Malaysia Tilts Towards China

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

You both have your side of the story as China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei have their side of the story and if you guys want war so be it. I just hope it won't spread to my country of which we can illy afforded. Good luck y'all trying to intimidate a giant.

I said that China should work together others bring their evidences to an international court [example the International Court of Justice] to solve. Why did you say that we "want war"?

It's like saying "If you dont give your islands and EEZs for us, so you want war!" ??

If Malaysia did not agree to the court, Is the dispute Malaysia v Singapore get resolved peacefully?

Refer to the dispute settlement case between Malaysia v Singapore:

The Pedra Branca dispute was a territorial dispute between Singapore and Malaysia over several islets at the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait, namely Pedra Branca (previously called Pulau Batu Puteh and now Batu Puteh by Malaysia), Middle Rocks and South Ledge. The dispute began in 1979 and was largely resolved by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2008, which opined that Pedra Branca belonged to Singapore and Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia.
In early 1980, Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia in response to a map published by Malaysia in 1979 claiming Pedra Branca. In 1989 Singapore proposed submitting the dispute to the ICJ. Malaysia agreed to this in 1994. In 1993, Singapore also claimed the nearby islets Middle Rocks and South Ledge. In 1998 the two countries agreed on the text of a Special Agreement that was needed to submit the dispute to the ICJ. The Special Agreement was signed in February 2003, and the ICJ formally notified of the Agreement in July that year. The hearing before the ICJ was held over three weeks in November 2007 under the name Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore).
Singapore argued that Pedra Branca was terra nullius, and that there was no evidence the island had ever been under the sovereignty of the Johor Sultanate. In the event the Court did not accept this argument, Singapore contended that sovereignty over the island had passed to Singapore due to the consistent exercise of authority over the island by Singapore and its predecessor, the United Kingdom. The actions taken included selecting Pedra Branca as the site for Horsburgh Lighthouse and constructing the lighthouse, requiring Malaysian officials wishing to visit the island to obtain permits, installing a military rebroadcast station on the island, and studying the feasibility of reclaiming land around the island. Malaysia had remained silent in the face of these activities. In addition, it had confirmed in a 1953 letter that Johor did not claim ownership of the island, and had published official reports and maps indicating that it regarded Pedra Branca as Singapore territory. Middle Rocks and South Ledge should be regarded as dependencies of Pedra Branca.
Malaysia's case was that Johor had original title to Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Johor had not ceded Pedra Branca to the United Kingdom, but had merely granted permission for the lighthouse to be built and maintained on it. The actions of the United Kingdom and Singapore in respect of the Horsburgh Lighthouse and the waters surrounding the island were not actions of the island's sovereign. Further, the 1953 letter had been unauthorized and the official reports and maps it had issued were either irrelevant or inconclusive.
On 23 May 2008, the Court ruled that Pedra Branca is under Singapore's sovereignty, while Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia. As regards South Ledge, the Court noted that it falls within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated by mainland Malaysia, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. As it is a maritime feature visible only at low tide, it belongs to the state in the territorial waters of which it is located. Malaysia and Singapore have established what they have named the Joint Technical Committee to delimit the maritime boundary in the area around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks, and to determine the ownership of South Ledge.

Pedra Branca dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nan Yang]

yup...a peaceful war...

and after Dalai Lama signed the agreement,he fled from his "Peaceful" country...

all the peace lovers should see this...









where are those Tibetan Elites now???Even Dalai Lama fled his own country years ago,just like thousands of his own man..so much for "Peaceful annexation"...


Battle of Chamdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Tibet (1950


distorting history is in your nature..

Good source. Thank you. Proof clearly Dalai Lama was an opportunist.

Here is more info also from Wikipedia.
Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet
Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, according to international law, this does not invalidate an agreement. So long as there is no physical violence against the signatories, an agreement is valid.

And, as a Tibetan negotiator recalled, instances indeed exist when the Tibetan delegates, with Dalai Lama's authorization,[11] were free to suggest alteration.

Dalai Lama signed the aggreement because it preserve his God King status and his Golden Throne and his rule over Tibet. However CCP did advise Dalai Lama to initiate political and land reform to free the serfs. HE DID NONE. He had 7 years.

 

[ahfatzia]

I said that China should work together others bring their evidences to an international court [example the International Court of Justice] to solve. Why did you say that we "want war"?
:

OK You are telling China to go International Court, but for what? 1) For the 40 islands Vietnam occupies? Is your country taking China to court for those islands? or 2) for Paracel Island and Johnson South Reef? Why should China go to any court for what's in her possession.

Let's say your neighbor comes to your house and tell you: " Let go to court, your house is mine". What would you do?

Or you want the best of two worlds: Keep your 40 islands and no one should dare to say anything and at the same time crying out loud trying to take China's possessions in court.

LOL Do you realize how stupid you sound? Or do you think other people are stupid?

 

[Nan Yang]

I said that China should work together others bring their evidences to an international court [example the International Court of Justice] to solve. Why did you say that we "want war"?

It's like saying "If you dont give your islands and EEZs for us, so you want war!" ??

If Malaysia did not agree to the court, Is the dispute Malaysia v Singapore get resolved peacefully?

Refer to the dispute settlement case between Malaysia v Singapore:

Three reasons why island went to Singapore

PETALING JAYA: Failure to show ownership over Pulau Batu Puteh, maps that indicated Singapore's sovereignty over the island, and a reply from a Johor state official saying that the state did not have sovereignty over the island were some of the reasons why Malaysia lost its case.
International Court of Justice case acting president Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, when delivering the court's decision in The Hague yesterday, said Johor initially had sovereignty over the island.
However, Johor and subsequently Malaysia lost its ownership to Singapore because of those reasons.

“The Court recalls their (United Kingdom and Singapore) investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore’s installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which include acts à titre de souverain (acts consistent with sovereignty), the bulk of them after 1953,” said Awn Shawkat.
He said Malaysia did not respond to Singapore’s conduct on the island, including the flying of its ensign, except for the republic’s installation of naval communication equipment.
“Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more,” he said.
He also pointed out that Malaysia needed Singapore’s permission before any official visits to the island especially in the 1970s could be made.
As for the Malaysian maps between 1962 and 1975 – which depicted that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore, Awn Shawkat said Malaysia's assertion that the map had a disclaimer and did not create ownership of territory could not be accepted.
“The map still stands as a statement of geographical fact, especially when the State adversely affected has itself produced and disseminated it, even against its own interest,” he said.
He said the maps' assertions were consistent to the position of the acting state secretary of Johor in 1953 who said Johor did not claim ownership of Pulau Batu Puteh.
“That statement has major significance. The Court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors as à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore,” he said.


Bottom line : Control is the key to ownership

 

[Rechoice]

Three reasons why island went to Singapore

PETALING JAYA: Failure to show ownership over Pulau Batu Puteh, maps that indicated Singapore's sovereignty over the island, and a reply from a Johor state official saying that the state did not have sovereignty over the island were some of the reasons why Malaysia lost its case.
International Court of Justice case acting president Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, when delivering the court's decision in The Hague yesterday, said Johor initially had sovereignty over the island.
However, Johor and subsequently Malaysia lost its ownership to Singapore because of those reasons.

“The Court recalls their (United Kingdom and Singapore) investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore’s installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which include acts à titre de souverain (acts consistent with sovereignty), the bulk of them after 1953,” said Awn Shawkat.
He said Malaysia did not respond to Singapore’s conduct on the island, including the flying of its ensign, except for the republic’s installation of naval communication equipment.
“Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more,” he said.
He also pointed out that Malaysia needed Singapore’s permission before any official visits to the island especially in the 1970s could be made.
As for the Malaysian maps between 1962 and 1975 – which depicted that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore, Awn Shawkat said Malaysia's assertion that the map had a disclaimer and did not create ownership of territory could not be accepted.
“The map still stands as a statement of geographical fact, especially when the State adversely affected has itself produced and disseminated it, even against its own interest,” he said.
He said the maps' assertions were consistent to the position of the acting state secretary of Johor in 1953 who said Johor did not claim ownership of Pulau Batu Puteh.
“That statement has major significance. The Court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors as à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore,” he said.


Bottom line : Control is the key to ownership

Apply to Islands of Vietnam, we controlled officially, continuously. Occupations with force is illegal actions.

 

[buddyboyyash]

Most of Malaysia's rich people are ethnic Chinese. They have a racial bondage with China. They have invested a lot in China too. I am not surprised that the Malaysian government is tilted towards China having such an immense and growing trade relationship with us. The bilateral trade between us is the 3rd largest in Asia after Japan and S Korea.

dont be a racist...most of northeast india too have a lot in common with china...but they are as INDIANS as any1 elsse

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

OK You are telling China to go International Court, but for what? 1) For the 40 islands Vietnam occupies? Is your country taking China to court for those islands? or 2) for Paracel Island and Johnson South Reef? Why should China go to any court for what's in her possession.

Let's say your neighbor comes to your house and tell you: " Let go to court, your house is mine". What would you do?

Or you want the best of two worlds: Keep your 40 islands and no one should dare to say anything and at the same time crying out loud trying to take China's possessions in court.

LOL Do you realize how stupid you sound? Or do you think other people are stupid?

The East Se (South China Sea) disputes, including disputes some of the following:

- Disputes over the Spratly Islands between Vietnam v Malaysia v the Philippines v China v Taiwan.
- Disputes over Paracel Islands between Vietnam v China v Taiwan.
- Disputes over Scarborough Shoal between the Philippines v China.
- Disputes of the EEZs of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines vs "U-dotted line" of China.

The countries may agree jointly to the court to address each section above, or all.

When together go to the court, the countries will have to present their claims and evidences to prove their claims.

If Vietnam cannot prove ownership of 40 islands in the Spratlys, we would be willing to pay them for any country which can prove that the island is their with the court's recognition and rulings.



BTW: If a thug goes to our gardens and claims loudly this area is garden of it, if we cannot spank it because it is big, we will invite it to the court to resolve disputes.

If you dont understand about the disputes, it is best to learn more or keep silent, rather you are always babbling unreasonably here. Can you?

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Three reasons why island went to Singapore

PETALING JAYA: Failure to show ownership over Pulau Batu Puteh, maps that indicated Singapore's sovereignty over the island, and a reply from a Johor state official saying that the state did not have sovereignty over the island were some of the reasons why Malaysia lost its case.
International Court of Justice case acting president Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, when delivering the court's decision in The Hague yesterday, said Johor initially had sovereignty over the island.
However, Johor and subsequently Malaysia lost its ownership to Singapore because of those reasons.

“The Court recalls their (United Kingdom and Singapore) investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore’s installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which include acts à titre de souverain (acts consistent with sovereignty), the bulk of them after 1953,” said Awn Shawkat.
He said Malaysia did not respond to Singapore’s conduct on the island, including the flying of its ensign, except for the republic’s installation of naval communication equipment.
“Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more,” he said.
He also pointed out that Malaysia needed Singapore’s permission before any official visits to the island especially in the 1970s could be made.
As for the Malaysian maps between 1962 and 1975 – which depicted that Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore, Awn Shawkat said Malaysia's assertion that the map had a disclaimer and did not create ownership of territory could not be accepted.
“The map still stands as a statement of geographical fact, especially when the State adversely affected has itself produced and disseminated it, even against its own interest,” he said.
He said the maps' assertions were consistent to the position of the acting state secretary of Johor in 1953 who said Johor did not claim ownership of Pulau Batu Puteh.
“That statement has major significance. The Court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors as à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore,” he said.


Bottom line : Control is the key to ownership

Thanks for the informations. I really dont care about the results of each case by the International Court of Justice has adjudged. What I care more that they have agreed to jointly go to courts, and they were happy to accept the results. This is called settling disputes peacefully.