Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
Very reassured to hear a like minded-viewOriginally posted by soul_rage:Much as I dislike the PAP, and all their money-grubbing antics, I have to agree with you that this is not an issue about PAP, but an issue about Singapore's sovereignty.
And as such, I agree that this case should to go court and be resolved once and for all. There is no mess, and I actually do believe we can win this, given what I have read on both sides' arguments.
If we do not exercise our assertiveness on this, one day maybe they will start claiming ownership of all the surrounding islands that belong to us.
Its so strange and some Singaporeans (assuming that it IS a Singaporean and not a Malaysian in disguise) will automatically take the opposite position from the government just for the sake of opposing the PAP
I'm not a great fan of the govt either... Esp where domestic policies are concerned, they don't consult meaningfully and explain sufficiently.
At some points, I find them arrogant, heavy handed and not in touch with the man on the streets.
But I do feel that they have done a good job of representing Singapore overseas. We are well regarded by many countries and we have credibility.
And this business with the ICJ is the best thing that both countries (SG and MY) could have done to resolve a whole host of outstanding bilateral problems.
The outcome, whichever way it turns out, will enable both countries to move on constructively, rather than to continue to get stuck on such irritating issues. -
You are right on one point, it is a waste of time talking to you... you just want to defend the arrogant despots even when they are clearly wrong... if they had not put up military installations there, we would not be in this mess... a point made by Malaysia and conceded by the Singapore arrogant despots...Originally posted by CX:How does joint custody solve anything?
The question of sovereignty will still be sticking out like a sore thumb. Are we gonna give it up? Are they gonna let us have the island after kicking up a fuss over it in 1979?
That the "regime" is anything at all is totally beside the point... A point which you keep refusing to acknowledge.
You keep lumping it all together to say that its all the government's fault for getting the country into this "mess"...
And I keep telling u (but u keep refusing to listen)... Its not a mess and its far from over.
Forget it... u're a waste of time. -
CX, what if My wins?
Can u guarantee a win?
Are u able?
Do u hv wat it takes?
Talk is easy.
I oso can.
What if my wins? huh ? -
Its there because for the longest time, it was regarded as Singapore's island and the Malaysians did not, and indeed, could not, until now, object to its presence.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are right on one point, it is a waste of time talking to you... you just want to defend the arrogant despots even when they are clearly wrong... if they had not put up military installations there, we would not be in this mess... a point made by Malaysia and conceded by the Singapore arrogant despots...
Thats the extent of what you regard as "conceded".
Boring... -
you are on the verge of sounding idiotic... if they did not concede that point, they would have made a vigorous attempt to dispute it in court....
-
Why dispute an established fact? The military communication installations ARE there. It is a matter of fact.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:you are on the verge of sounding idiotic... if they did not concede that point, they would have made a vigorous attempt to dispute it in court....
And they are there because we built it there. And we built it there because for the longest time, it was regarded as Singapore's island. -
Then, when Malaysia complained... they should behave like gentlemen and look at the issue coldly and rationally instead of behaving like the despots that they are... and why did they behave so despotic? Is there any doubt that they are despotic because of their fawning supporters like yourself?
They do not about accountability and transparency because they know that they can count of wide eyed naive fans like yourself...
I think that it is time you stop betraying your country and stop supporting despots... -
Did u read the news at that time???Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Then, when Malaysia complained... they should behave like gentlemen and look at the issue coldly and rationally instead of behaving like the despots that they are... and why did they behave so despotic? Is there any doubt that they are despotic because of their fawning supporters like yourself?
They do not about accountability and transparency because they know that they can count of wide eyed naive fans like yourself...
I think that it is time you stop betraying your country and stop supporting despots...
This has always been one of the outstanding bilateral issues between SG and MY.
Every attempt was made by MFA to resolve the issues on water, pedra branca, railway land, airspace and bridge.
BOTH parties eventually decided to bring the issue surrounding pedra branca to the ICJ. There's nothing despotic about that.
It is the mature and normal conduct of diplomacy between 2 countries. -
Malaysia said that all they wanted was for Singapore to remove the military installations and Singapore refused, leading to the current mess.Originally posted by CX:Did u read the news at that time???
This has always been one of the outstanding bilateral issues between SG and MY.
Every attempt was made by MFA to resolve the issues on water, pedra branca, railway land, airspace and bridge.
BOTH parties eventually decided to bring the issue surrounding pedra branca to the ICJ. There's nothing despotic about that.
It is the mature and normal conduct of diplomacy between 2 countries.
If Singapore wins, so what did they win? Nothing other than the right to place military installations on PD. If they lose, the consequences can be grave.
Did Singapore dispute the fact? That the disagreement started because of the military installations? Well according to the court proceedings reports, no, they conceeded.
Isn't that despotic arrogant behavior? Can they by themselves be so arrogant and despotic or can they be arrogant and despotic only because they have the support of people like you? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
It is not the place of a foreign country to dictate what another country should or should not do with its military if the country was acting within its own sovereign territory.
Malaysia said that all they wanted was for Singapore to remove the military installations and Singapore refused, leading to the current mess.
Are we going to withdraw from Pulau Tekong in future then? If the Malaysians claim that they are "upset" by Singapore's military exercises on the island?If Singapore wins, so what did they win? Nothing other than the right to place military installations on PD. If they lose, the consequences can be grave.
What grave consequences? Shipping taxes? I have yet to know of any other littoral state that charges ships passing through its territorial waters. Internal waters, yes... territorial waters, no.
I wonder if the UN Convention for the laws of the seas, guaranteeing right of innocent passage has anything to do with it?
Whether we win or lose, at least that island won't be an irritant holding up the rest of the outstanding bilateral issues anymore!Did Singapore dispute the fact? That the disagreement started because of the military installations? Well according to the court proceedings reports, no, they conceeded.
Dispute what fact? Its not even Singapore's turn to reply to Malaysia's presentation yet. U think what? Watch too much Boston Legal ah? Happy happy can stand up and say "objection!"???
Wait for next week. Singapore will have 2 days to reply, followed by Malaysia.Isn't that despotic arrogant behavior? Can they by themselves be so arrogant and despotic or can they be arrogant and despotic only because they have the support of people like you?[/b]
I consider that to be the normal behavior of a sovereign nation state. What u are advocating is the behavior more suited for a colony or a semi-independent vassal state.
Diplomats are expected to be assertive and jealous in guarding the national interests. I don't expect them to give away territory as and when there's a dispute and do everything a foreign country tell them to do. -
For once, I will have to disagree with what andrew said.
This is not a PAP issue but a national issue. No matter which party, is in power today, they will have to stand up to protect the national iterest and sovereignty of our country. I believe this also applies to Malaysia. As eventhough they know their chances of winning the case is quite weak, but due to the strategic locations of those islands, they are trying to fight to the best position and advantage for their country.
Regarding your comments that if SG did not act in a so called arrogant and high-handed position, they will concede those island to us with a fair agreement. This statement might sound logical, but the question is, will the MY govt voluntarily cede those island to SG when it involves sovereignty and strategic interest? Under what conditions and terms will SG give in to them to get their acknowledgement that those islands belongs to us; and at what cost?
Regarding the so called military installations on those islands. I think the MY side is trying to raise a ruckus over a small issue or just cooking up some hearsay stories. Yes, they claim SG have military related installations on PB, but do they have evidences to that claim? If there is really some secret installation on that island that an threaten MY, why did their govt not openly exert diplomatic pressure on SG to remove them?
In fact, this is not the first time this type of hearsay, no-evidence nonsense appear on their main newspaper to stir up MY citizens' feeling against SG. Remember the "Johorean fishermen witness SG UAV flying in MY airspace and scaring away fishes" or the "SG military firing mortat bombs into MY waters". All these accusations after investigations all boiled down to rumors and false information, even MY official later made a public statement that such events never happened.
Besides, sir Elihu, is the lawyer for MY, for the sake of professionalism and the interest of his client, like a typical lawyer, hes has to twist and turn fact to the advantage of MY. -
Stop fighting over one small island like this. Is it even worth it? It is so small and I wonder why anyone would value it so much.
Who would want to live on such a small island anyway? -
Malaysia say this small island is theirs, and we agree, so no more fighting.Originally posted by kawasaki2:Stop fighting over one small island like this. Is it even worth it? It is so small and I wonder why anyone would value it so much.
Who would want to live on such a small island anyway?
Then one day, they will insist that the surroundings islands around us is also theirs. We have many small islands that cannot be lived on. Are you telling me we should give them up too?
Your argument reminds me of the Qing dynasty, where the govt continually cede parts of China lands to foreign countries.
Its not an issue of big or small island. Its an issue of asserting our position. We may be small, but we are no pushovers. -
Where got fighting.....Originally posted by kawasaki2:Stop fighting over one small island like this. Is it even worth it? It is so small and I wonder why anyone would value it so much.
Who would want to live on such a small island anyway?
All seating around and talk infront of some AngMor Judge only. In another 6-9mths time, all will settle.
If you don't ''fight'' for the things that belongs to you, then you don't deserve to own it. -
Honestly, I doubt its a matter of us installing the military installation.Originally posted by CX:Very reassured to hear a like minded-view
Its so strange and some Singaporeans (assuming that it IS a Singaporean and not a Malaysian in disguise) will automatically take the opposite position from the government just for the sake of opposing the PAP
I'm not a great fan of the govt either... Esp where domestic policies are concerned, they don't consult meaningfully and explain sufficiently.
At some points, I find them arrogant, heavy handed and not in touch with the man on the streets.
But I do feel that they have done a good job of representing Singapore overseas. We are well regarded by many countries and we have credibility.
And this business with the ICJ is the best thing that both countries (SG and MY) could have done to resolve a whole host of outstanding bilateral problems.
The outcome, whichever way it turns out, will enable both countries to move on constructively, rather than to continue to get stuck on such irritating issues.
Either way, our legal sector has always been better than Malaysia's. I honestly believe that we would not have gone to ICJ if we are not confident of ourselves.
On a PAP level, I dislike them for their elitist attitude. They pay themselves high salaries, but do not dare take up responsibilities and accountabilities of that level. In other countries, a minister would step down if things like the Circle Line tragedy happened. Here, the ministers clutched onto their jobs with their lives, because they know they are worth zero if they were to lose this iron rice bowl. -
The island is actually of strategic value to us. Its useful for us to direct ships using the waters, which is a major business for PSA. Many ships have crashed in that area in the past.Originally posted by CX:Quote by Andrew: If Singapore wins, so what did they win? Nothing other than the right to place military installations on PD. If they lose, the consequences can be grave
What grave consequences? Shipping taxes? I have yet to know of any other littoral state that charges ships passing through its territorial waters. Internal waters, yes... territorial waters, no.
I wonder if the UN Convention for the laws of the seas, guaranteeing right of innocent passage has anything to do with it?
Whether we win or lose, at least that island won't be an irritant holding up the rest of the outstanding bilateral issues anymore!
It is also of strategic value military-wise. I don't think I need to say it too clearly here. That's probably why MY is grumbling about us putting a military installation there, similar to how they grumble about us building a naval port large enough for US air carriers to berth at Changi. -
I do not doubt the strategic value of those rocks. But to illustrate the WORST case scenario: ICJ rules that Malaysia owns the rocks and we are only the light-house operator.Originally posted by soul_rage:The island is actually of strategic value to us. Its useful for us to direct ships using the waters, which is a major business for PSA. Many ships have crashed in that area in the past.
It is also of strategic value military-wise. I don't think I need to say it too clearly here. That's probably why MY is grumbling about us putting a military installation there, similar to how they grumble about us building a naval port large enough for US air carriers to berth at Changi.
What then? Truth be told, its not the end of the world.
We're still the lighthouse operator.
We have to understand the substance of the Malaysian claim: to make the legal argument coherent, they have to agree to an interpretation of the colonial treaties and arrangements. Hence, it doesn't change the status quo much.
In sum, they do not dispute that SG "owns" the lighthouse on Pedra Branca.
At worst, we dismantle the "sensitive" facilities, or we explain what they're for and ask for permission to keep them.
Its not like we got a squadron of Gundams hidden under that rock.
We effectively "lose" nothing because we must respect the decisions of the ICJ. Such is the conduct of responsible and civilised countries.
BUT if ICJ rules that Singapore holds sovereignty over Pedra Pranca, then our strategic interests are protected, the status quo is maintained and our position is strengthened in our conduct of diplomacy with Malaysia in future.
In both scenarios, trade will flow. Right of innocent passage through the seas will be upheld and life will go on.
ICJ's decision will actually help us to move forward on many outstanding bilateral issues. -
Just looking around. Nice to read the points raised. Juz wanna say kudos to CX for the manner of his reply. I saw at least 3 not-so-nice words from PKYap directed at CX - "idiotic, naive, fawning ...." but yet he chose to reply objectively (IMHO) to those comments.
thumbs-up! -
are you CX's clone? I could have also created a clone account and pointed out that CX was obnoxious first by saying things like... "u're a waste of time" instead of answering my points and then after he said I was a waste of time, he kept replying... so you think the words, "idiotic, naive, fawning ...." applies to CX or not? CX's clone?Originally posted by IaiCn:Just looking around. Nice to read the points raised. Juz wanna say kudos to CX for the manner of his reply. I saw at least 3 not-so-nice words from PKYap directed at CX - "idiotic, naive, fawning ...." but yet he chose to reply objectively (IMHO) to those comments.
thumbs-up!
IaiCn
Junior Member
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 1 -
but not a disputed territory....Originally posted by CX:It is not the place of a foreign country to dictate what another country should or should not do with its military if the country was acting within its own sovereign territory.
Are we going to withdraw from Pulau Tekong in future then? If the Malaysians claim that they are "upset" by Singapore's military exercises on the island?
and why didn't Malaysia object to the Pulau Tekong camps? Because it is not disputed...
...and the US objected to the Soviets building missile silos in Cuba and are you going to say that the US should not and could not object becuase Cuba is a sovereign state?
You can argue all you want, but until the Singapore side dispute the fact that they started the mess with their arrogant despotic behavior, by not conceding the point raise by Malaysia in the ICJ... it is ingenious of you to try to defend them and like I said, in supporting despotic arrogant self serving behavior of dictators, you are a traitor of the country. -
and let me preempt CX clone
[quote]IaiCn
's objections to my using the word "traitor" let me remind him that it was CX that first used the word...
Junior Member
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 1 -
are you CX's clone? I could have also created a clone account and pointed out that CX was obnoxious first by saying things like... "u're a waste of time" instead of answering my points and then after he said I was a waste of time, he kept replying... so you think the words, "idiotic, naive, fawning ...." applies to CX or not? CX's clone?
Firstly, not my clone.
Secondly, your bully-boy tactics of insulting everyone that steps up in objection of your point is no difference from the "despot" and "dictators" that you claim to dissent against.
Wake up here... I'm not the only one here who thinks that your views are flawed. -
I could say the same of you. Quisling... betraying your own country and advocating capitulation rather than the defence of sovereignty.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:but not a disputed territory....
and why didn't Malaysia object to the Pulau Tekong camps? Because it is not disputed...
...and the US objected to the Soviets building missile silos in Cuba and are you going to say that the US should not and could not object becuase Cuba is a sovereign state?
You can argue all you want, but until the Singapore side dispute the fact that they started the mess with their arrogant despotic behavior, by not conceding the point raise by Malaysia in the ICJ... it is ingenious of you to try to defend them and like I said, in supporting despotic arrogant self serving behavior of dictators, you are a traitor of the country.
The facts from the memorials filed by both sides are clear to me and your clumsy paraphrasing and utter ignorance is tiring and as I said before, a waste of time. -
It does not matter what you or others believe because I do not do beliefs but I base my arguments on evidence.... the evidence shows that Malaysia in court produced evidence that the mess started because the despotic arrogant dictators put military equipment on PD, a disputed territory... and Singapore conceded that point...
...you base your conclusions on beliefs? Very good, please continue with the delusions in yours and your fellow believers' heads....
-
Like waiting nine months for a baby to be born and then....
How come father Chinaman but Baby black??? I suggest its no point arguing over this but just wait for 9mths.