Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
The point is this... the despots, because of their ass-sniffing supporters that are willing to support them even when the do cronyism and take massive amounts of public money for their salaries... are traitors to this country...
... and in this case, where Malaysia had produce evidence in court that shows the despots started this no win mess (if Malaysia wins, Singapore lose massively, if Singapore wins, they win the ability to put military installations on PD, big deal... only despots think that they can win if they start a war) ...
... yet the ass-sniffing supporters refuse to acknowledge this proven fact based on evidence produce in the international court. That is why they are so despotic and arrogant and their ass-sniffing supporters are traitors to Singapore... putting their masters interest above the interests of the nation... -
Lets hope the AngMor could work faster and do it 6mth.Originally posted by Short Ninja: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.
I think today Indonesia KPPU is going to release the judgment on the Temasek telco saga......
-
ERP, COE, exorbitant housing... medical... transport.... money taken away for their own benefits and to benefit foreigners and the traitors of the nation continue to blindly support them without question and without demanding accountability and transparency ... *sigh*
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I think that sums up all your points quite concisely...
It does not matter what you or others believe because I do not do beliefs ...
So everyone else is wrong but u're right....you base your conclusions on beliefs? Very good, please continue with the delusions in yours and your fellow believers' heads....
I based my views on a proper reading of the memorials, the press reports (both past and present) and a sound understanding of international practices.
Your so-called "facts" are merely hyperbolic expressions of your own anti-government views.
There are no "conclusions" to this issue yet. As some have pointed out, there's still 6 to 9 mths before ICJ rules on the matter.
This is of course, something which cuts no ice with you because in your eagerness to "win" in this discussion, the case is already closed and everybody who disagrees with you is already wrong. -
and you conveniently choose to ignore evidence produced in court... sure, please continue with your delusions and ignore evidence produced in an international court of law...
-
And SG has presented nothing during the first 4 days of the proceedings?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and you conveniently choose to ignore evidence produced in court... sure, please continue with your delusions and ignore evidence produced in an international court of law...
Both sides presented strong evidence to further their claim over the island.
I will be more interested to see how both sides attempt to reply to the claims forwarded by each other rather than to jump to any premature conclusions about who's "right" and who's "wrong". -
the point is, their arrogant and despotic behavior started this mess and you choose to ignore court evidence of this...
-
As I objected to Atobe's take on the subject with regards to press coverage (although he had a much more balanced perspective than yourself) at the earlier part of this discussion, I will make a similar observation on your approach to your "so-called-facts".Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:the point is, their arrogant and despotic behavior started this mess and you choose to ignore court evidence of this...
They are based on an overly narrow and selective reading of press articles and have no bearing on the actual conduct of the case.
If you care to take a look, the conclusion of the Malaysian oral proceedings are already on the ICJ website and I would like to point out that the earlier points on military installations built by SG did not even appear in the conclusions.
So once again, what "court evidence"? If it was such a big deal, then it would be expected that it should be raised as often as possible, in as forceful a manner as possible in the ICJ.
But it was not. It was a mere one-off comment uttered on the first day of the presentation that was vigorously published by the Malaysian press.
And what you perceive as "arrogant and despotic behavior" is basically hyperbole reflecting your own anti-government stance.
Its normal for a country to vigorously defend its territorial sovereignty. -
Its the angmor job because they were the ones who went around dividing the globe ,naming countries like it was a Birthday Cake.A lot of people were short changed during colonial rule and Johor was one of them.So this is the mess the Angmor should have cleared up yesterday before they left.Originally posted by hloc:Lets hope the AngMor could work faster and do it 6mth.
I think today Indonesia KPPU is going to release the judgment on the Temasek telco saga...... -
Since the AngMor didn't do it..... we would have to do it ourselves.Originally posted by Short Ninja:Its the angmor job because they were the ones who went around dividing the globe ,naming countries like it was a Birthday Cake.A lot of people were short changed during colonial rule and Johor was one of them.So this is the mess the Angmor should have cleared up yesterday before they left.
IMHO..... much better that both S'pore & Malaysia is 'settling' this problem infront of the ICJ sooner than later. We will know the result in a few months time...... But my bet is on S'pore winning -
You doubt that the quoteOriginally posted by CX:As I objected to Atobe's take on the subject with regards to press coverage (although he had a much more balanced perspective than yourself) at the earlier part of this discussion, I will make a similar observation on your approach to your "so-called-facts".
They are based on an overly narrow and selective reading of press articles and have no bearing on the actual conduct of the case.
If you care to take a look, the conclusion of the Malaysian oral proceedings are already on the ICJ website and I would like to point out that the earlier points on military installations built by SG did not even appear in the conclusions.
So once again, what "court evidence"? If it was such a big deal, then it would be expected that it should be raised as often as possible, in as forceful a manner as possible in the ICJ.
But it was not. It was a mere one-off comment uttered on the first day of the presentation that was vigorously published by the Malaysian press.
And what you perceive as "arrogant and despotic behavior" is basically hyperbole reflecting your own anti-government stance.
Its normal for a country to vigorously defend its territorial sovereignty.What it took issue with was what Tan Sri Abdul Kadir called Singapore's 'military presence on one of Johor's islands'.
was not based on court evidence? That SPH was lying and it was not presented as court evidence? You are more delusional than I thought.
He was referring to Singapore's placing of military communications equipment on Pedra Branca, which Singapore had cited as one of the ways in which it had displayed its sovereignty over the disputed island.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Originally posted by hloc:
I was born in Singapore,also had to do stand by during NS time because of this rock island but if Singapore loses and still gets to run the lighthouse then it is LPPL to me cuz as much as I want Singapore to win ,they are still not the rightful owner of this island.A few more months for the momnet of truth.
Since the AngMor didn't do it..... we would have to do it ourselves.
IMHO..... much better that both S'pore & Malaysia is 'settling' this problem infront of the ICJ sooner than later. We will know the result in a few months time...... [b]But my bet is on S'pore winning [/b] -
You tooOriginally posted by Short Ninja:I was born in Singapore,also had to do stand by during NS time because of this rock island but if Singapore loses and still gets to run the lighthouse then it is LPPL to me cuz as much as I want Singapore to win ,they are still not the rightful owner of this island.A few more months for the momnet of truth. 
I'm formerly from the Navy..... yeah, every Chinese New Year 2 patrol boats will have to be on Standby, from the normal day of only 1.
Why, cause our friend from the Malaysia Navy would send a patrol boat and take photos of Pedra Brance. Its a yearly thing......
-
Already told u... It was a one off statement uttered on day 1 of the oral proceedings.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:was not based on court evidence? That SPH was lying and it was not presented as court evidence? You are more delusional than I thought.
They did not expand on this statement in court.
It was not a even point which they wanted the court to consider. It was simply "background info" before they began their presentations. -
I wasnt from Navy but from Changi and you know what? THose Pics that the Malaysian took were the postcards you guys get once a year>Originally posted by hloc:You too
I'm formerly from the Navy..... yeah, every Chinese New Year 2 patrol boats will have to be on Standby, from the normal day of only 1.
Why, cause our friend from the Malaysia Navy would send a patrol boat and take photos of Pedra Brance. Its a yearly thing...... 
-
That does not in anyway change the fact that it was admitted as court evidence.Originally posted by CX:Already told u... It was a one off statement uttered on day 1 of the oral proceedings.
They did not expand on this statement in court.
It was not a even point which they wanted the court to consider. It was simply "background info" before they began their presentations. -
Just because a statement was uttered does not mean that it had been "admitted as evidence".Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That does not in anyway change the fact that it was admitted as court evidence.
It had merely been recording ad verbatim, as part of the proceedings. It may not even have an impact on the final verdict becase the Malaysians did not use this as their core argument.
In the conduct of the proceedings in the ICJ, both countries have to abide by the court rules and formats.
4 days for oral presentations by each side, followed by 2 days for rebuttal of each other's claims.
This statement uttered would not even require a rebuttal because it does not constitute the core of the Malaysian side's argument and they were wise to keep it to a minimum because there were other points that were more worthwhile to present.
U are harping on a point which even the Malaysian delegates to the ICJ found peripheral to the core question: Which country has a rightful title over Pedra Branca, South Ledge and Middle Rocks, based on colonial treaties and actual excercise of authority over the area.
Also, both sides have made interesting and persuasive points, not because they were democratic or autocratic, but because they were both defending what they felt was their country's interests and territorial sovereignty. -
Did SG build those military installations before or after MY published that map in 1979?
-
What a grossly stupid statement... unless objected by the opposite side, every statement made in open court becomes a part of the evidence that the judge/s will take into consideration and weigh.Originally posted by CX:Just because a statement was uttered does not mean that it had been "admitted as evidence". -
There is no excuse for people living in the internet age with Google at their disposal to make grossly stupid statements like this...
-
Stupid statement???Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What a grossly stupid statement... unless objected by the opposite side, every statement made in open court becomes a part of the evidence that the judge/s will take into consideration and weigh.
You do not stand up and shout "objection!" in the ICJ.
Each side is given time to make their presentation and rebut the opposing side's.
Singapore is scheduled to respond today and tomorrow, Malaysia on Wednesday and Thursday. -
Originally posted by IaiCn:Did SG build those military installations before or after MY published that map in 1979?
Military installation on the island? Where?
All there is heli-pad, living quarter, warehouses, a maritime radar and communication tower and that lovely looking 32m lighthouse.
The only "visible" Singapore military presences are the 24/7 RSN petrols nearby and occasional Fokker surveillance flights. -
They know when Singapore put soliders on the island at state of 'emergency'Originally posted by Gun:
Military installation on the island? Where?
All there is heli-pad, living quarter, warehouses, a maritime radar and communication tower and that lovely looking 32m lighthouse.
The only "visible" Singapore military presences are the 24/7 RSN petrols nearby and occasional Fokker surveillance flights. -
What 'emergency'?Originally posted by Short Ninja:They know when Singapore put soliders on the island at state of 'emergency' -
Could this be the military installation that Malaysia misinterpreted - the ''red n white'' steel tower next to the lighthouse ?
It looks like some kind of radar surveillance tower that could possibly be part of the PSA sea surveillance system, to guide the heavy sea traffic navigate safely through the Straits of Singapore.
It is said that there are about 900+ ships sailing daily through the Straits of Singapore.
Would Malaysia have complained if we had painted it green instead ?