Malaysian provocation: Tactics and Objectives.
-
I know this has been dicussed to death, but what brings me to start another thread on this is about what Malaysian's Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has said on 23 Jan in a NST report::
Najib also shrugged off a (Singapore) warning that Malaysia would
have to bear responsibility for any tense situation that arises and
the increased risk of unintended incidents because of the patrols.
"We'll see (about that)," he said....
What is even more interesting is when he adds:
"patrols by the navy and police boats were not done in an
aggresive manner as Malaysia had no intention to create
tension in the area.....guns on Malaysian navy patrol boats
were always covered and the missiles were not armed
while the radar was also switched off during patrols off Pulau
Batu Puteh (Malaysian name for Pedra Branca.[/u]
Now, I am no expert in maritime procedures let alone naval operational SOP, but If one can trust what this Malaysian politican is saying, why the HELL would a naval commander send its ships and men into a sensitive location where other foreign warships are known to be patroling with all their weapon systems down ?? They might as well chartered a Malaysian registered ferry, put those reporters onboard and sail into Singapore's territorial water ?
Chief of navy certainly wouldn't want to risk this while the action does not serve any military objective ...unless being ordered by certain leadership in KL for their own political ones.
They are prepared to put their seamen in harms way even after diplomatic warnings were issued at least twice in 2 days ? Certainly a clear sign of provocation to me. What for?
There can be a few objectives:
1) The KL gov isn't totally interested on the ownership of Pedra Branca per say yet. It is using it to provoke Singapore to react in ways that is seen to be an aggressor by the international community. Hence taking advantage of this short skermish in ICJ case.
2) To create an excuse to shut off water supply if Singapore had open fire on their "unarmed" naval vessels. This will limit or even destroy the Republic's reasons to assert her legal rights on the Water Agreement or even military responses to secure the water resource.
3)To regain political milage in BN's sinking electorate for the coming elections, or a chance for Dr. M to stay in power, which I believe Dr.M has already made some indication on that :
DAVOS (Switzerland), Jan 23 (Bernama) --
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he would
have stepped down earlier if he had been able to achieve his
objectives for Malaysia and its people.
"But a lot of things happened that prevent you from stepping down
when you really want to step down," he said in an interview ..."Bernama report -
one word... huh?
-
The observations forwarded by “Gun” is a bulls eye shot, and of marksman accuracy.
The Malaysian Government is playing with fire by provoking Singapore, with the simple objective of showing up SingaporeÂ’s impotence in utilizing our well publicized military strength and capability.
Just like the North Korean, which acted with mischievious objective in "hijacking" the US Navy Survey Vessel "Pueblo" in the 1980's - in international waters off the North Korean coast.
The USA was left to show its impotent frustration, in not being able to use its immense superior military power to respond to such a serious provocative act, which is seen at a level of minimal magnitude of 4 from a scale of 10..
No level headed Government will fire a gun, or let loose a missile, at a child’s mischief – as was stated in my post in an exchange with “Tripwire” on Page 2 at the other Topic “has the time come to sink a few RMN ships??”
The Malaysian Government’s actions is typically that of a mischievous child, unable to get its prized sweet (Pedra Branca), and now can only spoil the situation for everyone – by creating an international incident so as to draw maximum mileage of sympathy towards it own cause and claim to the rock island.
Singapore’s counter will have to be ingeniously thought out, without falling into the self-appraised devious scheme that the “self-assured dim wit” Malaysian Politician-Ministers have thought out.
Our counter actions will have to be measured, and commensurate with the degree of the provocation.
When disciplining a wayward child, our actions cannot be mistaken to be actions of “child abuse” – which exactly is what the child is trying to force our hands to show, and garner sympathy towards itself.
See my solution in my “exchange of ideas” with Tripwire in the other Topic mentioned above. -
Actually ... you all should thank Najib... he is a wise man... too bad he is not slated to be the next PM of malaysia... understandably... mahatir dont like man who are too wise....
the key hint of his statement lies below...
"patrols by the navy and police boats were not done in an
aggresive manner as Malaysia had no intention to create
tension in the area.....guns on Malaysian navy patrol boats
were always covered and the missiles were not armed
while the radar was also switched off during patrols off Pulau
Batu Puteh (Malaysian name for Pedra Branca."
for those of you who knows maritime laws on freedom of passage through territorial water of another nation along SLOC would immediately get his meaning....
It is stated in the IMO treaty, that when a warship of one nation is to pass through the territorial water of ANOTHER (the host) nation along the SLOC(read as water around pedra branca)... the foreign warships guns must be covered, the missiles disarmed and the radars must be off, a submarine would be required to surface while CVs must have its planes tied down on the deck to show NON aggresive postures...
the purpose of the non aggressive postures is used to shown as a sign of respect and recognition of the host nations authority over the water that the ship is passing through
The host nation whose territorial water on the other hand is being used, can if they so desire... escort that foreign warship through its water.
I say.. Najib is a nice man ... boleh? -
for all you peoples information regarding my last post...
Innocent Passage. Innocent passage refers to a vesselÂ’s right to continuous and expeditious transit through a coastal StateÂ’s territorial sea for the purpose of traversing the seas without entering a StateÂ’s internal waters. Stopping and anchoring is permitted when (1) incident to ordinary navigation, or (2) made necessary by force majeur (e.g., mechanical casualty, bad weather, other distress). Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good, order, or security of the coastal State. There is no provision in international law for prior notification or authorization in order to exercise that right. UNCLOS III contains no requirement that passage through a StateÂ’s territorial sea be necessary in order for it to be innocent; it does, however enunciate a list of activities not deemed to be innocent:
any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of the coastal state or other acts in violation of the principles of international law as embodied in the UN Charter;
any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; (read as GUNs and missiles are off ... )any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the security of the coastal state; (read as radars are off.... )
any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal state;
launching, landing, or taking on board of any aircraft;
the launching, landing, or taking on board of any military device;
loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal state;
any willful and serious pollution;
any fishing activities;
the carrying out of any research or survey activity;
any act aimed at interfering with any system of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal state; and
any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
The United States takes the position that the above list is exhaustive and intended to eliminate subjective determinations of innocent passage; if a vessel is not engaged in the above listed activities, its passage is deemed innocent.
Innocent passage extends to all shipping and is not limited by cargoes, armament, or type of propulsion. Note that UNCLOS III prohibits coastal state laws from having the practical effect of denying innocent passage.
Innocent Passage does not apply to aircraft. Submarines in innocent passage must transit on the surface, showing their flag.
Challenges to Innocent Passage: (1) Merchant ships must be informed of the basis for the challenge and provided an opportunity to clarify intentions or correct the conduct at issue. Where no corrective action is taken by the vessel, the coastal State may require it to leave or may, in limited circumstances, arrest the vessel. (2) A warship / state vessel must be challenged and informed of the violation that is the basis for the challenge. Where no corrective action is taken, the coastal State may require the vessel to leave its territorial sea and may resort to minimum force to enforce the ejection.
Suspension of Innocent Passage: A coastal state may temporarily suspend innocent passage if such an act is essential for the protection of security. Such a suspension must be (1) non-discriminatory; (2) temporary; (3) applied to a specified geographic area; and (4) imposed only after due publication / notification.
Right of Assistance Entry. Based on the long-standing obligation of mariners to aid those in peril on the sea, the right of assistance entry gives limited permission to enter into the territorial sea to render assistance to those in danger. The location of the persons in danger must be reasonably well known. The right does not permit a search. Aircraft may be used to render assistance, though this right is not as well recognized as that for ships rendering assistance. See CJCSI 2410.01A for further guidance on the exercise of the right of assistance entry (available on the Internet at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/2410_01a.pdf). -
though it seems from the above that Najib is indirectly recognizing singapore's authority over PB... it must be noted that he did not say that key magic word... the recognization of singapore's sovereignty over PB...
and from his words... its clearly.. this is a man that deserve respect...
on the one hand, he emphasize continue patrolling by RMN over PB... on the other hand he appears to assuage singapore's concern by stating the obvious clause under the IMO treaty...on innocent passage...
BUT in reality.. he did neither...
by sending his ships to patrol without radar and weapon on... he is invoking the innocent passage clause under the IMO as a foreign ship in singapore waters (hurray from singapore)... but at the same time... such an action would not reduce malaysia's claim over PB either....since its normal for a country's ship to have its radar and weapons off in their respective territorial water... (i can hear hurray from across the causeway)
yet from the singapore's point of view... malaysia's continuous non stop passage into the singapore water around PB is seen as provocative because of the following...
1... the RMN ships fail the part where ships in transit are to pass expeditiously and continuous through the SLOC... by repeatedly re-entering the water over a short period of time or anchoring near PB without reasons....
2... the RMN ships radar off ... but then is the RMN ship within the lanes of the SLOC?? if not... wont such an action tantamount to prowling??
3... the RMN ships weapons and missiles are off... i beg to ask.. how the hell will RSN knows that unless both are within visual range... plus... its very easy to switch on the guns and missiles....
Therefore... there is no other way singapore can interpret malaysia's actions as innocent...
the good news is that... singapore under the IMO treaty are permitted to use minimal force to send them packing home... and i think we should use it.... -
*shrugs*
-
since malaysia has decided that they will continue to intrude into singapore sea intentionally without signs of backing down...
and if singapore has no intention to start a war with malaysia by sinking their ships... perhaps there is another way...
their ships come uninvited into our water... our falcons can also fly across malaysia including KL uninvited... we see who can tahan more...
we can start by sending 50 falcons to do a demostrasi fly past over maharajas palace dropping ang bao....packet.. nice??
while our falcons are in KL... maybe can do some very very noisey sonic booms across all their major office building plus petronas tower... shake shake their bon bon..... -
Hey "tripwire"
Nice piece of research after running through your other indigestible proposals to handle the RMN vessels.
Only confirms the "fork tongue" that the Malaysian Politicians possess, and their continuous exercise in "double talk" to impress their home audience, and bewilder their foreign contenders.
What else can we expect from Malaysia - famous for the antics of its "Orang Utans", and some of the "world's famous snakes" ?
. -
____________________________________________________Originally posted by tripwire:Actually ... you all should thank Najib... he is a wise man... too bad he is not slated to be the next PM of malaysia...
Actually, Mahatir has approved of Najib to take over AFTER Badawi has steps down from the Premiership post.
Give Badawi five years in Office, and he will be 81 years old (??), and Najib will take over the Premiership at a good age of 59 years.
A choice between Najib (the DM) and the "empty brained" Hamid (the FM), I would prefer Najib.
FM Hamid is a clear "chip-off-the-old-block", in his father's style of inflammotary, unpredictable, and part psychotic Malay supremacist radical firebrand of the 1960's politics.
With a stroke of a pen, he destroyed the FPDA Defence Shield by restricting Singapore Air Force from entering Malaysian airspace.
The provocation that caused this move, according to Hamid, was due to the accusations in SM Lee's second memoir that stated clearly Hamid's father as a Malay Racial Activist in Singapore.
Confirms the shallow pettiness of a Minister, who claims to be educated, and magnamanous as a staunch practitioner of Islam.
Allah is great in not planning his path to a Prime Minister's post. -
The military airspace issue was bizzare, their own planes in their token airforce hardly use it and it's just up there for nothing, except when SAR units go up after another one of their flawed military endevours...
-
Originally posted by tripwire:since malaysia has decided that they will continue to intrude into singapore sea intentionally without signs of backing down...
and if singapore has no intention to start a war with malaysia by sinking their ships... perhaps there is another way...
their ships come uninvited into our water... our falcons can also fly across malaysia including KL uninvited... we see who can tahan more...
we can start by sending 50 falcons to do a demostrasi fly past over maharajas palace dropping ang bao....packet.. nice??
while our falcons are in KL... maybe can do some very very noisey sonic booms across all their major office building plus petronas tower... shake shake their bon bon..... 
There's a reason why aircraft arent covered by innocent passage... -
Eh? *Scratches head* What you all talking ah? I too dumb to understand all this technical language and political stuff leh...something about Innocent passage lah, that one lah, dis one lah, I think somebody even mention that Najib Ali is going to be the next Matlaysian PM leh! Wah lan!
Neh'mine...even though I vely vely stupeed ah...at least I smart enough to know that the Malasai gahmen is full of chebai-faced people like their FM...right anot? -
Agreed buddy. May sound lame, but that was what i thought after reading the part about guns covered, radar off etc.Originally posted by tripwire:though it seems from the above that Najib is indirectly recognizing singapore's authority over PB... it must be noted that he did not say that key magic word... the recognization of singapore's sovereignty over PB...
and from his words... its clearly.. this is a man that deserve respect...
on the one hand, he emphasize continue patrolling by RMN over PB... on the other hand he appears to assuage singapore's concern by stating the obvious clause under the IMO treaty...on innocent passage...
BUT in reality.. he did neither...
by sending his ships to patrol without radar and weapon on... he is invoking the innocent passage clause under the IMO as a foreign ship in singapore waters (hurray from singapore)... but at the same time... such an action would not reduce malaysia's claim over PB either....since its normal for a country's ship to have its radar and weapons off in their respective territorial water... (i can hear hurray from across the causeway)
yet from the singapore's point of view... malaysia's continuous non stop passage into the singapore water around PB is seen as provocative because of the following...
1... the RMN ships fail the part where ships in transit are to pass expeditiously and continuous through the SLOC... by repeatedly re-entering the water over a short period of time or anchoring near PB without reasons....
2... the RMN ships radar off ... but then is the RMN ship within the lanes of the SLOC?? if not... wont such an action tantamount to prowling??
3... the RMN ships weapons and missiles are off... i beg to ask.. how the hell will RSN knows that unless both are within visual range... plus... its very easy to switch on the guns and missiles....
Therefore... there is no other way singapore can interpret malaysia's actions as innocent...
the good news is that... singapore under the IMO treaty are permitted to use minimal force to send them packing home... and i think we should use it....
However, perhaps they recognize the waters around PB currently belonging to Singapore, and thus they are entering it under Part 2, article 17, "innoncent passage."
What they are doing now is that, they are claiming that PB belongs to them, and until they win their case at ICJ, the ownership of PB and the waters around it remain status quo. Ours.
And apparently, it is a wise move on their part. IF they came in with their guns showing, radar on, and weapons ready to fire, we have a LEGAL right to tell them to piss off or we blow em up.
Article30
Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations
of the coastal State
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.
Whatever laws n regulation those may be, would be up to us to specify. Mainly, bearing arms. Also, to "patrol" PB with their vessels, is not called "passage" as defined in article 18, regarding the terms of "innoncent passage." Therefore, we can tell them to leave, regardless they are showing arms or not. If they were to contest PB, and bring up our refusal of entry of their ships, then they don't have a case at all. -
Great site you found there. This website is loaded with detail infos on military related de-classified docs in pdf. But I can't locate the one you've used http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/2410_01a.pdf. Is it correctly addressed ?Originally posted by tripwire:for all you peoples information regarding my last post...
See CJCSI 2410.01A for further guidance on the exercise of the right of assistance entry (available on the Internet at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/2410_01a.pdf).
Anyway, HERE is the actual site of ICJ rulings on the Indonesia & Malaysia case at:
It is heavy reading as these are direct transcript of ICJ's analysis of both parties claims and how it arrived on the verdict on 17 Dec'02.
To summarised it, I don't think Malaysia has the chance to win its claim on PB based this ICJ ruling. The court's final paragraphs in which it says:
"......the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia . . . are modest in number but . . . they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands". The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".
The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia". -
I am rather certain, that taking into account Singapore's control over the island in the past, and the lack of a heated disagreement from Malaysia previously, plus the fact that the British built the lighthouse at a time when they were using Singapore as the place to administer the whole area, will secure PB for Singapore under ICJ ruling. . .Originally posted by Gun:Great site you found there. This website is loaded with detail infos on military related de-classified docs in pdf. But I can't locate the one you've used http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/2410_01a.pdf. Is it correctly addressed ?
Anyway, HERE is the actual site of ICJ rulings on the Indonesia & Malaysia case at:
It is heavy reading as these are direct transcript of ICJ's analysis of both parties claims and how it arrived on the verdict on 17 Dec'02.
To summarised it, I don't think Malaysia has the chance to win its claim on PB based this ICJ ruling. The court's final paragraphs in which it says:
"......the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia . . . are modest in number but . . . they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands". The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".
a bit of problem, Britain administered both Malaysia AND Singapore, they also built the lighthouse. The good news is, when the British built the lighthouse, the capital of the straits settlements was Singapore. and the straits settlements include Malaysia. Thus, we would have to prove decision and plans for lighthouse were made here. Singapore has also exercised control over the lighthouse and maintaining it for a 'considerable period of time' and therefore can claim its rights over the PB. However, Malaysia has from time to time, voiced its disagreement over Singapore's control of Pulau Branca, although never this much. . . Singapore has constantly also sent patrols to that island, part of exercising control over it.. .
The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".