Singapore should Take Back Christmas Island
-
too many people on this forum are just living in the daytime dream. having no idea about what they are talking about. what country you reckon singapore is?? Is it a real country or sth else? too good feeling about this country.
-
Just curious here, are you on dole?
-
nope i think to have this kind of hallucination
he will need
Ingredients
Ice
Glue
Ecstacy
Marijuana
Heroin
Opium
Cannabis
and mux mix with 2 litres of 25% alcohol vodka..
and down it all in 1 go.. -
Judging from how we are actually progressing, I personally feel Singapore don't need the extra land from Christmas Island. We are a country who saves tons and buys over businesses in prospering countries for profits. If that's the case we might not want an extra land sticking out so far away
I don't know what happened to the money but it probably went to construction of Singapore which now has become so much of a costly living society. I believe it was a wise trade.
Just my 2 cents -
ah,, mate, that is the first time i met sb talking about sth serious in here..Originally posted by LazerLordz:Just curious here, are you on dole? -
hei,, can you give me an example of some country in normal situation selling their land to you? you are really a business people.. you reckon money can buy anything, don't you??Originally posted by DXuan:Judging from how we are actually progressing, I personally feel Singapore don't need the extra land from Christmas Island. We are a country who saves tons and buys over businesses in prospering countries for profits. If that's the case we might not want an extra land sticking out so far away I don't know what happened to the money but it probably went to construction of Singapore which now has become so much of a costly living society. I believe it was a wise trade.
Just my 2 cents -
Really? So, I'm still curious.So, is the unemployment benefit over there enough to pay for broadband?If so..sign me up pronto!Originally posted by j28w32:ah,, mate, that is the first time i met sb talking about sth serious in here.. -
good on you. try to put me down by questioning my life style? yes.. that is good enough for me to get on the internet. by the way, this amount of money is certain not enough for singaporean gov. to buy a block of land from any other country. as that is totally out of the question. what a jok!Originally posted by LazerLordz:Really? So, I'm still curious.So, is the unemployment benefit over there enough to pay for broadband?If so..sign me up pronto! -
Third World War against singapore?? you got be kidding.. your career is not comedian, isn't it? a bit professional in doing that. Standing a guard on that island? you will go there?? or any singaporean will go there?? you will go there and provide your free entertaining performance, won't you?Originally posted by arburthen?:Take back? and hold with what? If we held it during our independance the aussies would have annexed it anyway. If we take it back now do you think they will stand for it if we posted a unit there to guard our claim? It was the right thing to do to sell it off in the first place.
Also I heard under the old maritime law, anything above and under the sea within 2km of the coast line belongs to you. And that means if there is a stone or coral size of a durian protruding out of the water, that claim is extended for another 2km, that means our claim may even stretch all the way to spratly islands leow.
That's going head to head with the chinese, vietnamese, indoesians, malaysians an bruneians and filipinoes who have oil claims there.
You want them to declare WWIII on us.
No thanks! -
The logic at the time was that Christmas Island was too far away.
Singapore doesn't even had a proper navy to protect that island at that time.
There was a confrontation from Indonesia against Singapore and Malaysia at that time also. Christmas Island was cut-off by Indonesian territories too.
I don't think we got that money to spare on that island's development anyway.
So the best thing to do is to sell it off then, so that:
1) Christmas Island will not ended up into bad hands.
2) Singapore government have the extra cash to develop the main islands of Singapore.
Even if we got back Christmas Island from Australia one way or the other. It would be costly for Singapore navy to maintain coastal defence around Christmas Island. It is not advisable to build a naval base there. Or it would be eggs in basket.
It was just too far away from Singapore. Even for the air force to defend it, it wold be difficult. It was just not worth that cost.
I think Australia would need the island as sort sort of military buffer from South-East Asia too. -
you are a quite considerate person indeed. "australia also need the island as military buffer from SEA too". You are just making me laugh.Originally posted by Eiizumi:The logic at the time was that Christmas Island was too far away.
Singapore doesn't even had a proper navy to protect that island at that time.
There was a confrontation from Indonesia against Singapore and Malaysia at that time also. Christmas Island was cut-off by Indonesian territories too.
I don't think we got that money to spare on that island's development anyway.
So the best thing to do is to sell it off then, so that:
1) Christmas Island will not ended up into bad hands.
2) Singapore government have the extra cash to develop the main islands of Singapore.
Even if we got back Christmas Island from Australia one way or the other. It would be costly for Singapore navy to maintain coastal defence around Christmas Island. It is not advisable to build a naval base there. Or it would be eggs in basket.
It was just too far away from Singapore. Even for the air force to defend it, it wold be difficult. It was just not worth that cost.
I think Australia would need the island as sort sort of military buffer from South-East Asia too.
give you an example; british started full scale war to take that little island back from Argentina. that island for now has little economical interests. British travelled half of the world to take it back. can you give me a reason? certainly it is not a profitable business in your opinion but why they still want to do it with the unanimous support of parliment, which has never happened in British parliment history for 200 years? why? you talk about "logic". but you are not logical. -
Imagine what it would be like if it still belonged to us.
A resort with white beaches, condos by the beach, a small airfield...
Make it a romantic getaway like those in Carribean, not one like Sentosa.Since there is land scarcity here, I honestly think that we should BUY it back, not TAKE it back. -
j28w32, he or she has the right to voice his views. You may know more but it is not right to put him down by laughing at his views or anything. Do show some kindness and restraint in your answers.Originally posted by j28w32:you are a quite considerate person indeed. "australia also need the island as military buffer from SEA too". You are just making me laugh.
give you an example; british started full scale war to take that little island back from Argentina. that island for now has little economical interests. British travelled half of the world to take it back. can you give me a reason? certainly it is not a profitable business in your opinion but why they still want to do it with the unanimous support of parliment, which has never happened in British parliment history for 200 years? why? you talk about "logic". but you are not logical. -
yes.. thanks for your reminding . and i will behave myself.. just sometimes do not know how to talk on the net. not intend to be offensive.Originally posted by greengoblin:j28w32, he or she has the right to voice his views. You may know more but it is not right to put him down by laughing at his views or anything. Do show some kindness and restraint in your answers. -
In theory I would say money can actually get you a lot of things, not everything though. Being a not so pro-government person. I still thought they did an ideal trade. Our government are economists, and economists should not be in the government in my opinion. In a business term practicality is very important. True it was part of us back then, but for such a small piece of land, it's going to be hard for anyone to start an establishment of any sort on it, then again that's still just my opinion. I quote the CIA world factbook, "Almost two-thirds of the island has been declared a national park. " That's 45kmsq of land left for whatever there is left to do. Would most people want to do that? Maintenance would be a problem, and it might have cost us more than the 2.9million pounds we got for selling it.Originally posted by j28w32:hei,, can you give me an example of some country in normal situation selling their land to you? you are really a business people.. you reckon money can buy anything, don't you??
All of these are just my opinions. Nonetheless feel free to tell me where is wrong. That's how people grow in knowledge -
Very nicely put acrossOriginally posted by Eiizumi:The logic at the time was that Christmas Island was too far away.
Singapore doesn't even had a proper navy to protect that island at that time.
There was a confrontation from Indonesia against Singapore and Malaysia at that time also. Christmas Island was cut-off by Indonesian territories too.
I don't think we got that money to spare on that island's development anyway.
So the best thing to do is to sell it off then, so that:
1) Christmas Island will not ended up into bad hands.
2) Singapore government have the extra cash to develop the main islands of Singapore.
Even if we got back Christmas Island from Australia one way or the other. It would be costly for Singapore navy to maintain coastal defence around Christmas Island. It is not advisable to build a naval base there. Or it would be eggs in basket.
It was just too far away from Singapore. Even for the air force to defend it, it wold be difficult. It was just not worth that cost.
I think Australia would need the island as sort sort of military buffer from South-East Asia too. You probably will get categorised almost under the same category as me. Just you are a diplomat businessman 
I'm just a businessman 
-
sorry mate.. nothing specific..Originally posted by DXuan:In theory I would say money can actually get you a lot of things, not everything though. Being a not so pro-government person. I still thought they did an ideal trade. Our government are economists, and economists should not be in the government in my opinion. In a business term practicality is very important. True it was part of us back then, but for such a small piece of land, it's going to be hard for anyone to start an establishment of any sort on it, then again that's still just my opinion. I quote the CIA world factbook, "Almost two-thirds of the island has been declared a national park. " That's 45kmsq of land left for whatever there is left to do. Would most people want to do that? Maintenance would be a problem, and it might have cost us more than the 2.9million pounds we got for selling it.
All of these are just my opinions. Nonetheless feel free to tell me where is wrong. That's how people grow in knowledge
in my opinion, territority is quite unique issue. it is about the fortune and prosperity of the future generation of a country. because of the limitation of human being 's knowlege, a lot usage of a block of land is still being explored. in the past many years back,, it is unimaginable that people thought there are so many natural resources could be exploited in the sea. so not many countries even gave a damn about the sea territory. but now people suddenly realize there are some many good things down there.. so the competition for this began. with the increasing demand on natural resource, and advance of technology, such competition will be getting tougher and tougher. So in the case of christmas island, we can not say how much value it has got based on current technology.. but in the future a huge benefit might be obtained from having it.. similar situation about the space territory. so i would say territory is not the commodity for sale. never. -
not related to topicOriginally posted by j28w32:you are a quite considerate person indeed. "australia also need the island as military buffer from SEA too". You are just making me laugh.
give you an example; british started full scale war to take that little island back from Argentina. that island for now has little economical interests. British travelled half of the world to take it back. can you give me a reason? certainly it is not a profitable business in your opinion but why they still want to do it with the unanimous support of parliment, which has never happened in British parliment history for 200 years? why? you talk about "logic". but you are not logical.
just wondering, why do the chinese like to talk about the falklands war so much?
my friends used to talked about that too
-
I understand your point of view. But if you want to base something on future technology, how long is that going to be? 10 years? 100years? 1000years? Sometimes it's about taking what's most important for you when you need it the most. They do not teach you to grab all your clothes during a fire because your life might be put in danger if you do so. That's why we can only provide what we have the most, talents. That, in my own opinion, is our greatest natural resource. CheersOriginally posted by j28w32:sorry mate.. nothing specific..
in my opinion, territority is quite unique issue. it is about the fortune and prosperity of the future generation of a country. because of the limitation of human being 's knowlege, a lot usage of a block of land is still being explored. in the past many years back,, it is unimaginable that people thought there are so many natural resources could be exploited in the sea. so not many countries even gave a damn about the sea territory. but now people suddenly realize there are some many good things down there.. so the competition for this began. with the increasing demand on natural resource, and advance of technology, such competition will be getting tougher and tougher. So in the case of christmas island, we can not say how much value it has got based on current technology.. but in the future a huge benefit might be obtained from having it.. similar situation about the space territory. so i would say territory is not the commodity for sale. never. -
just because it might be the only case you can know at your age.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:not related to topic
just wondering, why do the chinese like to talk about the falklands war so much?
my friends used to talked about that too -
you are a bit pragtism indeed. if you were the leader of sg gov.. you will use up all resource for your own good i suppose.Originally posted by DXuan:I understand your point of view. But if you want to base something on future technology, how long is that going to be? 10 years? 100years? 1000years? Sometimes it's about taking what's most important for you when you need it the most. They do not teach you to grab all your clothes during a fire because your life might be put in danger if you do so. That's why we can only provide what we have the most, talents. That, in my own opinion, is our greatest natural resource. Cheers -
Like I said before I'm using the Singapore government as an example. It's what has been drilled into me after these years of education in Sg. Imagine what you hear from taxi uncles and people who's been around. We're being leeched upon because they fail in their investments. And I don't understand why by quoting what the government did, it leads to me being one who uses up resources for my own good. Anyway let me know ok?Originally posted by j28w32:you are a bit pragtism indeed. if you were the leader of sg gov.. you will use up all resource for your own good i suppose. -
my chinese friends are in their late twenties to their late fortiesOriginally posted by j28w32:just because it might be the only case you can know at your age. -
Well, when I say about logic, I didn't say "the older, the better". I use sensible logic match the actual facts.Originally posted by j28w32:you are a quite considerate person indeed. "australia also need the island as military buffer from SEA too". You are just making me laugh.
give you an example; british started full scale war to take that little island back from Argentina. that island for now has little economical interests. British travelled half of the world to take it back. can you give me a reason? certainly it is not a profitable business in your opinion but why they still want to do it with the unanimous support of parliment, which has never happened in British parliment history for 200 years? why? you talk about "logic". but you are not logical.
Different times, diffrent people, different requirements. British was doing their colonial empire policy. We're not.
If you want to match that distance from Christmas Island to mainland Britain, I think you're wrong. You should be matching Christmas Island to Bencoolen, their British base. Which meant it was a very much shorter distance from Singapore.
If you true wanted Christmas Island to be your retirement home, go ahead and stay there. It doesn't really meant you have to give up Singapore citizen ship. Go there for a long-term tour lah.
Don't use the power of Singapore government to bring it to you. Its PAP in power, they'll laugh at you if you tell them that.
About buying back Christmas Island, I think stuck-up Aussie government may charge it at a very, very high price, even the island was for sale. -
Thank youOriginally posted by DXuan:Very nicely put across You probably will get categorised almost under the same category as me. Just you are a diplomat businessman I'm just a businessman
A diplomatic thinker not only have to think and understand of its diplomatic interests, but also other opposing sides' interests. That would be the first basic successful step to a successful diplomatic mission.