Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
another idiot that choose to believe the delusions in his head even when confronted with court evidence...
What it took issue with was what Tan Sri Abdul Kadir called Singapore's 'military presence on one of Johor's islands'.
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[/quote]
[quote]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.
-
When and if Singapore objects... (maybe they read sgforums and decided they should object after reading what I wrote...)Originally posted by CX:Stupid statement???
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.
Even then, it is court evidence and the judge will look at Malaysia's evidence and Singapore's objections....
When the CSI investigators present the evidence and the other side objects to it, then it is no longer evidence? Once it is submitted as evidence, then it is evidence. Of course the judge will weigh all the evidence presented, as I said earlier and the opposing side's comments, if any...
...unless it was not allowed in as evidence...
Singapore allowed Malaysian to present and submit the evidence and they would have and should have objected if what Malaysia said contravenes the rules of evidence, for example.
In the Singapore system, each side knows what the other is going to say in their opening statements even before they said it...
hahaha I am writing a book with court scenes in it... with financial markets activities in it... with Bangkok sex scenes in it.... hahaha.. I know Rules of Evidence...
So yes, you made a stupid statement... -
Now you see it, now you don't
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H1
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
How close is Pedra Branca to Johor? See the pictures, says S'pore
IN THE HAGUE - AT A glance, the two pictures look alike. Both have Horsburgh Lighthouse and Pedra Branca in the foreground.
But look again - at the background which shows the Johor mainland, with Point Romania and a hill named Mount Berbukit. In one picture the hill is highly visible; in the other, it is hardly visible.
Therein lies the photographic illusion that Malaysia had created to exaggerate the closeness of Pedra Branca to Johor, Singapore said yesterday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
The first photograph, which Malaysia had shown the court last week, was taken by a camera using a telephoto lens.
The second photograph was taken by Singapore, using a camera lens that approximates what the human eye sees. As a result, the Malaysian photograph exaggerated the height of Mount Berbukit by about seven times, Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin said when he presented the two photos before the court.
He described it as 'an attempt to convey a subliminal message of proximity between Pedra Branca and the coast of Johor'.But it was not an accurate reflection of what visitors to Pedra Branca would see if they were looking towardsthe Johor mainland, he said.
Mr Chao was speaking before the ICJ as the hearing over the Pedra Branca dispute enters the third week. Yesterday was the first day of Singapore's rebuttals against Malaysia's oral arguments made last week.
Both countries are appearing at the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of the island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
Last week, Malaysia had also claimed the photo in question was taken from an online blog or weblog. The implication was the photo came from an independent source.
But yesterday, Mr Chao raised questions about the blog: www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com .
'This blog site is a most unusual one. It was created only last month. There is no information on the identity of the blogger and the photograph used by Malaysia was only put on the website on Nov 2 2007, four days before the start of these oral proceedings,' he said.
Mr Chao also sought to debunk Malaysia's claim that Pedra Branca was near Point Romania in Johor. The phrase 'near Point Romania' was used in an 1844 letter from the Temenggong of Johor to Governor Butterworth in Singapore.
In that letter, the Temenggong gave permission for the British to build a lighthouse on any island near Point Romania.
Malaysia claimed the phrase included Pedra Branca, and that the letter showed Britain acknowledged Johor's sovereignty over the island.
Mr Chao said the letter did not refer to Pedra Branca but to Peak Rock which, in 1844, was where the British planned to build a lighthouse.
He pointed out the distance between Pedra Branca and Point Romania was six times that between the latter and Peak Rock.
In an 1846 letter, Governor Butterworth explained his original preference for Peak Rock as the site of a lighthouse because Pedra Branca was 'at so great a distance from the main land'.
Singapore's rebuttals yesterday were launched by Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar. He highlighted five 'baseless allegations and insinuations' that Malaysia had lobbed against Singapore and rebutted each in turn.
Among them was Malaysia's charge that Singapore wished to 'subvert' long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait.
On the contrary, he said, it was Kuala Lumpur that tried to alter the status quo through the publication of a map in 1979 that altered its maritime boundaries with seven of its neighbours.
That was also the map that sparked the current dispute.
Prof Jayakumar said he was disappointed that Malaysia had resorted to such allegations in its bid to win the case. 'We should seek to win by stating objective facts and submitting persuasive legal arguments, and not by resorting to unfounded political statements and making insinuations damaging to the integrity of the opposite party,' he said.
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
Jayakumar says KL altered status quo with its 1979 map, not S'pore
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
IN THE HAGUE - SINGAPORE launched its final arguments in the Pedra Branca case with a robust rebuttal against what it called Malaysia's 'baseless' allegations against its conduct.
In its oral pleadings last week, Malaysia had sought to depict Singapore as dishonest, aggressive and out to 'subvert' the stable maritime arrangements in the Singapore Strait.
Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar said these insinuations were baseless and unnecessary.
He said that in Singapore's first round of oral pleadings, it had focused its presentations on legal and factual issues.
It had carefully avoided mentioning extraneous matters that might affect the integrity of the court proceedings, he told the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
'In view of the good relations between the two countries, we had expected Malaysia to do the same,' he said.
'We are therefore surprised and disappointed that Malaysia has, in her oral pleadings, made a series of allegations and insinuations against Singapore.
'These are of a nature which, unless rebutted, would impeach or diminish Singapore's integrity or could impress on the minds of the members of the court that there could be dire consequences for relations in the region if the dispute were decided in favour of Singapore.'
Singapore and Malaysia are appearing before the ICJ to resolve their dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, an island 40km east of Singapore and which stands at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait.
Both sides have presented their first round of oral arguments in the last two weeks. The hearing is now in its third and final week, with each side given two days to rebut the other's arguments.
DPM Jayakumar said that contrary to Malaysia's claims, Singapore was an honest, law-abiding state that has never and will never do anything to endanger navigational safety, security arrangements or the Singapore Strait's environment.
He also said it was Kuala Lumpur, not Singapore, which sought to alter the status quo by publishing a map in 1979 that altered the maritime boundaries with seven of Malaysia's neighbours.
That map sparked the dispute over Pedra Branca.
The DPM read from a telegram which KL had sent to its overseas missions in December 1979, informing them that the 1979 map would 'affect' Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and China.
He also took pains to debunk Malaysia's insinuation that Singapore had hidden two letters from the ICJ, a charge he described as 'the most disturbing' of the lot. He said Singapore did not have the letters and had searched various archives to no avail.
Five other speakers delivered presentations on Singapore's behalf yesterday.
They included Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who focused on KL's claim that the Johor sultanate possessed a title to Pedra Branca from time immemorial.
Drawing from historians' accounts, he painted a picture of the Johor sultanate as an unstable kingdom whose geographical boundaries were unclear and based more on people's allegiance than territory.
To establish Johor's sovereignty over an uninhabited island like Pedra Branca, Malaysia thus had to produce documentary proof of its title, CJ Chan argued. This it had failed to do, he added.
Besides asking the ICJ to decide Pedra Branca's fate, Singapore and Malaysia have also asked it to rule on who has sovereignty over two smaller maritime features near it: Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Yesterday, Malaysia's stand that the two should be regarded as separate and distinct from Pedra Branca was criticised by Singapore's Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin.
Singapore's stand is that whoever has sovereignty over Pedra Branca also owns the two smaller features.
Mr Chao asked why Malaysia was 'so anxious' to separate their fate from that of Pedra Branca. Was Malaysia hoping to salvage something for the future delimitation of its seas, in the event the court ruled Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore, he asked.
Or was Malaysia hoping the court would split the goods between the two countries? If it was the latter, Mr Chao said: 'The law and the facts simply do not support such a ruling.'
[email protected]
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
DPM Jaya rebuts KL's allegations
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar expressed surprise and disappointment at the allegations and insinuations made against Singapore by Malaysia last week. He has to rebut them, he said yesterday. Otherwise, they will leave an impression of dire consequences for the region if the ICJ decided in Singapore's favour, he added. Below is an account of his arguments.
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 20, 2007
Concealment of letters
MALAYSIA insinuated that Singapore might have hidden two 1844 letters from Governor Butterworth to the rulers of Johor, in which he sought permission to build a lighthouse near Point Romania on the Johor coast.
Both countries are disputing whether the scope of the permission sought included Pedra Branca.
This is an important point as Malaysia claims that Pedra Branca was part of the Johor sultanate at the time and the Johor rulers gave the British permission to build a lighthouse there.
Singapore disputes that. It argues that Pedra Branca belonged to no one when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built Horsburgh Lighthouse there.
Both Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Malaysian Prime Minister, and Malaysia's counsel, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, spoke about the missing letters.
Sir Elihu told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague that the letter must originally have been in the Singapore archives and that he would have to 'leave entirely aside any suggestion...that Singapore has deliberately concealed'.
Yesterday, DPM Jayakumar told the court that remark was the 'most disturbing' of Malaysia's insinuations.
Singapore did not have copies of Butterworth's letters, he said, and had searched for them in various archives to no avail.
The reality was that its archives were incomplete, as noted in Mary Turnbull's authoritative history of the Straits Settlements, he added.
DPM Jayakumar also pointed out the difficulty Singapore would face in hiding such documents, even if it wished to, as microfilm copies of its archival records were available in other institutions, including Australia's Monash University, which bought them in 1961.
Finally, he noted that Governor Butterworth sent the letters to Johor's Sultan and Temenggong.
'Why should Malaysia say that 'these must originally have been in the Singapore archive'? Would it not be more logical for the original of the letters to be in Johor, not Singapore?
'However, Malaysia has stated that she also does not have the letters. Singapore has accepted that in good faith,' he said.
Subverting the legal order
MALAYSIA also claimed that Singapore 'seeks to disrupt' long-established arrangements in the Singapore Strait and 'subvert' arrangements reached between Johor and Great Britain more than 150 years ago.
But it is Malaysia, DPM Jayakumar said, that is trying to alter the status quo by claiming Pedra Branca after 130 years of inaction.
In 1979, Malaysia published a map which showed for the first time that Pedra Branca lay within its territorial waters.
DPM Jayakumar said it was evident from a telegram Malaysia had sent to all her overseas missions on Dec 20, 1979 that Kuala Lumpur knew the map would alter the status quo.
That telegram said the 1979 map would 'affect' Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and China.
'As Malaysia had anticipated, her map indeed attracted protests from all seven countries,' DPM Jayakumar said.
'Who then, may I ask, was seeking to upset the existing legal order?'
Malaysia also told the court that if it found in Singapore's favour, the stability of Malaysia's relationship with Indonesia would be affected.
DPM Jayakumar said that was another attempt to influence the court with 'extraneous considerations which have no foundation'.
Sinister motives
MALAYSIA also alleged sinister intentions on Singapore's part.
It speculated that Singapore might reclaim the sea around Pedra Branca to create a 'maritime domain', with potential adverse impact on the environment, navigation and security.
DPM Jayakumar said that was 'scaremongering' as Singapore was a law-abiding country.
Its economic well-being and very survival depended on its status as a major port of call, which, in turn, was dependent on the smooth flow of shipping traffic through the Singapore Strait.
'We have never taken, and will never undertake, any action which would endanger the marine environment, the safety of navigation and the security situation in the Singapore Strait,' he said.
Used navy aggressively
MALAYSIA also complained of Singapore's 'military presence' on Pedra Branca. It alleged that Singapore sent its naval vessels to the island in 1986, after the dispute arose, raising tensions in the area and chasing away Malaysian fishermen.
But Singapore's navy had been patrolling Pedra Branca's waters since the British navy withdrew in 1975, four years before the dispute arose in 1979, he said.
The Singapore navy's presence in the area had also been peaceful and non-confrontational and none of its officers had arrested any Malaysian fishing vessels.
By comparison, Malaysia had aggressively arrested Singapore's fishing vessels in the area and raised tensions, he added.
Offer to let Singapore continue running lighthouse
MALAYSIA also told the court that it had always respected Singapore's position as the operator of Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pedra Branca and would continue to do so.
DPM Jayakumar said there was no need and no basis for Malaysia to do so.
'Singapore's rights in relation to Pedra Branca are the rights of a country having sovereignty over the island, not that of a lighthouse operator,' he said.
And Malaysia had recognised Singapore's sovereign status over Pedra Branca until December 1979, he added.
'The questions for the court, as agreed by both countries...concern sovereignty. This case is not about the right to operate the Horsburgh Lighthouse,' he said.
In closing, DPM Jayakumar said Singapore had no choice but to rebut Malaysia's baseless allegations and insinuations.
'Every state which appears before this honourable court in a dispute would of course do all it can to persuade this court to decide in its favour. That is perfectly legitimate.
'However, we should seek to win by stating objective facts and submitting persuasive legal arguments, and not by resorting to unfounded political statements and making insinuations damaging to the integrity of the opposite party,' he said.
He reiterated that Singapore and Malaysia agreed to submit their dispute to the ICJ instead of allowing it to adversely affect their overall good relations.
'I have no doubt that both countries are committed to maintaining our friendly and peaceful relations,' he said.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
General descriptions of sultanate 'not enough to prove claim'
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 20, 2007
Author: Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
SINGAPORE yesterday laid out the reasons why Malaysia's reliance on general descriptions of the Johor sultanate is just not good enough to prove its title to Pedra Branca.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said three characteristics of the old Johor sultanate constituted a 'huge obstacle to Malaysia's claim which she has not surmounted'.
The first was that the Johor sultanate was, throughout its existence, unstable.
The second was that the sultanate's territorial limits were indeterminate.
The third was that the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty was based more on the allegiance of people than on clearly-defined territorial limits.
It was thus difficult to establish such a kingdom's sovereignty over an uninhabited island such as Pedra Branca.
Malaysia claims the Johor sultanate had title to the disputed island from as far back as the 16th century.
Last week, it sought to back its claim by quoting historical descriptions of the Johor sultanate as a maritime empire that stretched all the way to the Natunas islands in the South China Sea, and covered all the islands in the Singapore Strait.
Singapore, however, argues that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, that is, belonged to no one when the British took lawful possession of it in 1847 and built Horsburgh Lighthouse there.
In rebutting Malaysia's points based on history, Mr Chan quoted from the writings of renowned historians of South-east Asia, such as L. Andaya and Carl Trocki, whose writings Malaysia had also relied on.
He told the court: 'In the context of a Malay sultanate which was people-centric and not territory-centric, general descriptions of the geographical extent of the sultanate's domains have no probative value at all as attributions of sovereignty.'
Yet, Malaysia had sought to rely on such general descriptions to debunk Singapore's stand that Pedra Branca was, in the 1840s, terra nullius.
Yesterday, Mr Chan and counsel for Singapore Alain Pellet also highlighted Malaysia's complete lack of documentary proof that Johor ever possessed title to Pedra Branca.
They noted that none of the historical documents cited by Malaysia to back its claim even mentioned Pedra Branca by name.
The only one that did was a newspaper article that Professor Pellet had earlier argued was unreliable.
Yesterday, he highlighted a previous International Court of Justice ruling in which the court had said that documents which did not mention an island by name were not relevant in deciding which state had sovereignty over it.
That ruling was issued in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan.
Mr Chan also reminded the court of a 1953 letter in which Johor's top civil servant of the time informed the British authorities in Singapore that Johor 'does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca'.
That disclaimer, he said, was entirely consistent with the lack of evidence that Johor ever possessed title to the disputed island.
It was also consistent with Malaysia's silence in the face of Britain and Singapore's display of state authority over Pedra Branca since 1847.
'Johor disclaimed title because it had no title. What more can be said?' he asked.
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited -
or is Malaysia delusional that results in it submitting something that might not be true as 'evidence'?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:another idiot that choose to believe the delusions in his head even when confronted with court evidence...
Pls look at Atobe's posting.
Are you a pro-malaysian supporter, that you believe everything they say, and not one word in what your own country says? -
The Heli pad is use when the sea is to 'rough' to send worker or supplies onto the island. And most likely armed SAF personal if needed. About 12-13 years ago, Umno Youth planned to plant the Malaysia Flag on the island..... the Navy was on 24hr standby, while the Airforce was on short notice to send in troops by helo....... luckily in the end, no malaysian boat owner wa crazy enough to let the Umno Youth charter their boats.Originally posted by Atobe:
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 ?
And yes...... after the 'problem' with Malaysia over the claim of the island, S'pore did post Coast Guard personal ( 7 - 8 ) to the lighthouse...... If i remember correctly, for week long posting. The ships in my sqn was task to send the men there unless the sea are too rough to safely transfer then over by seaboat.
Radar Surveillance gears can be use by both PSA or SAF.... no doubt about it, but who doesn't think Malaysia does the same with their own system. And by the way...... which national in these world doesn't own a surveillance system
-
That is exactly what I was sayingOriginally posted by Gun:What 'emergency'? -
oh please... from our previous encounters it was clearly established that you do not go with evidence and believe in paranormal activities when those activities do not have the necessary facts and evidence to support your beliefs...Originally posted by soul_rage:or is Malaysia delusional that results in it submitting something that might not be true as 'evidence'?
Pls look at Atobe's posting.
Are you a pro-malaysian supporter, that you believe everything they say, and not one word in what your own country says?
You are traitor to the country when you support despots even when they are clearly wrong... what pro-Malaysian supporter? I am pro Singapore and not a traitor like some here that are pro despots... -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Did I miss it or again, Singapore did not rebut Malaysia's claim that the dispute started because Singapore built military installations there?
[b]DPM Jaya rebuts KL's allegations
Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar expressed surprise and disappointment at the allegations and insinuations made against Singapore by Malaysia last week. He has to rebut them, he said yesterday. Otherwise, they will leave an impression of dire consequences for the region if the ICJ decided in Singapore's favour, he added. Below is an account of his arguments.
Straits Times, The (Singapore)
Home, Pg H6
November 20, 2007
Copyright, 2007, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
[/b]
Support the despots some more.... they built military installation and see now where it got them? ... arrogant despots.... support Singapore, not arrogant despots... -
Are you really pro-Singapore?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:oh please... from our previous encounters it was clearly established that you do not go with evidence and believe in paranormal activities when those activities do not have the necessary facts and evidence to support your beliefs...
You are traitor to the country when you support despots even when they are clearly wrong... what pro-Malaysian supporter? I am pro Singapore and not a traitor like some here that are pro despots...
CSJ going around abusing Singapore in the global arena doesn't do any good to this country.
Please define what you mean by our despots being clearly wrong. Is protecting the sovereignty of our nation wrong? Please be specific in your accusations, as we are only talking about Pedra Branca here. This has no room for your own biased views of PAP.
ICJ HAS NOT even ruled on the case yet. Are you simply jumping to conclusions that we will lose?
Also, do you know the difference between a Government, and PAP (a political party)? -
Singapore or the despots? Please get your facts right and don't come telling us that you have encountered ghosts without the necessary proof and evidence....Originally posted by soul_rage:Are you really pro-Singapore?
CSJ going around abusing Singapore in the global arena doesn't do any good to this country.
Please define what you mean by our despots being clearly wrong. Is protecting the sovereignty of our nation wrong? Please be specific in your accusations, as we are only talking about Pedra Branca here. This has no room for your own biased views of PAP.
ICJ HAS NOT even ruled on the case yet. Are you simply jumping to conclusions that we will lose?
Also, do you know the difference between a Government, and PAP (a political party)? -
I dont believe Andrew is Pro-Malaysia,he is not even Pro-SIngaporeOriginally posted by soul_rage:or is Malaysia delusional that results in it submitting something that might not be true as 'evidence'?
Pls look at Atobe's posting.
Are you a pro-malaysian supporter, that you believe everything they say, and not one word in what your own country says?
I am not taking sides here but Unker Andrew just want all of you to open up all your senses and not be blinded by reasons of which country you were born in. -
When people revolt against the despots in Myanmar... are they against the Burmese despots or Myanmar...
... when the NUS students protested, were they against the despots or Myanmar?
...that is what happens to confused people that refuse to accept science and evidence go with "paranormal" beliefs....
http://sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=274077&page=23 -
I am pro Singapore lah... but don't support despots when they are wrong or you will be a traitor to Singapore, just like those that support the Burmese despots are traitors to Myanmar...Originally posted by Short Ninja:I dont believe Andrew is Pro-Malaysia,he is not even Pro-SIngapore I am not taking sides here but Unker Andrew just want all of you to open up all your senses and not be blinded by reasons of which country you were born in.
The Malaysians?.. they can go and fark themselves... I couldn't care less... I am not a Malaysian... -
He can't win anyone over here with his offensive and abusive remarks then.Originally posted by Short Ninja:I dont believe Andrew is Pro-Malaysia,he is not even Pro-SIngapore I am not taking sides here but Unker Andrew just want all of you to open up all your senses and not be blinded by reasons of which country you were born in.
I am not blinded, the people in here know my views of the PAP. I dislike their elitist attitude, and high-handed approach to the way they treat the citizens.
But this is not a matter of the PAP. Its a case where Malaysia is attempting to challenge our sovereignty, our country.
Andrew is arguing on the basis of the reports coming out from ICJ now, and his contempt of PAP. I share his contempt of PAP, but the history of Pedra Branca is far more complicated.
There is no right or wrong in this. It's just a sensible approach to let ICJ resolve the problem, since 2 neighbours cannot come to an agreement. Treat it as a mediation. -
[quote]Originally posted by hloc:
[b]
The Heli pad is use when the sea is to 'rough' to send worker or supplies onto the island. And most likely armed SAF personal if needed. About 12-13 years ago, Umno Youth planned to plant the Malaysia Flag on the island..... the Navy was on 24hr standby, while the Airforce was on short notice to send in troops by helo....... luckily in the end, no malaysian boat owner wa crazy enough to let the Umno Youth charter their boats.
A detachment of SOF were aready there even before the UMNO youths even thought about it. -
how come malaysia like to get ownselves owned...first the truncated quote, then the magnified photo.
-
As I said, why are they wrong in Pedra Branca?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am pro Singapore lah... but don't support despots when they are wrong or you will be a traitor to Singapore, just like those that support the Burmese despots are traitors to Myanmar...
The Malaysians?.. they can go and fark themselves... I couldn't care less... I am not a Malaysian...
Bringing it to ICJ is wrong?
You haven't show WHY they are totally wrong. You used the word Totally, so you have to educate us why you think they are TOTALLY wrong.
Again, you seem to not understand the difference between a Govt, and the PAP. -
Singapore or despots?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Singapore or the despots? Please get your facts right and don't come telling us that you have encountered ghosts without the necessary proof and evidence....
That is the question we should ask of you.
Do you view this case at ICJ "PAP vs Malaysia"
or
"Singapore vs Malaysia"
If its Singapore vs Malaysia, you have answered your own question. In that case, why is the despots clearly wrong when it is Singapore that is fighting this case with Malaysia? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When and if Singapore objects... (maybe they read sgforums and decided they should object after reading what I wrote...)
Even then, it is court evidence and the judge will look at Malaysia's evidence and Singapore's objections....
When the CSI investigators present the evidence and the other side objects to it, then it is no longer evidence? Once it is submitted as evidence, then it is evidence. Of course the judge will weigh all the evidence presented, as I said earlier and the opposing side's comments, if any...
...unless it was not allowed in as evidence...
Singapore allowed Malaysian to present and submit the evidence and they would have and should have objected if what Malaysia said contravenes the rules of evidence, for example.
In the Singapore system, each side knows what the other is going to say in their opening statements even before they said it...
hahaha I am writing a book with court scenes in it... with financial markets activities in it... with Bangkok sex scenes in it.... hahaha.. I know Rules of Evidence...
So yes, you made a stupid statement...
Writing trashy lit doesn't allow you to make insulting and factually inaccurate remarks. I'm tired of doing research for you.
Go read the court rules of the ICJ before you come here to embarrass yourself again. -
The issue is not "the case at ICJ", nobody in sgforums has a say or influence in that case.Originally posted by soul_rage:Singapore or despots?
That is the question we should ask of you.
Do you view this case at ICJ "PAP vs Malaysia"
or
"Singapore vs Malaysia"
If its Singapore vs Malaysia, you have answered your own question. In that case, why is the despots clearly wrong when it is Singapore that is fighting this case with Malaysia?
What people in sgforums can consider is whether in putting up military installations on PD was a wise decision or an arrogant and despotic decision?
Even before we consider that, we have to consider whether or not it is true that the whole thing started because of that despotic decision.
Clearly it is, as the Singapore rebuttals did not touch on that. This shows that in the judges' mind, they will be considering this fact, this evidence, that had gone unchallenged, when they come to the decision.
I hope Singapore wins but even if Singapore wins, it does not mean that the despots did not make a strategic error of putting up military installations on PD, inviting the ire of Malaysia. -
Originally posted by CX:
gosh... even AFTER Singapore had made the rebuttals and dare not touch on that claim, you want to continue disputing that evidence... that is grossly stupid...
[b]
Writing trashy lit doesn't allow you to make insulting and factually inaccurate remarks. I'm tired of doing research for you.
Go read the court rules of the ICJ before you come here to embarrass yourself again.[/b] -
Thanks, kindly be less aggressive when discussing like the above. I think it helps everyone, including you and I to see each others' views.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:The issue is not "the case at ICJ", nobody in sgforums has a say or influence in that case.
What people in sgforums can consider is whether in putting up military installations on PD was a wise decision or an arrogant and despotic decision?
Even before we consider that, we have to consider whether or not it is true that the whole thing started because of that despotic decision.
Clearly it is, as the Singapore rebuttals did not touch on that. This shows that in the judges' mind, they will be considering this fact, this evidence, that had gone unchallenged, when they come to the decision.
I hope Singapore wins but even if Singapore wins, it does not mean that the despots did not make a strategic error of putting up military installations on PD, inviting the ire of Malaysia.
My point of view is, is the accusation of military installation necessarily true? A radar installation is used by PSA to aid in ships moving in the hazard area. That does not construe that its a military installation.
You have seen the pictures they have used (Malaysia). They deliberated blow up the hill at the background to demonstrate that the island is very near to Malaysia. But Singapore has refuted it.
Therefore, the above puts the credibility of what Malaysia has presented on the rocks.