Pedra Branca D-Day is 6 Nov 07
-
I can be less aggressive, but how to be less aggressive when people choose to believe that it is "A radar installation is used by PSA to aid in ships moving in the hazard area" when court evidence that was not disputed states otherwise?Originally posted by soul_rage:Thanks, kindly be less aggressive when discussing like the above. I think it helps everyone, including you and I to see each others' views.
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.
You can believe anything you want.... personally, in the privacy of your own home and your own head... but when you want to make a comment for everyone to consider... you have to go with the evidence... otherwise anyone can waste everyone's time by telling us the delusions in their head and expect us to take it as God/god's given truth... *sigh* -
...if it was not true, what Malaysia said... that it was a military installation, why didn't they dispute it? Are they idiotic as well as despotic and arrogant?
-
... they even took pains to dispute a photo... but dare not mention Malaysia's claims that the dispute started because of their despotic and arrogant act of putting up military installations on PD...
-
Luckily for us, all ICJ rulings are base on Law & Prove. Not on who is 'arrogant' or 'disposit'. This whole case have always been about who could show more prove to be the owner of the island. Indonesia lost Sipandan island because Malaysia uses the same augrment S'pore is using now..... than we have maintance, built on and safe guarding the island for a long numbers of year. And S'pore have been able to show Prove in Black&White on ownership more offend then Malaysia could......
If excusing the rights of a Soverign National to patrol or to setup military/civilian installation is 'wrong', then what's the point of owning the island and claiming Soverignty over it.
Malaysia could say whatever they want..... so can S'pore. The final judgment will be known in 6-9 months time. And my bet is on S'pore.
-
So there ain't any "emergency" ? Correct me here.Originally posted by Short Ninja:That is exactly what I was saying
Anyway, thanks to hloc & Atobe for sharing info about that "red-white-tower"
I did a little more bkgnd research about that structure and source says operated by MPA instead of PSA. The later business core is on port operation while MPA (www.mpa.gov.sg) focus on maritime safety and navigation.
Kinda like ATC for shipping traffic.
MPA calls their ATC as Vessel Traffic Information System (VTIS). (source: http://www.mpa.gov.sg//infocentre/pdfs/jan-mar03.pdf). That tower is one of several built after 9/11.
You can spot the same tower on Singapore mainland like along ECP next to PA sailing club
okay. sure it can be used by military, but hey, at least we have civilian organsiation involved 24/7.
My conclusion so far:
If such CIVILIAN communucation/surveillence system exist on both S'pre mainland and its off-shore isle while custom operation and security are actively carried out in these territory, wouldn't that be an indication of more than just a "lighthouse adminstrator"? Having gone thru Malaysia's ICJ presentaiton, I kinda feeling that KL is going for another land-grab tactic like they did with Indonesia.
This time, no turtle shell to collect. Only an island full of bird-sh*t.
-
While it is true that courts are generally unbiased and go with the evidence... when there are conflicting and compelling evidence....
Judges are people too.... they might, when the evidence is not conclusive... decide to punish arrogant and despotic people for being, well arrogant and despotic.... unlike their supporters... that will forgive them even when they make policies in the interests of self, party, cronies and family members... -
Then ain't we double luckily that the judges don't live here and hold the same anti-PAP views as you do......Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:While it is true that courts are generally unbiased and go with the evidence... when there are conflicting and compelling evidence....
Judges are people too.... they might, when the evidence is not conclusive... decide to punish arrogant and despotic people for being, well arrogant and despotic.... unlike their supporters... that will forgive them even when they make policies in the interests of self, party, cronies and family members... -
What is your objective in this forum?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I can be less aggressive, but how to be less aggressive when people choose to believe that it is "A radar installation is used by PSA to aid in ships moving in the hazard area" when court evidence that was not disputed states otherwise?
You can believe anything you want.... personally, in the privacy of your own home and your own head... but when you want to make a comment for everyone to consider... you have to go with the evidence... otherwise anyone can waste everyone's time by telling us the delusions in their head and expect us to take it as God/god's given truth... *sigh*
To attempt to convince the neutrals so that they understand why people who are against PAP, ARE against PAP?
Or serve to fan up so much flames, that they put up a defensive barrier and refuse to listen to your points, even though your points make sense? In fact, your way of being over-aggressive may result in neutrals moving towards a pro-PAP stance.
You say yourself that you are writing a book. So I would suppose you would know how to moderate yourself
By the way, its indeed true that the radar installation is installed by our MPA. (Sorry its my mistake to say PSA. Keep forgetting PSA is not Port of Singapore Authority anymore). Would you believe this, rather than words submitted as evidence from Malaysia?
The same Malaysia that submitted a picture with a blow up view of the hill as evidence? -
They might, as you said, since they are humans as well.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:While it is true that courts are generally unbiased and go with the evidence... when there are conflicting and compelling evidence....
Judges are people too.... they might, when the evidence is not conclusive... decide to punish arrogant and despotic people for being, well arrogant and despotic.... unlike their supporters... that will forgive them even when they make policies in the interests of self, party, cronies and family members...
But I don't think they have seen how the PAP make policies in the interests of self, party, cronies and family members, so I doubt they really care about those points. Its internal affairs as far as the international people are concerned.
Singapore, so far, has demonstrated a level of professionalism in the way we argue and rebutt Malaysia's points. Instead of, like you say, delusional evidence, we have chose to steer clear of those and focus only on the facts.
If they may seem arrogant, its only because Malaysia's case is not strong, and the points raised are torn down with ease. -
or worship the despots (like dogs their master....) despite the despots formulating self-serving policies to benefit their cronies and friends at the expense of the majority, like you...Originally posted by hloc:Then ain't we double luckily that the judges don't live here and hold the same anti-PAP views as you do...... -
It is a waste of time talking to people that refuse to accept evidence lodged with a court of law and not disputed by the other side... and continue to chose to believe the delusions in their head... delusional....
-
next, they will tell you to believe delusional paranormal activities ...
ghosts... ooooo
vampires.... ahhhhhhh
-
About Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed's opening statement on 13th Nov on Point-38 regarding Singapore's military presence on the island.
That struck me as why for 3 decades, KL is "not previously aware" of a "foreign" military existence in her so-called territory aka PDP ?
This can be either due to:
A) Poor intelligence
B) incompetent diplomatic (or lack of) response.
C) doesn't care since isn't a Johor territory for over 150yr.
D) All the above.
If I am a responsible owner and when seeing my "operator" buildling all these stuff, I would immediately send at least a note of complain to the operator asking "why are you doing this to my property??!!"
At least, I can legally evict this insensitive "operator" and blame him for being arrogant while creating "tension and danger" in otherwise stable and peaceful neighbourhood. But I didn't bother to do that for over 1/4 of century.
Now, I am telling the Court that I am only became aware my operator has installed security device in my property....tsk tsk... -
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 have asked the question I have wanted to, since I have starting reading this thread! -
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?
OMG there are so many delusional people in sgforums that actually prefer the delusions in their head to the evidence provided in a court of law and not disputed by opposing counsel...Originally posted by IaiCn: You have asked the question I have wanted to, since I have starting reading this thread!
-
If Singapore has sovereignty over Petra Blanca, it is then our right to use it whichever way we like, a lighthouse, a radar surveillance installation, a rest house for divers, or a military installation. We all know that the dispute started when Malaysia published a map in 1979 and claimed that Petra Blanca was their territory, not because of any SAF military installation.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...if it was not true, what Malaysia said... that it was a military installation, why didn't they dispute it? Are they idiotic as well as despotic and arrogant?
If Malaysia claims that they now owned Pulau Tekong because Singapore put up a military installation there, do you think we need to dispute that?
You seem to be the one with delusions and you are obviously blinded by your hatred for the arrogant and the despotic. -
... we all know "the dispute started when Malaysia published a map in 1979 and claimed that Petra Blanca was their territory, not because of any SAF military installation. " or is that a delusion in your head? ... should we believe your delusions or court evidence? ... "we all know" some more... when evidence that was not disputed had been produced in court that it was not... grossly delusional...Originally posted by sgdiehard:If Singapore has sovereignty over Petra Blanca, it is then our right to use it whichever way we like, a lighthouse, a radar surveillance installation, a rest house for divers, or a military installation. We all know that the dispute started when Malaysia published a map in 1979 and claimed that Petra Blanca was their territory, not because of any SAF military installation.
If Malaysia claims that they now owned Pulau Tekong because Singapore put up a military installation there, do you think we need to dispute that?
You seem to be the one with delusions and you are obviously blinded by your hatred for the arrogant and the despotic. -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
It's a shame that we have lawyers and reporters who know nothing about photography. The reason that the hill may look larger (or smaller) than normal is due to depth of field and perspective. See for instance this image that explains all:
The Malaysians obviously used a zoom/telephoto lens due to our military installations there (heh!) which resulted in a compressed zoom effect. Don't think that they were out to deceive anyone.
Sorry had to clarify this, as I'm a photographer myself
-
This point was laboriously addressed yesterday before the ICJ.Originally posted by vericose:It's a shame that we have lawyers and reporters who know nothing about photography. The reason that the hill may look larger (or smaller) than normal is due to depth of field and perspective. See for instance this image that explains all:
The Malaysians obviously used a zoom/telephoto lens due to our military installations there (heh!) which resulted in a compressed zoom effect. Don't think that they were out to deceive anyone.
Sorry had to clarify this, as I'm a photographer myself
They knew it was a tele photo effect. Its not really a matter of whether Malaysia intended to mislead or not but the fact that they got caught AGAIN using something that could be turned against them. They could have used any number of photos or even asked us for some (to demonstrate that they could not take the pics themselves cos of our "unfriendly" naval patrols) but Nooo... They HAD to have one copied from a blog that was taken with a zoom lens... I wonder why... -
Amazing that the depth of field will explode or magnify the background objects, without doing the same to the subject in the foreground.Originally posted by vericose:It's a shame that we have lawyers and reporters who know nothing about photography. The reason that the hill may look larger (or smaller) than normal is due to depth of field and perspective. See for instance this image that explains all:
The Malaysians obviously used a zoom/telephoto lens due to our military installations there (heh!) which resulted in a compressed zoom effect. Don't think that they were out to deceive anyone.
Sorry had to clarify this, as I'm a photographer myself
For a while, I could only think that the Malaysian photo - ''borrowed'' from a mystery blogger's site - was manipulated through digital merging of two different photos.
Brilliant piece of photographic knowledge to come up with such a piece.
Did you send a copy of this to the Singapore Foreign Ministry, or perhaps to the Singapore Straits Times ?
It will be great to send it to the Malaysian Straits Times, with a copy of what was published in the Singapore ST on this Tuesday.
It will be interesting to know which blogger's site had initially uploaded this photo, and which was reported to have been mysteriously created only recently before this ICJ hearing began. -
Originally posted by Gun:
So there ain't any "emergency" ? Correct me here.
Anyway, thanks to hloc & Atobe for sharing info about that "red-white-tower"
I did a little more bkgnd research about that structure and source says operated by MPA instead of PSA. The later business core is on port operation while MPA (www.mpa.gov.sg) focus on maritime safety and navigation.
Kinda like ATC for shipping traffic.
MPA calls their ATC as Vessel Traffic Information System (VTIS). (source: http://www.mpa.gov.sg//infocentre/pdfs/jan-mar03.pdf). That tower is one of several built after 9/11.
You can spot the same tower on Singapore mainland like along ECP next to PA sailing club
okay. sure it can be used by military, but hey, at least we have civilian organsiation involved 24/7.
Thanks for clearing up the details concerning MPA and PSA.
The ATC at Changi International Airport is manned by both Civilian and Military personnel, while the coastal radar system is more likely manned by MPA and the Coast Guard - {which was previously known as the Marine Police until it came under a common Naval Command for overall coastline security management, even as the Coast Guard has its own operational HQ and methods}.
My conclusion so far:
If such CIVILIAN communucation/surveillence system exist on both S'pre mainland and its off-shore isle while custom operation and security are actively carried out in these territory, wouldn't that be an indication of more than just a "lighthouse adminstrator"? Having gone thru Malaysia's ICJ presentaiton, I kinda feeling that KL is going for another land-grab tactic like they did with Indonesia.
This time, no turtle shell to collect. Only an island full of bird-sh*t.
Malaysia's claim occurred during Mahathir's terms as PM, and came about during a period when many countries were reviewing their own interests admidst multiple claims to extra-territorial Exclusive Economic Zone - which allow coastal states to extend its sovereign rights to all economic wealth in the sea - up to a limit of 200 nautical miles.
This murky status of overlapping territorial claims was finally resolved in an international review during the United Nations sponsored Third Law of the Sea Convention under the chairmanship of Singapore's Professor Tommy Koh - lasting from 1980 to 1982.
The Law of the Sea Convention provide the framework for maritime disputes to be resolved, as well as clarify the many maritime issues related to sovereign ownership to maritime areas involving accompanying rights to undersea wealth. It also provide clarification to multiple issues arising from the doctrine of 'Freedom of the seas''.
Malaysia's extended claims that is legitimize by such UN approved conventions can only make Singapore's position vulnerable - given that every square kilometer of space will be important for Singapore.
Whether Malaysia has any legitimate claim or not to Pulau Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca, perhaps Mahathir has his own agenda to instigate such a ''fishing trip'' by suddenly extending its sovereign rights from the ''traditional'' 3 nautical miles limit to 24 nautical miles of contiguous territorial claim - and affecting the multiple overlapping claims to the South China Seas by Brunei, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
Singapore would have been straddled with another problem island, if we kept Christmas Island - {located in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Java}.
Although some local generated propaganda would have us believe that Singapore Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock had betrayed Singapore's interest in selling off the Christmas Island for a sum of Sterling 2.9 million to Australia in 1957 {before LKY too over the chair}, perhaps Lim Yew Hock had done a service to Singapore by getting rid of Christmas Island, although he could have struck a better deal with the help of geologist.
We could be having far bigger problems facing down an Indonesia under the volatile and ambitious President Sukarno who has a penchant for swallowing up islands bigger then Christmas Island - such as Iran Jaya {also known as West Guinea}, East Timor {now known as Timor Leste}, the Moluccas as well as a large chunk of Borneo {now known as Kalimantan}.
Even if Pedra Branca is all bird sh*t - like Christmas Island - it could well be worth more than a fortune, as Australia recovered a thousand times more in value from the Sterling 2.9 million paid to Singapore in 1957, from the continous phosphate mining activities that went on from the 1960s through the mid-1990s. -
Well, a photograph like that serves to mislead.Originally posted by vericose:It's a shame that we have lawyers and reporters who know nothing about photography. The reason that the hill may look larger (or smaller) than normal is due to depth of field and perspective. See for instance this image that explains all:
The Malaysians obviously used a zoom/telephoto lens due to our military installations there (heh!) which resulted in a compressed zoom effect. Don't think that they were out to deceive anyone.
Sorry had to clarify this, as I'm a photographer myself
Plus the fact that the website pops up mysteriously, one is tempted to guess their true intentions since it looks that way. -
If so much good reason for owning the lighthouse,
why only ask for it now?
why waited so long? -
With regards to those 'misleading photos'.It doesnt matter if the background shows Disneyland.One can always look at a map and see how close it is in nautical miles.If you think Batam is too near SIngapore then this case apply
-
Or like mad dogs baking......Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:or worship the despots (like dogs their master....) despite the despots formulating self-serving policies to benefit their cronies and friends at the expense of the majority, like you...