PROOF OF CHINA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLES & REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA by Dan Yong

Part 1: PROOF OF CHINA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLES & REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
==========================

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island

a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."

2. France

a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the Taiping Island.

b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.

3) Japan

a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of all the islands along its coast;

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

4. The United States

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

5. Viet Nam

a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d'affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that "according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory." Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that "judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty."

b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government's Declaration of September 4, 1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou Enlai that Viet Nam "recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's territorial sea."

c) It is stated in the lesson The People's Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the defense of the mainland of China.

B. The maps printed by other countries in the world that mark the islands on the South China Sea as part of Chinese territory include:

1. The Welt-Atlas published by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954, 1961 and 1970 respectively;

2. World Atlas published by the Soviet Union in 1954 and 1967 respectively;

3. World Atlas published by Romania in 1957;

4. Oxford Australian Atlas and Philips Record Atlas published by Britain in 1957 and Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas published by Britain in 1958;

5. World Atlas drawn and printed by the mapping unit of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the People's Army of Viet Nam in 1960;

6. Haack Welt Atlas published by German Democratic in 1968;

7. Daily Telegraph World Atlas published by Britain in 1968;

8. Atlas International Larousse published by France in 1968 and 1969 respectively;

9. World Map Ordinary published by the Institut Geographique National (IGN) of France in 1968;

10. World Atlas published by the Surveying and Mapping Bureau of the Prime Minister's Office of Viet Nam in 1972; and

11. China Atlas published by Neibonsya of Japan in 1973.

C. China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands is recognized in numerous international conferences.

1. The 1951 San Francisco Conference on Peace Treaty called on Japan to give up the Xisha and Nansha Islands. Andrei Gromyko, Head of the Delegation of the Soviet Union to the Conference, pointed out in his statement that the Xisha and Nansha Islands were an inalienable part of Chinese territory. It is true that the San Francisco Peace Treaty failed to unambiguously ask Japan to restore the Xisha and Nansha Islands to China. But the Xisha, Nansha, Dongsha and Zhongsha Islands that Japan was asked to abandun by the Peace Agreement of San Francisco Conference were all clearly marked as Chinese territory in the fifteenth map A Map of Southeast Asia of the Standard World Atlas published by Japan in 1952, the second year after the peace conference in San Francisco, which was recommended by the then Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuo Okazaki in his own handwriting.

2. The International Civil Aviation Organization held its first conference on Asia-Pacific regional aviation in Manila of the Philippines on 27 October 1955. Sixteen countries or regions were represented at the conference, including South Viet Nam and the Taiwan authorities, apart from Australia, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Japan, the Laos, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and France. The Chief Representative of the Philippines served as Chairman of the conference and the Chief Representative of France its first Vice Chairman. It was agreed at the conference that the Dongsha, Xisha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea were located at the communication hub of the Pacific and therefore the meteorological reports of these islands were vital to world civil aviation service. In this context, the conference adopted Resolution No. 24, asking China's Taiwan authorities to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, four times a day. When this resolution was put for voting, all the representatives, including those of the Philippines and the South Viet Nam, were for it. 

No representative at the conference made any objection to or reservation about it.

 

Research and posted by Dan Yong

 

What is important to the above factual articles is whether they are truths or fabrications. Can anyone prove that they are false by quoting factual evidence to back up his claims? Why are the Americans and the western media refusing to acknowledge these facts and events? Why are the Americans and the west lying and not wanting to tell these truths?

Parliamentarians - Sayang our poor children in a divorce

This issue was hot in Parliament. Every MP worth his salt, including ministers, joined in the chorus about the welfare of little children in broken up families. Poor kids. They are the ones that hurt the most when adults fought and break up. They care deeply about the hurt.  Children are innocent and need to be protected from the harm the adults can inflict on them, intentionally or unintentionally.

I am sure Parliament will debate non stop in the case of poor Benjamin Lim, the poor boy that only had a cold bun for his last meal. I am sure with such kind and caring people in Parliament, many would be in tears talking about Benjamin Lim.

Benjamin’s case came up yesterday and two ministers spoke and with MPs asking questions. Not sure if the question and answer session was as passionate as the case of poor kids in divorce cases. What came through is that the police and the teachers followed orders, worked according to their protocols and everything was normal. And the officers had been dealing with thousands of cases involving young people. Nothing like this happened before. Perhaps this is another 1 in 50 year incident.

Ng Chee Meng was quite happy with the 8 step protocol of MOE. He showed some goodness in him by suggesting that perhaps an adult should accompany a student in police interviews but stopped short of affirming that this would be the necessary change. And he commented that it is police protocol not to allow adult/parents to be present in their interviews.

Shanmugam was also quite happy that his officers did the right thing, followed the right procedures in handling young people. He also revealed the fact that this was not a serious case and Benjamin would likely to get a warning and would not have to go to court.  Did the case appear to be worst than what Shanmugam said when it was first reported? Was it rape, aggravated molestation, or a 14 year boy touching a girl in a lift? What did the 11 year old girl reported and what actually happened that needed 5 police officers to go to the school to bring the boy to the police station? Was there enough evidence from the start that this was not a serious case and need not have the presence of 5 police officers?

Did anyone suggest that 5 police officers interviewed Benjamin as the Shanmugam claimed or the social media was only saying 5 police officers went to school?  Shanmugam gave his side of the story.

Benjamin’s father gave his side of the story in an open letter in TOC. I quote a few paras here, ‘When Benjamin finally left the police station at 2.50pm, he told his mother and sister that he was not given anything to eat, nothing to drink throughout the 3 or more hours of engagement with police investigators in the police station. At his age, my son gets hungry very fast after one meal. Just a cold bun and a drink, and we cannot be sure if he did finish the bun because he was under pressure then. Benjamin must be feeling hungry, thirsty, throughout the few hours he was with the police investigator. I can imagine the anxiety felt by my son throughout the ordeal….

That said, as parents we cannot forget and we cannot forgive the way my son was treated, from the school to the time he was in police custody. I have this to say to the school authorities. We as parents we entrusted our children to you. You have a duty to ensure that our children are appropriately taken care of, reasonably protected and have their interest in your priority.

The fault is the TOC and the social media in general for posting misinformation. TOC is ‘heng’ not to indulge in speculative and spurious allegations that the 11 year old girl would be so traumatized and committed suicide and her parents went mad as a result or worst.

So nothing wrong except maybe some refinement is needed to change the protocol to allow an adult to be present. But must consult psychologists and psychiatrists and the police and teachers, and parents to see if this is necessary?

Is there a need to reinvent the wheel? Police interviewing children is nothing new. The civilized countries in the West have many protocols on this. Can send a study mission to USA, to UK or Europe to study their civilized system and see if they can be used here?

The incongruence of long term result versus short term tenure

‘SINGAPORE: With the global economic outlook uncertain, Singapore will have to ride the ups and downs in the short-term, but its focus must remain on the longer-term, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Monday (Feb 8).

This means focusing on skills upgrading, as well as giving productivity and training a bigger push.’ CNA

There is now an obsession about looking long term, look far ahead, the further the better, like looking forward towards SG100. This is the most comforting position for anyone in charge, in govt or in business, getting paid today and saying the results will be good in the long term. The pay is real, collected every month, the result is like fairy tales, long long time ago. Who knows what is in the long term, the person in charge would not even be around to see the result or the big flop.

Big corporations hired CEOs and paid them handsomely, in many millions to see results, immediate or in the short term, a couple of years. That is the duration in which a CEO is hired, to perform, to deliver the results. How nice if the CEO can collect his millions and tell the shareholders, look, I am planning for the long term, in 20 or 30 years to bear fruits. I am planting a durian tree. You will see the fruits in 15 years time. The fruits will be good. Trust me. Is there any guarantee that the fruits will be good?

This is the concept of instant gratification and delayed performance. In fact the CEO need not bother about the results in the long run. He would not be there but happily collecting his fortune in the present. There is a mismatch. A CEO is expected to perform immediately. He is hired to deliver now or be fired.

Our democratic system of govt is renewable every 5 years. An elected govt is elected for a 5 year mandate. They need to deliver in the 5 years in office. The system expects a govt to perform in the short term, 5 years. There is no grace or privilege to wait for the long term. This is one of the major flaws of a democratically elected govt. They can be changed after every election.  So, how does it appeal to the people that the govt is working only for the long term and not so much as for the present?

It is like the money in the CPF.  It is for the long term, not sure how long that is, perhaps up to 100 years. In the mean time, no money to pay for food and medical and can die tomorrow is not a concern. In the long term it is good. Now you die your business.

How to reconcile this long term and short term mismatch? Do the people elect a govt for a 5 year term to work for the long term good? Who is to know the consequences in the long term of a bloated population in a small piece of rock? Who is to know the adverse impact of so many foreigners who are given citizenship now? Who would know the impact of our education system in the long term with all the policy changes today? Who would know if Singapore is still an independent country like it is today or be taken over by foreigners in the long term? Who would know if the new citizens today would drive out the pioneering Singaporeans one day?

Long term got guarantee or not?

Japan in control of the biggest naval fleet in the Pacific Ocean

WW2, Japan commanded the biggest naval fleet in the Pacific Ocean and promptly sailed to Hawaii to knock out the American Pacific fleet with great honour and bravado.  The Japanese were so proud of that sneaky victory over the Americans. The Americans were no match when caught in their pyjamas and paid a very heavy price for it. But it was all water under the bridge.  The Americans respected the Japanese code of honour and the sneaked attacked in Hawaii was soon forgotten.

The Americans have embraced the Japanese as honourable warriors of the same kind, and kissing each other everyday. The internment of anything looking like a Japanese in the WW2 days too were forgotten. The bombing of Japanese cities, including Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki too were forgotten. The Americans and the Japanese have squared their positions and all is well.

Japan today is in command of the most powerful naval force in the Pacific Ocean. Admiral Harry Harris is the Commander of the US Pacific Command with authority over the 3rd and 7^th Fleet and all the American land and air forces in the Indian and the Pacific Ocean, with many nuclear bombs at his command and disposal and with fire and destructive power thousands of time that of the two bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Japanese are also in possession of a so called Self Defence Force that is the most powerful in East Asia after China. Combing the Self Defence Force and the US Pacific Command, the Japanese are now thousands of time more powerful than their heydays in WW2. And Harry Harris is adding the Indian Navy into his charge soon to control the Indian Ocean as well.

This combined force is formidable enough to attack any nation in Asia, including China and Russia and come up triumphant. It can overrun the whole of Asia and Southeast Asia more swiftly and effectively than the Japanese Imperial Army of WW2. And this naval force is for peace, really, no bluff.

While Japan failed in WW2 to be the Number One military power, it is now the de facto Number One military power with the appointment of Japanese Harry Harris as the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet. Japan is now in a position to do many Hawaiis at one go, including launching an all out war with China and Russia. The Japanese are now ruling all the countries in the Indo Pacific region.

Harry Harris is even more powerful than General MacCarthur or any American Commander ever lived.

Heng ah, I was not born in Singapore – FT

Ng Kok Lim wrote an article on this in TRE and I quote his first paragraph, ‘During the last election, Minister Lim Swee Say said heng ah, he was born in Singapore and many Singaporeans agreed with him. But the truth is that you don’t have to be born in Singapore to be heng in Singapore.’

 

I fully agree with what Kok Lim said. He went on to quote those who were not born in Singapore and very heng here, like Boon Wan, Amy Khor, Piyush Gupta, Olivia Lum and many others including table tennis players, swimmers and half past six footballers. And there are more than 2m heng foreigners here helping to grow our economy by 2%, if not our economy will go into recession.

 

And all the foreign born Singaporeans and FTs must be singing in chorus, heng ah, we were not born in Singapore, no need to pay for the expensive and damn stressful education system only to end up with no marketable skills and good enough to be security guards, taxi drivers and crane drivers. And if still cannot get such jobs, to go for further training at public expenses of course. This one really heng, the govt is using public money to subsidise their trainings so that they can be useful in 3^rd world countries, to take the place of the 3^rd world FTs who are here, in their 3^rd world countries getting paid 3rd world salaries with 3^rd world currencies. See how heng are Singaporeans born here. And their 3^rd world counter parts are here to replace them, get their jobs, their women, and get paid high salaries in Singapore dollars.

 

And the FTs are also saying heng ah, no need to waste 2 and a half year charging up Pengkang Hill, not sure if the hill is heng enough to remain there or mowed down to build HDB flats, no need to serve NS, no reservist training, just doing anything and tell the daft Sinkies, I also do NS and join the elite of this daft city.

 

Now, who is more heng, the Singaporeans born here or the foreigners who are going home after their stint in paradise to be rich land owners and living in big landed properties? And they need not worry about Benjamin or their sons doing NS to defend and protect the million dollar properties here that they cannot afford to smell.

 

Are Singaporeans heng or sway? You tell me lah. Sure some of you will be very heng but many would be very sway, like Benjamin and his family and those ended up as punching bags for the very heng foreigners here or losing their well paying jobs to the very heng foreigners.

 

Parrots, please, I am not asking you. Stop parroting. Just repeat after me, ‘Heng ah’.