Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
 Forum IndexHome
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]

Google Search
The truth about the South China Sea issue

Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 1189

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:03 am    Post subject: The truth about the South China Sea issue Reply with quote

The truth about the South China Sea Issue

First let those politicians, strategic studies research personals , the mass medias, the TVs and Radio talks in some ASEAN countries and those who are beholden to USA somehow or other beware of what they are talking

when they keep on parroting USA version and stunts on the South China Sea issue less they be accused of complicity with USA in deceiving the world that the PCA is part of the United Nation which it is not and the

United Nation official spokesman had already reiterated publicly that the PCA tribunal is a private organisation and United Nation has nothing to do with it. UN spokesman, Stephane Dujarric spokesman for United

Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said, "The UN doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the South China Sea arbitration case."

Professional maritime experts worldwide pointed out that the use of terms such as "United Nation Tribunal" or "United Nation backed Tribunal is incorrect as they confuse 'PCA' with the "United Nations "ICJ" (

International Court of Justice ) This private tribunal acts as an agent of external powers The arbitration case is a political farce enshrouded in a legal cloak. It is important that people in ASEAN countries especially the mass

media and TV take note of this.

The case was contrived with evil intent and initiated at the behest of USA to suit its agenda. Acquino, being beholden to USA acted for his own personal interest and USA is not acting for the interest of the Philippines either

but to suit its agenda of seizing it as an excuse to meddle in the region's affairs. While the absurb proceedings were going on USA accompanied it with military threats of destroyers, aircraft carriers, strategic bombers,

reconnaisance planes and many other vile tricks to show an outright demonstration and manifestation of "might is right". This outward show of modern gun boat policy of the Opium Wars of the 1830s to 1860s no longer

frightens China for China will make sure all the American ships will be welcomed to the deep ocean floor.

The Philippines was ill advised by a powerhouse of Anglo American legal team
appointed by Abe's appointed Japanese judge . The fake private tribunal manipulated the ruling and tries to deny China's historic claims in the South China Sea and wipe out its rights to resources there. The lawyers in the

sham tribunal redefined the standard meaning of arbitration which for centuries had been defined as a procedure in which two parties agree to a third party to settle their disputes. Now it seems to Philippine lawyers

arbitration can be a unilateral arbitration. The bogus tribunal issued the final award on 12th July,2016 amid a global chorus that the panel has no jurisdiction and its decision is naturally null and void . The award sweepingly

sided with the claims unilaterally filed by Aquino 111, which in the eyes of observers , is a mockery of justice.

China from the outset ruled that the private arbitration set up is illicit and illegal and has no jurisdiction. The bogus tribunal failure to recognise that is a matter of professional incompetence and deliberate disregard is a matter

of questional integrity.China attribute territorial sovereignty over maritime feature in the South China Sea is beyond the 1982 United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ). In fact China abide Article 298

of UNCLOS which excludes compulsory arbitration on maritime boundaries. The international law of 1982 cannot redraw the border or reinvent new right.

Further since decades ago and after the Second World War Japan had through various treaties like the Cairo Conference, Potsdam Treaty and San Francisco Treaty officially returned the Paracel and the Spratly island

archipelagos to China. In 1958, Vietnam under the then Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong officially acknowledged and confirmed China's sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands with Chinese Premier

Zhou En Lai.

In fact in 1947 the KMT Republic of China had 291 islands , reefs and banks mapped and qualified as part of the "Nine Dash Line" . In1949 The Peoples Republic of China inherited the claim made by KMT . In 1958

China declared its territorial waters within the "Nine Dash Line encompassing the Paracels and the Spratly islands and it was officially acknowledged and endorsed by Vietnam as already aforementioned. It is a historical

fact that China has continuous sovereignty over the South China Sea islands , the Paracels and Spratlys since the 4th Century BC to the Tang, Ming and Ching dynasties and right up to the present time.
Trouble surface when in the mid 1970s Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia stealthily and illegally grab many of the Chinese islands. Vietnam stole 21 islands, Philippines 7 and Malaysia 5. This was followed by recent silly

accusations on China's land reclamation. China was the last country to do so as Vietnam and Philippines had carried out reclamation earlier, and China does so only on the islands and reefs under China's control rather than

trying to take back the islands and reefs illegally occupied by others.

Tensions began to rise in the South China Sea when USA pivot to Asia in 2010. America then deliberately instigate and provoke trouble and intensify disputes strained relations and weakened confidence. However, China

believe that negotiation and consultation among parties concerned is the most feasible and effective way to solve the issue. China's ambassador to USA, Mr Cui Tiankai reiterated that "diplomatic efforts should not and will

not be blocked by a 'scrap of paper or by a fleet of aircraft carriers."

The American hyping on Freedom of passage and Navigation is hogwash. Freedom of passage and navigation was not an issue in the past, is not an issue now and will never be an issue in the future. But America is twisting

and abusing freedom of passage and navigation by constantly sending warships close to Chinese coastline to threaten and intimidate China. This hostile American behaviour must stop. How will America feel and react if

Russia and China constantly sail warships close to America's coastline?

Wednesday,20th July, 2016
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14458
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

British experts urge arbitral tribunal to review position to avoid being joke in legal history

LONDON - Two British experts said lately that the arbitral tribunal in The Hague should not have agreed to hear the South China Sea case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China.

The government of former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III filed the arbitration against China in 2013, ignoring the agreement his country had reached with China on resolving their South China Sea disputes through bilateral negotiations. The tribunal issued its final award on Tuesday, sweepingly siding with Manila's cunningly packaged claims.

"There is a current anticipated crisis in the South China Sea prompted by a Court of Arbitration decision to hear a one-party claim to a part of the South China Sea," said Stephen Perry, chairman of the 48 Group Club, in a recent interview with Xinhua. "Arbitration is defined in the dictionary as a dispute where the parties have agreed to settle it by arbitration. Clearly China does not accept arbitration to settle the dispute, so the Court should not have agreed to hear this dispute presented by only one party," he said. Noting that the two nations should pursue other means they agreed to settle their dispute, Perry explained that "the dispute cannot be settled ... by a process which only includes one party. It is not an arbitration." "I have been involved in many hundreds of arbitration and always both parties agree on arbitration, or there is no arbitration," added the businessman.

Shahid Qureshi, London Post's editor and political analyst, said the fact that "the tribunal has allowed the case to go ahead in spite of its lack of justifiable jurisdiction" poses a big question mark to the tribunal's "intention" and "interest." "I am of the view that the tribunal must review its position and jurisdiction for the sake of institution it stands for; otherwise it will become a joke in the legal history as they did not follow the due process of law," Qureshi noted. He pointed out that the Philippines, filing the case without consulting with China, failed to fulfill its obligation stipulated in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), a document signed by China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations including the Philippines in 2002."I think under the terms and conditions stipulated in DOC, the Philippines seems to have jumped higher than necessary and must review its position," he said. Stressing that "local solutions" are always the best, Qureshi argued that "the Philippines could talk with China about the matters arising about the situation in the South China Sea."

The analyst also said the real reason behind the so-called "militarization" in the South China Sea is the military involvement and "war profiteering" of the United States, which in recent years has sent military jets and warships on close-in reconnaissance in the nearby waters and air space of China's islands and reefs. "The US has a policy of creating wars or disputes within the countries and also in the neighboring countries of the targets (based on its long term objectives), starting from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq," he explained. "One can ask a simple question to US officials: 'What are you doing in my neighborhood in the first place'?" Qureshi said.
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14458
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The kampong boy grew up
The kampong boy grew up, worked very hard and was successful in building a small fortune for himself. He is now big and financially able to further develop his business empire. He looked around his backyard and saw a large tract of waste land, neglected, undeveloped and overgrown with secondary forest. Then he remembered what his father told him. The land belonged to the family for several generations, dating back to his great, great, great grandfather. But their family fortune had waned and they were unable to do anything to that piece of land.
The boy, now an entrepreneur, started to redevelop the piece of land handed down by his forefathers. The secondary forest was leveled and several new estates rose from the piece of land. It was a big piece of land and still have potential for many developments.
In the neighbourhood, several young punks also grew up and formed gangs among themselves. Seeing the young man developing the land, these gangsters began to have ideas to have a piece of action, a piece of the land. They too started to build houses on the land nearest to their respective houses. They simply claimed the land belonged to them in view of proximity. The land next to their houses must be theirs since no one has claimed ownership of the land, ignoring whoever was the original owner.
Disputes soon broke up when the young man went on to claim rights to the land but was rebuffed. The gangsters simply asked for proof of ownership. But the young man had difficulties as during the time of his forefathers, it was a time when documentations were not the norm and also many evidence of ownership were lost over time. The only evidence could be the markers left on the land, like tombstones of family members and some rundown huts.
The gangsters set up a kangaroo court with the help of bigger gangsters, hired their own middle men as mediators to decide who have the rights to the land. The young man refused to participate in the kangaroo court. The gangsters were cunning enough not to take the case to the official courts of the land.
After paying the middle men/mediators, the latter ruled in favour of the gangsters, that since the young man could not produce any documents, the whole piece of land is now no longer his and all the gangsters have the right to claim the whole piece of land. The gangsters even accused the young man of encroaching into their land illegally. The gangsters bought advertising space in the local newspapers to claim that their kangaroo court’s ruling is legal and binding and arrogantly sat on the lands they took from the young man’s estate and now are claiming for the whole piece of land as theirs.
The young man would now have to stand up to the gangsters. But the local media kept reporting that the kangaroo court is legitimate and the young man is a bully, has no right to claim his inheritance from his forefathers. The gangsters are very successful in buying the local newspapers to play up on the issue and keep repeating that the kangaroo court is a legitimate court and not one is willing to talk about the official courts of the land that could rule otherwise.
The issue of ownership as far as the gangsters are concerned is settled by the kangaroo court. Now the young man would have to take matters into this own hand, to reclaim the land he lost to the gangsters and more to lose with the ruling of the kangaroo court. The gangsters won the first round with the local newspapers on their side, making farcical news and comments against the young man.
The ball is now in the court of the young man, to use his financial muscles and whatever to chase out the usurpers of his grandfathers’ land.
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14458
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

9 dash lines versus many straight lines
One of the major objections to the Chinese 9 dash lines in the South China Sea is that national territories cannot be written like that on a map. National boundaries must be drawn as extension from the coast of a country out to the sea, 12 nm and the EEZ should be a further extension to 200nm. The 9 dash lines must be a joke. Where got borders drawn like that one?
Or can national boundaries be drawn in straight vertical lines or straight horizontal lines? Would straight lines drawn on a map, a flat piece of paper using rulers more legitimate? Where got such things, national boundaries cannot be straight lines lah. Straight lines are like the 9 dash lines, simplistic geometrical lines, not natural, cannot be like that one.
Has any of the boys and girls seen the maps of African or Middle Eastern states that were drawn up by the colonialists? Anyone bother to look at the borders of Libya and Egypt and many other African states, yes, they are straight lines, drawn conveniently by the colonial masters, with rulers on a map on the table. That was the reality of the time.
Times changed, the development of pens and papers did not happen over night, did not exist in the beginning of civilizations. The ancient people cut marks on pieces of woods, on stones, on tortoise shells as official documents then. Many ‘books, maps and documents’ were done in those primitive forms.
Not counted? Cannot be like that, must be in thick voluminous books, like what we have in the libraries, or the law journals in the courts of law then got count? You think the bible was written on paper like what you have now, that you can buy them from the bookshops? No, they were written on plant fibres, leaves etc.
Now, what is so different between China drawing 9 dash lines on the map and the straight lines drawn by the colonial masters as national boundaries in Africa? Do you know how the British and the Dutch divided the region up as their colonies? They drew lines on the maps then, like the 9 dash lines.
The European colonialists cheated the natives of the land they conquered by asking for documentary proof of ownership of their land. The colonialists demanded signed legal documents. What do you think the natives showed the British the Europeans? Signed documents like those printed in London, or pieces of barks or wood or stones?
The world yesterday was not like the world today.
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions