the arguments and points made by the Singapore team,' she told The Straits Times via e-mail.
'We are confident that we have a good case. The Malaysian public can rest assured that every relevant point raised by Singapore will receive a satisfactory response from the Malaysian team,' she said.
About 60 officials from the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and Attorney-General's Chambers have been here since last week.
The Malaysian delegation is about twice as large as Singapore's, which is led by Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar.
Singapore and Malaysia have asked the ICJ to decide which has sovereignty over Pedra Branca, an island at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
Malaysia's first speaker today will be Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister and its Agent for the case. Each State appoints an agent to communicate with the ICJ and receive court instructions on its behalf.
As Singapore's Agent, Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh did in his opening speech last week, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir will likely lay out the broad framework of Malaysia's case.
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Malaysia's Case: History to be cited to back claims
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home
November 13, 2007
ACCORDING to its written pleadings, Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca rests on four pillars.
The first is that the Johor Sultanate exercised sovereignty over Pedra Branca from time immemorial and held what is called an 'original title' to the island.
Pedra Branca, which the Malaysians call Pulau Batu Puteh, is an island the size of a football field and is at the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait.
To back its claim, Malaysia asserts on the basis of several history books on Johor that for centuries, the sultanate's territories stretched 'both north and south of the Singapore Strait' and included 'all islands within and at the entrance of the Singapore Strait'.
It argues that by contrast, Singapore's claim dates only to 1980 when it lodged a protest against a 1979 Malaysian map that placed Pedra Branca within Malaysia's territorial waters.
The second pillar is that Britain acknowledged Johor's title and sought permission to build a lighthouse there in the 1840s.
Malaysia has produced an 1844 letter from the Temenggong of Johor to the British Crown in Singapore, which it argues is evidence that such permission was granted.
Its third argument is that the British did not exercise sovereignty over the island, but only built and operated Horsburgh Lighthouse there. Singapore's activities, it claims, have also been limited to those related to the running of a lighthouse.
Malaysia argues that under international law, the operation of a lighthouse does not establish the sovereignty of the operator.
Lastly, Malaysia alleges that Singapore never acted as though Pedra Branca belonged to it, for it published no maps showing the island was part of its territory, nor did it include Pedra Branca in its list of islands.
From today until Friday, Malaysia's experienced team of international counsel is also expected to rebut forcefully many of the arguments that Singapore mounted last week.
The team includes Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Mr James Crawford, two international law experts who helped Malaysia win its case in 2002 against Indonesia in their territorial dispute over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan.
Singapore's Case : Long, non-stop display of state authoritySINGAPORE'S proof of sovereignty over Pedra Branca rests on two legs.
The first is that the British took lawful possession of the island in 1847 when it was terra nullius, a Latin phrase meaning empty or no man's land.
It backed this up with an 1850 letter by the General Secretary of the Dutch East Indies, in which he wrote of the construction of a lighthouse 'at Pedra Branca on British territory'.
In its oral pleadings last week, Singapore also highlighted Malaysia's absolute lack of documentary evidence to support its claim of an original title to Pedra Branca.
The second leg of Singapore's case is that since 1847, Britain and its successor, Singapore, have exercised sovereignty over the island through activities that were an open, continuous and effective display of state control.
These included naval patrols as well as the control of access to the island.
Among the incidents Singapore brought to the court's attention last week was one that took place in 1974, when a group of Malaysians who wanted to visit Pedra Branca sought permission to do so from the Singapore authorities.
Singapore also described as 'sudden' and 'extraordinary' Malaysia's late claim to the island, through a map published in 1979.
The move, it said, came after 130 years of silence in the face of Singapore's exercise of state control on and in the waters around Pedra Branca.
During those 130 years, Malaysia had also acknowledged Singapore's sovereignty, it added.
Its legal team quoted from a 1953 letter in which Johor's top official at the time informed the British authorities in Singapore that 'the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'.
They also highlighted six maps published by the Malaysian government between 1962 and 1975, which showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Why Singapore is fighting the case to keep Pedra Branca
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home
November 13, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim
IN 1583, Dutch voyager Johann van Lindschoten wrote of the island on which South-east Asia's first lighthouse was eventually built:
'From the Cape of Singapore lyeth a cliffe in ye sea called Pedra Branca, or white rock, where the shippes that come and goe to and from China passe in great danger and some are left upon it.'
It is clear from this account that for centuries, Pedra Branca was notorious for being a navigational hazard.
It was for this reason that the British decided in 1847 to build Horsburgh Lighthouse there, to improve the safety of ships passing through the Singapore Strait.
Since the construction of the lighthouse began that year, the British colonial authorities had considered Pedra Branca part of Singapore territory.
When it became self-governing in 1959, Singapore assumed sovereignty over the island from the British and has controlled it and its surrounding waters ever since.
So it found Malaysia's sudden claim in 1979 that Pedra Branca stood within its territorial waters, 'to say the least, extraordinary'.
That was the phrase Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar used in a speech last Friday, as he wrapped up Singapore's first round of oral pleadings before the International Court of Justice.
To some, Pedra Branca may seem insignificant.
It is after all but a guano-covered granite island the size of a football field, located some 25 nautical miles from Singapore's mainland.
But for the Singapore Government, there is an important principle at stake, which is that no country should be able to suddenly and unilaterally claim its territory over which it has exercised sovereignty openly and continuously. In this case, Singapore has held the island for some 150 years.
In a way, Singapore is acting as any home owner would if his neighbour suddenly decided to encroach on his land.
It would come as no surprise if the owner strenuously resisted any such attempt, for otherwise, he would forfeit to his neighbour land that was rightfully his to begin with.
To be sure, sovereignty disputes are also usually tied up with feelings of national pride.
Malaysian newspaper the New Straits Times stated in an article dated Jan 2, 2003 that 'Pulau Batu Puteh, tiny as it is, is significant for its strategic position, impact on the delimitation of territorial sea and, most of all, for national pride'.
Pedra Branca is also strategically located and is key to the safety of international shipping passing through the Strait of Singapore.
It commands the entrance to the two main shipping channels - the south and middle channels - of the eastern part of the strait, through which some 900 ships pass each day.
Singapore has installed a VTIS or Vessel Traffic Information System tower on Pedra Branca, which it relies on in its management of shipping traffic.
While Singapore is confident of the outcome of the dispute now being heard before the International Court of Justice, it will no doubt be watching keenly for surprises that the Malaysian side might spring on it this week.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
P. Batu Puteh dispute for ICJ reference soon
New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
February 6, 2003
KUALA LUMPUR, Wed. - The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh will soon be on its way to the International Court of Justice, with the signing of the Special Agreement tomorrow.
The case could be heard by the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague in two to three years.
Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and his Singapore counterpart, S. Jayakumar, will represent their countries at the signing at Wisma Putra in Putrajaya.
The terms of the agreement will cover Pulau Batu Puteh, as well as two adjacent marine features - Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Pulau Batu Puteh is located at one degree 20 minutes North, and 104 degrees 24 minutes East. Middle Rocks is at one degree 19 minutes North, and 104 degrees 25 minutes East, while South Ledge is at one degree 18 minutes North, and 104 degrees 25 minutes East.
The signing marks the first step to a legal resolution of the dispute, which has eluded a diplomatic or political solution since it arose in 1979. Two rounds of bilateral negotiations in 1993 and 1994 ended in a stalemate.
The Special Agreement, which lays out the terms of the dispute and timeframe for the legal processes, is necessary because neither Malaysia nor Singapore accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.
After it is signed, it will have to be ratified by both governments before being submitted to the ICJ which will then set timetables for the filing of written submissions.
In the Sipadan/Ligitan case, the ICJ granted a year for both countries to file the Memorials, followed by another four months for the Counter Memorials. These can be followed by another two sets of submissions, namely the Reply and Rejoinder.
The ICJ's decision will be final and binding, and there is no appeal.
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, communications tower, helipad and jetty.
The dispute arose in 1979 when Malaysia published its continental shelf map showing the island as its territory. Singapore lodged a protest in 1980.
The dispute centres around the administration of the island. Singapore asserts that it has sovereignty as it has maintained the Horsburgh lighthouse there since 1851.
The lighthouse is today maintained by the Singapore port authority, along with four other light-houses, including another one on Malaysian territory - Pulau Pisang in the Straits of Malacca.
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 are expected to furnish maps, historical documents and treaties to support their position.
Pulau Batu Puteh, tiny as it is, is significant for its strategic position and impact on the delimitation of territorial sea boundaries. The exchange of words between both countries over the island has been acrimonious, and not just recently.
There have been sporadic exchanges since the late 1980s, with both countries claiming that the other side's fishermen or boats had encroached on the waters of the island. -
If Singapore lose.......same story???Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:tat's because they expect to win... if they lose then its a diff story -
Originally posted by CX:
I am surprised that you have difficulty to forge some definitive conclusions even when the actions of the Malaysian press speaks louder than words.
I suggest reading with a discerning eye for detail and within an appropriate context.
I have no objections to your way of reading... I just find it difficult to forge definitive conclusions through the absence of information.
I really can't tell what other pple are thinking when they're not making their views known. They're keeping their cards close to their chest and showing a poker face.
Judging from general norms and past trends, and in light of the limited views articulated in the mass media to date, i am cautiously optimistic that the worst of the rapid anti-SG tirade of the Mahathir years are behind us... Or at least this subject is not being used (yet?) by opportunistic politicians to slam SG for electoral gains.
In any case, once it was agreed that both sides should submit the case to the ICJ for resolution, it is neither appropriate nor sensible to inflame the home crowd while the ICJ is doing its job.
I am not experienced with the inner workings of the ICJ, but there is certainly a risk that causing a media furore can adversely affect a country's international standing and risk its chances of a fair judgement.
That could be why nothing has been said to date beyond "we are confident of our case and morale is high".
The SG media had been just as muffled. Coverage had not moved beyond the bare facts of the case. Its almost verbatim.
Or maybe the press is holding its breath until MY unleashes its first salvo?
This has been a topic I've kept a close eye on for the past few years as well I'm certainly looking forward to any new developments.
Singapore's case had filled at least two or three full pages on the inside of the local Straits Times, with some very colorful and definitive words spoken by key members from the Singapore Government - no less from DPM Jayakumar on Friday.
Yet, the Malaysian media had printed and presented selective statements from each day of the Singapore's presentation that barely filled a single column in their daily papers.
The efforts made by the Singapore Team at the ICJ has been given full publicity for the open information to anyone that is interested in the facts of the issues; and the detailed full printing of the daily proceedings in the Singapore printed news media can hardly be considered as attempting to create public outcry.
The dissemination of the news and information should be the responsibility of any media, and it is no credit to the Singapore media to be able to do so only when conveniently allowed and at the behest of those in Power. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
There's nothing very apparent about silence. You could argue that silence is as telling as speech, but in this case, it seems to me, as i suggested, that they're waiting for their esteemed team to begin their proceedings.
I am surprised that you have difficulty to forge some definitive conclusions even when the actions of the Malaysian press speaks louder than words.
More newsworthy to the domestic audience perhaps?Singapore's case had filled at least two or three full pages on the inside of the local Straits Times, with some very colorful and definitive words spoken by key members from the Singapore Government - no less from DPM Jayakumar on Friday.
Yes, I've read most of it... its quite verbatim and it does not differ greatly from the contents of the written proceedings.Yet, the Malaysian media had printed and presented selective statements from each day of the Singapore's presentation that barely filled a single column in their daily papers.
Suggest we wait for their press response when their team opens their arguments this week. It could be more interesting.
If it stays silent, then I think they are trying to play it down and possibly formulate an exit strategy.The efforts made by the Singapore Team at the ICJ has been given full publicity for the open information to anyone that is interested in the facts of the issues; and the detailed full printing of the daily proceedings in the Singapore printed news media can hardly be considered as attempting to create public outcry.
Agree that verbatim and factual reporting don't have inflammatory effects on readers (other than those who choose to read too much between the lines perhaps?)
Though I might disagree that the publicity was undertaken for the purpose of "open information to anyone that is interested in the facts of the issues".
I would venture to suggest that the publication was done because:
a) it was "newsworthy", hence it sold papers (as much as ST circulation can improve in little SG)
b) it was current affairs relevant to the state (which ST always publishes with great diligence and accuracy)
c) it was a public court proceeding. You can't hide it if u tried. The text is available verbatim on the ICJ website.
Why was coverage so limited in Malaysia? U could ask them, but as i mentioned, my guess would be that they're waiting for their turn to present or they may be trying to keep it quiet so they can exit gracefully in any event.The dissemination of the news and information should be the responsibility of any media, and it is no credit to the Singapore media to be able to do so only when conveniently allowed and at the behest of those in Power.[/color]
So I suppose u approve of "yellow journalism"?
Though I might agree with the sanctity of free speech and the importance of an independent, unfettered press, I do not agree with your above statement.
The reporting of news is a serious matter indeed. That is why reporters and newspapers must also take seriously this responsibility.
I do not mean to suggest that we can only report on what is "allowed" by authorities and foreign powers, but it would be infantile to suggest that inflammatory and irresponsible journalism has no effect on a country's international standing when the subject matter is a solemn and internationally binding court proceeding involving a territorial dispute.
Rousing the domestic crown into a rabid frenzy will do nothing to further a country's case in the ICJ and may actually work against it by coloring the Court's view of that country's conduct and hamper its future conduct of diplomacy.
Thus far, ST, to its credit, had been very factual. I would only comment on the Malaysian style of reporting after I've read something more substantial. I won't conclude yet that the silence is ominous. -
The report in the Singapore Straits Times was verbatim of the daily proceedings, including the spoken words that gave additional emphasis to the written submissions that were submitted earlier to the ICJ.Originally posted by CX:
Originally posted by Atobe:
I am surprised that you have difficulty to forge some definitive conclusions even when the actions of the Malaysian press speaks louder than words.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing very apparent about silence. You could argue that silence is as telling as speech, but in this case, it seems to me, as i suggested, that they're waiting for their esteemed team to begin their proceedings.
More newsworthy to the domestic audience perhaps? [/quote]
How objective can news reporting be trying to keep silence when waiting for their own team to make their presentation, but at the same time selectively printing the presentation from the other side in some twisted manner ?
Does it serve the interest of both sides in not providing fair reporting to the presentation made by either side ?Singapore's case had filled at least two or three full pages on the inside of the local Straits Times, with some very colorful and definitive words spoken by key members from the Singapore Government - no less from DPM Jayakumar on Friday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I've read most of it... its quite verbatim and it does not differ greatly from the contents of the written proceedings.
Surely, you do not expect the leading members to fly to the Hague only to read ad verbatim from the submitted text only ?
These words were decidedly incisive and were not exactly helpful to Malaysia's position, and one can come to some other conclusions for the Malaysian public being kept in the dark to Singapore's presentation.
Yes, it will be interesting to see the reports from the Malaysian news media beginning from this Tuesday evening, after the end of the first day for Malaysia to present its case at the ICJ.Yet, the Malaysian media had printed and presented selective statements from each day of the Singapore's presentation that barely filled a single column in their daily papers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggest we wait for their press response when their team opens their arguments this week. It could be more interesting.
If it stays silent, then I think they are trying to play it down and possibly formulate an exit strategy.Is it not surprising that it is ''newworthy'' in Singapore, and not in Malaysia when the stakes are similarly important - and profits to be made by the media on both sides ?The efforts made by the Singapore Team at the ICJ has been given full publicity for the open information to anyone that is interested in the facts of the issues; and the detailed full printing of the daily proceedings in the Singapore printed news media can hardly be considered as attempting to create public outcry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree that verbatim and factual reporting don't have inflammatory effects on readers (other than those who choose to read too much between the lines perhaps?)
Though I might disagree that the publicity was undertaken for the purpose of "open information to anyone that is interested in the facts of the issues".
I would venture to suggest that the publication was done because:
a) it was "newsworthy", hence it sold papers (as much as ST circulation can improve in little SG)
b) it was current affairs relevant to the state (which ST always publishes with great diligence and accuracy)
c) it was a public court proceeding. You can't hide it if u tried. The text is available verbatim on the ICJ website.
Why was coverage so limited in Malaysia? U could ask them, but as i mentioned, my guess would be that they're waiting for their turn to present or they may be trying to keep it quiet so they can exit gracefully in any event.
As much as the proceedings are available in the ICJ website, how many Malaysian and Singaporeans are savvy enough even to access this ?
''Yellow journalism'' ?The dissemination of the news and information should be the responsibility of any media, and it is no credit to the Singapore media to be able to do so only when conveniently allowed and at the behest of those in Power.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I suppose u approve of "yellow journalism"?
Though I might agree with the sanctity of free speech and the importance of an independent, unfettered press, I do not agree with your above statement.
The reporting of news is a serious matter indeed. That is why reporters and newspapers must also take seriously this responsibility.
I do not mean to suggest that we can only report on what is "allowed" by authorities and foreign powers, but it would be infantile to suggest that inflammatory and irresponsible journalism has no effect on a country's international standing when the subject matter is a solemn and internationally binding court proceeding involving a territorial dispute.
Is this not hitting below the belt ?
How did you arrive at this opinion ?
Nothing in my response todate had suggested that the people should be aroused into some kind of national fervor.
The Singapore press has been dishonest when it will not fulfill its serious responsibility to report truthfully the mistakes of this government through investigative journalism.
It has preferred to target oridnary Singaporeans, who are helpless in defending its own privacy, while the Singapore Government will shackle any news reporter that dare to make any unsanctioned investigation to the activities of the State.[quote]How did you come to this state of mind in concluding from my postings that domestic crowd will be roused into a rabid frenzy ?
Rousing the domestic crown into a rabid frenzy will do nothing to further a country's case in the ICJ and may actually work against it by coloring the Court's view of that country's conduct and hamper its future conduct of diplomacy.
Thus far, ST, to its credit, had been very factual. I would only comment on the Malaysian style of reporting after I've read something more substantial. I won't conclude yet that the silence is ominous.
If at all, my concern is that WITHOUT any objective and detailed reporting of the proceedings at the ICJ, any outcome that may NOT benefit the side with the least information - may actually result in this state of frenzy that you are now describing.
With both governments having stated publicly to their own citizens that the matter be placed before the ICJ, and that its decision will be final with no further recourse to appeal - it is only right that any news reporting should not be selectively printed and done with a twist at ridiculing or belittling the statements made by either side.
The Singapore Straits Times have so far done a proper job at reporting the details of the daily proceedings at the Hague, lets see if they will do the same for Malaysia during the course of their presentation made this week. -
AcccorDing To MaLaySia OrAl HisTory. StoRy TeLL bY GrEat GreAT Ah KonG and Ah Gong, thE IsLanD BeLong To MalaYsiA.
ThIs One Can Be ProVEd By The DiARy of The Old Ah KonG Also KNoW As Ah Gong. (EveryboDy MusT KnOw Why Ah GonG is Gong. BeIng GonG is AccEptAble)
ThE DiAry Of The GreAT Ah GonG is As Good AS The BibLe. WhATeVER STaTed Is TRue And 100% TuRe
ThE BRiTisH AnD SinGaPOre HaS IllEgaL EnTereD The IslAnD WiThouT PErmiSSion oF the Ah GonG.
SiNce Ah GonG GoT So ManY WiVes To EntErTain And The MalAySia GovT Got OPP To FiX, ThErEforE No TiMe tO ChAse AwAy The InTruDers.
NoW MalAySia HAs JuST WaKe Up And ReAliSe ThAt The IsLand BelOng To Them,
So, It iS RiGhtfUl ThAT SinGApoRE RetuRn The IslaNd And Pay Some RenTal DaTEd Back form The Date Of IlleGal OccuPYINg.
As For The Map, It Was An HoNest MiStaKe BY The puBlishEr. SinCE HonESt MiStaKe Is ACcepTabLe, MalAysIa WanT to BaSe ON This To ClAim bAck The IsLand.
HowEveR, Due To MaLaySia LaziNess And NoT WiLLIng To ManagE The RockS, MaLaYSia WoUld AlloW SinGapoRe To ConTinUe ManaGe The IsLand For FREE foR The MaLaySian GoVt.
BuT The TiTLe MusT BeLong To MAlaySia.
MaLaySia BoLeh. MaLaYsiA Suma BoLeh.
MaLaYSia MuST SEE aNyMore IsLanD to ClAiM arOUnd ThIs ReGion.....
ALL MalaYSia HeLicOpTer PilOts Are To AsseMble. TiMe To FinD MorE IsLAnds To lay ClAIm.
No FiGht NO GaIn. GoT FiGht Got ChaNce To Win. LoSe AlsO NeVermInd Lah. GivE SinGApore SoMe HeAdAches Is Dr M gReatEst EntErTaInMent. Can See SinGapORe Die EvEn beTTer.
Dr M RefuSe to RIP bEcAuse He WanT To See WiTh His OwN EyES HoW SinGapoRE Die.
If SinGapoRE DonT DiE, He WiLL DiE DiE Also DoNt Want to Die.
Now The NeW PM ChAngE His PlAn, He Is VoMittiNg BlOOd EvEryDay. -
How objective can news reporting be trying to keep silence when waiting for their own team to make their presentation, but at the same time selectively printing the presentation from the other side in some twisted manner ?
True lah... Its not objective. But both the ST and the NST are known government mouth-pieces in their respective country.
Does it serve the interest of both sides in not providing fair reporting to the presentation made by either side ?
There is no true "independent press" to speak of.
I do not mean to disregard your point of view, but I'm just curious that you attempt to find objectivity in a realm where none was known to exist. I might be more confident of life on Mars than objectivity in these 2 newspapers.The report in the Singapore Straits Times was verbatim of the daily proceedings, including the spoken words that gave additional emphasis to the written submissions that were submitted earlier to the ICJ.
I beg to differ. The oral proceedings do not depart significantly from the contents of the written proceedings.
Surely, you do not expect the leading members to fly to the Hague only to read ad verbatim from the submitted text only ?
These words were decidedly incisive and were not exactly helpful to Malaysia's position, and one can come to some other conclusions for the Malaysian public being kept in the dark to Singapore's presentation.
The language used in the Malaysian written proceedings was similarly blunt and "not exactly helpful" to Singapore's position.Yes, it will be interesting to see the reports from the Malaysian news media beginning from this Tuesday evening, after the end of the first day for Malaysia to present its case at the ICJ.
Agree. Really interested to see how the Malaysian oral proceedings are reported.
If our ST keeps mum and the NST takes off where ST leaves off, then we will really know how objective these 2 newspapers are...Is it not surprising that it is ''newworthy'' in Singapore, and not in Malaysia when the stakes are similarly important - and profits to be made by the media on both sides ?
Within context, I can again, hazard a few guesses... The Malaysians have other things to worry about these past 2 weeks. The UMNO convention was on, there's been some fuss over Anwar's allegations on judge fixing, elections are looming, they just had a small riot in KL last week (though there were rumurs of a press black-out for that)
As much as the proceedings are available in the ICJ website, how many Malaysian and Singaporeans are savvy enough even to access this ?
so yeah... they've had a newsworthy week without reporting on the ICJ proceedings.
The website is really quite friendly Most pple would be lazy to access it. not because they can't find it. Wanna go see for yourself?
[URL]http://www.icj-cij.org[/URL]''Yellow journalism'' ?
If you're offended, the statement is retracted. Its not an accusation at u. More of an illustration of my point of view that newspapers and journalists do not operate in a "free-for-all".
Is this not hitting below the belt ?
How did you arrive at this opinion ?
Nothing in my response todate had suggested that the people should be aroused into some kind of national fervor.The Singapore press has been dishonest when it will not fulfill its serious responsibility to report truthfully the mistakes of this government through investigative journalism.
There u have it... are u still convinced that the ST covered the proceedings of the ICJ due to the althruistic intentions of making information available to those interested?
It has preferred to target oridnary Singaporeans, who are helpless in defending its own privacy, while the Singapore Government will shackle any news reporter that dare to make any unsanctioned investigation to the activities of the State.How did you come to this state of mind in concluding from my postings that domestic crowd will be roused into a rabid frenzy ?
I disagree... It really depends on the level of maturity of the politician and the public. The reason why I feel that no reporting could be good news is because I totally do not trust them to not make a big deal every time we sneeze.
If at all, my concern is that WITHOUT any objective and detailed reporting of the proceedings at the ICJ, any outcome that may NOT benefit the side with the least information - may actually result in this state of frenzy that you are now describing.
If anything at all, I feel that it is TOO easy to inflame them, whether there's information available or not.
If the intention is to calm sentiments, then no news is good news.
In any case, no verdict will be forthcoming for another 6 to 9 mths. Thats an eternity in politics.
The brutal truth be told, it doesn't matter what's reported now. It can still be skewed later.With both governments having stated publicly to their own citizens that the matter be placed before the ICJ, and that its decision will be final with no further recourse to appeal - it is only right that any news reporting should not be selectively printed and done with a twist at ridiculing or belittling the statements made by either side.
Like I said, so far, I do not find the reports on the Malaysian side to be offensive. Selective and sparse, yes. But not offfensive.The Singapore Straits Times have so far done a proper job at reporting the details of the daily proceedings at the Hague, lets see if they will do the same for Malaysia during the course of their presentation made this week.
To hazard a guess, I think the Malaysian side will start to pick it up, but coverage will not be extensive. They have a lot to report in recent weeks The rock is low on their list of priorities.
From my sense of the situation, I think the Malaysia is bogged down with domestic concerns. In theory, its the perfect time to slam us to distract their people from the real problem, but they have not done so.
Mahathir would have done so if he was still PM
The question is: Why have they not yet done so IF it was their intention to do so all along?
Dare we hope for a more mature phase in SG-MY relations? -
If you want to quote ATOBE, you better make it DARK RED or else you will be seen as discrediting his arguement.Originally posted by CX:To hazard a guess, I think the Malaysian side will start to pick it up, but coverage will not be extensive. They have a lot to report in recent weeks The rock is low on their list of priorities.
From my sense of the situation, I think the Malaysia is bogged down with domestic concerns. In theory, its the perfect time to slam us to distract their people from the real problem, but they have not done so.
Mahathir would have done so if he was still PM
The question is: Why have they not yet done so IF it was their intention to do so all along?
Dare we hope for a more mature phase in SG-MY relations? -
Its no secret that I do not agree with him on many issues...Originally posted by Gazelle:If you want to quote ATOBE, you better make it DARK RED or else you will be seen as discrediting his arguement.
Its been a long time... -
sure, brother.Originally posted by CX:Care to cite the source?
http://textfiend.net/zerohero/?p=87 -
Noted your source... I think its a bit dodgy...Originally posted by FG42:we already has a monument there.
its our Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca.
read the following:
Sir Standford Raffles was a Freemason. So was Thomas Bradell - the first Attorney General of Singapore, William Henry Read, George W. A. Trimmer, Sir Herbert Ralph Hone, Frank Swettenham, Joaquim Parsick P. Joaquim, John Colson Smith, Admiral Henry Keppel, and John Turnbull Thomson. Across the Johor straits, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim and three of his sons were also Masons. Further away, Raja Brooke of Sarawak was also a Mason. Other Masonic figures that passed through Singapore included Marquis of Dalhousie, the Governor General of India and Charles Warren, the former Commissioner of Police of Metropolitan London.
In 1850, Lord Dalhousie (they were addressed as such back in those days) came to Singapore. An obelisk, known as The Dalhousie Obelisk was built to commenmorate his visit.
The Obelisk is a Masonic architecture, is associated with the Sun and is the symbol for continuity, power, regeneration and stability. More than saying ‘Long Live the Queen’, the Masons had erected another stone phallus to mark their global presence, transcending the political and religious boundaries of their era. Singapore counts itself as one of the few places in the world with a contemporary obelisk. The most famous modern obelisk is the iconic Washington Monument.
Lord Dalhousie “emphatically recognized the wisdom of liberating commerce from all restraints, under which ENLIGHTENED policy this settlement has rapidly attained its present rank among British possessions and with which its future prosperity must ever be identified”. From those words, Freemasons believed in unfettered turbo-capitalism. It is not coincidental that many of them worked in the East India Company, one of the progenitors of the Multi-National Corporation that is able to formulate trade policies backed up by gunship.
The Dalhousie Obelisk was designed by John Turnbull Thomson, who was also responsible for the construction of the Horsburg Lighthouse at Pedra Branca. The Masons turned up at Pedra Branca in full regalia for the consecration of the lighthouse in the same year when the Obelisk was built.
You might like to know that the fact that the Masons turned up at Pedra Branca in full regalia was seized upon by the Malaysian side that as such, the taking into possession of the rock was not a state-act, but a private one
It was further noted that a similar ceremony was conducted at the construction of Raffles Lighthouse on Coney Island and since Coney Island was strictly within SG's domain and this ceremony was conducted in a similar fashion, the Pedea Branca ceremony cannot be considered a state action taking possession of a territory.
Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that the Masons in effect, represented the who's who of the British establishment in the colonies... Hence, their participation would've been as ubiquitous as the participation of the Chinese secret societies in the consecration of a new Chinese temple.
The difference here is:
A chinese temple built on land in the colony remains under the jurisdiction of the colonial administration (as much as they can and care to control the Chinese in those days)
BUT
A lighthouse built on no-man's land witnessed by Colonial administration VIPs, influential european merchants and local Malay chiefs, and accompanied by a speech that said "“May the All Bounteous Author of Nature bless our Island (Singapore), of which this Rock (Pedra Branca) is a dependency ...”
That pretty much sums up the case in my humble opinion...
So really... its beside the point that they were Masons... but that they were VIPs who happened to be Masons
Its like an ultra atas country club in those days -
Agreed.Originally posted by CX:
How objective can news reporting be trying to keep silence when waiting for their own team to make their presentation, but at the same time selectively printing the presentation from the other side in some twisted manner ?
Does it serve the interest of both sides in not providing fair reporting to the presentation made by either side ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True lah... Its not objective. But both the ST and the NST are known government mouth-pieces in their respective country.
There is no true "independent press" to speak of.
I do not mean to disregard your point of view, but I'm just curious that you attempt to find objectivity in a realm where none was known to exist. I might be more confident of life on Mars than objectivity in these 2 newspapers. [/quote]
Is any action in life without any objectivity ?
The fact that your time spent to engage on issues in this Speaker's Corner would surely fulfill some personal objectivity - be it mundane or otherwise.The report in the Singapore Straits Times was verbatim of the daily proceedings, including the spoken words that gave additional emphasis to the written submissions that were submitted earlier to the ICJ.
Surely, you do not expect the leading members to fly to the Hague only to read ad verbatim from the submitted text only ?
These words were decidedly incisive and were not exactly helpful to Malaysia's position, and one can come to some other conclusions for the Malaysian public being kept in the dark to Singapore's presentation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ. The oral proceedings do not depart significantly from the contents of the written proceedings.
The language used in the Malaysian written proceedings was similarly blunt and "not exactly helpful" to Singapore's position.
Surely, the oral proceedings will not depart significantly from the contents of the written proceedings, as it will be expected that the general line of the Singapore side will be maintained.
The difference is in the oral presentation that is being reported in the Straits Times - with additional words spoken in the presentation that will emphasise the printed words. The news reported in the local media carried these spoken words in the daily print. This is the difference between what has been written and submitted, and what has been spoken in the oral presentation.Yes, it will be interesting to see the reports from the Malaysian news media beginning from this Tuesday evening, after the end of the first day for Malaysia to present its case at the ICJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. Really interested to see how the Malaysian oral proceedings are reported.
If our ST keeps mum and the NST takes off where ST leaves off, then we will really know how objective these 2 newspapers are...Is it not surprising that it is ''newworthy'' in Singapore, and not in Malaysia when the stakes are similarly important - and profits to be made by the media on both sides ?
As much as the proceedings are available in the ICJ website, how many Malaysian and Singaporeans are savvy enough even to access this ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within context, I can again, hazard a few guesses... The Malaysians have other things to worry about these past 2 weeks. The UMNO convention was on, there's been some fuss over Anwar's allegations on judge fixing, elections are looming, they just had a small riot in KL last week (though there were rumurs of a press black-out for that)
so yeah... they've had a newsworthy week without reporting on the ICJ proceedings.
The website is really quite friendly Most pple would be lazy to access it. not because they can't find it. Wanna go see for yourself?
[URL]http://www.icj-cij.org[/URL]
Been there, and found the site interesting - especially the records of Malaysia's presentation today.
It will be even more interesting to observe the depth of reporting in the news media from both sides.
It is not that people are too lazy, except that in this day and age of FAST FOOD and constantly insufficient time for everything and anything - everyone is dependent on quickie news.
This will open the population to manipulation through propaganda.I will not be offended by the statement as you explained it now, but was taken aback by the unusually reckless line that is not quite your usual style. It is unlikely - at least in Singapore - that the newspaper will deteriorate to the level as you have described.''Yellow journalism'' ?
Is this not hitting below the belt ?
How did you arrive at this opinion ?
Nothing in my response todate had suggested that the people should be aroused into some kind of national fervor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're offended, the statement is retracted. Its not an accusation at u. More of an illustration of my point of view that newspapers and journalists do not operate in a "free-for-all".
[quote]The Singapore press has been dishonest when it will not fulfill its serious responsibility to report truthfully the mistakes of this government through investigative journalism.
It has preferred to target oridnary Singaporeans, who are helpless in defending its own privacy, while the Singapore Government will shackle any news reporter that dare to make any unsanctioned investigation to the activities of the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There u have it... are u still convinced that the ST covered the proceedings of the ICJ due to the althruistic intentions of making information available to those interested? The issues are completely different and do not exactly fit your preferred line of thought.
In this case, the stakes are high for the Singapore Government to prove itself in being able to handle this seemingly challenge - although it is highly unlikely to be of any significance to the ordinary Singapore public.
The Singapore Government has an objective for the local news print to be as informative of its position - but will never allow the local media to represent the interest of Singaporeans through investigative journalism.
continuation below